This book made available by the Internet Archive.

The Preface.

T—

"

' » ' F

Cbriftian Readers,

to prevent your trouble andmifunder-1 flandwg in tfae perufal of thefe Dif-futations: J have two things here at the entrance to acquaint you with. Fir ft. The occafton of all thefe Vt ratings : Secondly 5 The true (late of the Controverfies here managed* "The fir ft Difpytation is.upon a Que ft ton of conftder able wttght, whether Chrifi as Chrifl \ 'and fo as Pro-: fbtt ; ^Prieft and King , be the objecl of that Faith by which me are juftiped t Three points efpecially my Reiktend Brother Mr. Blake was pleafed to publijlhis Reafons againft^ which in my Aphorifms 1 bid -tffjtrtcd. -Thefe being vindicated by mem An- Apologie^htrenewed the conflictin his Treatife of the Sacraments. The fir ft ■,

The Prefaced

abont the Sacramenti I have defended**tin in a VoUnot by it (elf. The fecond is this in band, which I bid fi rifh-ed about fifteen or fixteen months a%e. The third is about the Inftrumental efficiency of Faith to our }>uh ; ficat ton, of which I had alfo begun above a twelve mo ub fince. But it bath lately pleafed our wife atdgraciou Lord to call this Reverend Brother to bimfdf :whereupmjbough this fir ft Difputation was gone fo far,that 1 could not well recall it jet the others.which was not ow of my power, I re-folved to condemn toperpetu d filence.lfyou ask me a rea-fon of this refoluttonj m%ft defire that my difpofttion and pafsion may go for part of i Reafon thj once. The grief of my heart for the lop of this precious fervant ofchrift would not permit me to appear any further in away that feemtdto militate with the dead, and with one whofc death, we havt all fo much caufe to lament, x^dlas, ihat our fin fhouli provoke our dear Father , to put out the precious Lights of his Sanffuary, and to call in Juch experienced faithful Labourers, while ignorance, and error, and propbanefs, and all Vice doth fo plenteoufly furvive. When thefe plants of Hell do thrive upon us, under all our cdre to weed them up : what will they do when the Vineyard is left defolate ? Though God in mercy is raifwg up a [upply of young ones , that may come to be rillars in their dayes: yet alas, what difference will the Church find between thefe, and their grave experienced Guides: and how many years ftudy, and experience, and patience, is neceffary to ripen thefe tender plants, to bring them te the ftature, and fiabtlity, andfirength of fucb as this Bleffed fervant of cbrift, that is now taken from m. The fenfe of our lofs doth make it doubly bitter to my thoughts, thai ever I was unhappily engaged In my way of ferving the lord of Truth, which mufi contain

The Preface,

teinfomuch contradiction of fuch a friend of Truth. As it is for Cod 7 or for Truth , or for the ufe of the Church, 1 dare not dijown it 5 hut as it favour eth of dijagreement (though necefsiuted to it) it is very ungrateful to me to think of,or review. But our difeafes will have their pains. We muft hear the fmites of our own and our Brethrens wcakncffes, rather then neglect tbefer-vice of Chrtft, his Church and Truth. We quickly pardon one another , and at the furthefl Heaven agree:h us all: But the benefit of our fearch , though mixed with our infirmities, may be fomewbat ferviceable when we are gone.

The fecond Difputation is yet more ungrateful to me, then the firfl: the Reverend Brother whom I contradict being as high and dear in my efteem as me ft men alivi ; indeed being an Honour and Blefiing to the Church in this unworthy Generation. The Lord preferve him long for his Jervice. But my Defence here alfo is nccefsitated. \. I dtdmy be ft to have prevented the Necefsity , and could not: 1 mean, not by dtfwading him from oppofing me in Print, for that might have hindered the Church of the Benefit of his Opposition ( for ought I knew, till I had feen it: ) But by trying firft, whether I could receive or give fatisfatfion. 2. J had publickly obliged my fel(, if this Reverend Brother did Dijjent , to fearch again : and by an Epifile, became more accountable to the world for Dtffenting from him then other men. 3. His Name defervedlj precious in the Church, bath the greater advantage to over-lay the Truth, where humane imperfection engageth him again fl it. let do I not blame htm for beginning this Conteft with me ; but take the blame to my [elf that might occafion it , bj dt(honouring his Name by 4 temcracious prefixing it to my undigefted rapcrs ,

(though

The Preface.

(though nothing but High eflimatton y and Affe&ion was my Motive.)

The'Letters that paft between us were never intended for the view of the world : And therefore I mufide fere the Reader toremember it, if fometime I be more prefsing and vehement ^then manners and reverence require 5 be-caufe we uft to [peak freelier in private among friends^ then in the hearing of the world. K^And jet I thought it my duty now to joyn them with tie reflfor thefe Reafons. i. Be caufe fome pafjages in the Writings of this Reverend Brother, do. in a manner invite me to it. 2. Becaufe the matter requireth me to (peak the fame things •, and therefore it is as good affix the old , as be at the fame labour needle fey again, 3. And it can be no wrong to him^ becaufe it is my own Papers that are the main bulk of what I publifh : His Letters being brief , and annexed but as the occafwns&f mine. 4. But e/pecia/ly, 1 was brought to think it meet) by, the open blame that 1 have received from fome very dear and Reverend Brethren^ for not prt-ventingthis publike Contefl. And therefore 1 thought good to let tbemfee* that 1 was not wholly wanting to prevent it.

if there be any pafjages in thefe Writings toe tager or provoking {which 1 mufl needs fufpeci even where I have not obferved them^ as being confciom pf too keen a flile^ forgetting the pe)fons while 1 (peak meetly to the words and matter^) 1 do intreat my Brethren to pardon H y as being not dtfignedto their provocation or di/honour^anda/1 heartily do the like by theirs , and as 1 hope God will do. both theirs and mine. And J do adjure the Reader to be lieve that this C ont rover fee 1 for all our infirmities ss managed with a very high cfleem and honour of thoft Reverend Br whom I am necefiitated to gain/ay. Nor

would

The Preface.

would 1 have it he any difaonour to them ( though an ex~ cufe to me,) that they have been the Affailants ^and begun the confiicl ; for the Truths ofGodmufl be precious to us all, and I doubt not but they tvere confident that it was ''fome dangerous errour, which they fet upon, and I have here proved to be the Truth\ Nor is it any fuch wrong to either fide, to be openly contradict ed,t hat Reafons may be openly produced, and men may have [ome further help, to fee into thefe Points. Let the ptoud (well or [mart, be-caufethey are thus proclaimed fallible , and mijlaken 5 but the Humble that are devoted fcrvants to the Truth, are of another fpirit, and have learnt another leffon.

And if any Papifl or enemy to our unity and Peacefhall fr-om thefe Writings predicate our diffentions or divifi* ens, let them know to their faces \ that even thefe differences as momentous as they feem,are not neer fo great as are commonly publifhed among themfelves : nor are they for Number one to twenty,perhaps to a hundred Jhat are agitated in their Schooles 3 andthe writings of their Doctors : Had we fuch differences as thofe of the Jefuit Cafuifts opened by Montaltas tin Janfenian in his M fleric ef]z-luitifm, out of their own writings, fome thing they might then fayagainfl us. Tea I doubt not byt we differ with mon hearty Chriflian Love, then they agree y ^nd have more real union in our controverfiej , then they have in their Articles of Faith, and are merer one anotherin our fmaller differences , thenthe French and kalians are ifi their very Fundamentals.

7he third Deputation was called forth by Mr. Warner' j Tnattft of the Object and Office of Faith, and takes up the fubjecJ of the firfl Difputation, with (ome ethers.

When that was in the Prefi, Mr. Tombes'i Bookagainft Infant H*ipti(m came forth, in which 1 found the Paid) prs

The Preface-

pets that I fentto him ( upon his importunity) printed 1 without my confent, (which if God will, I (halljet vindicate.) And therefore feeing that it is his way ', / thought he might do the like by other Papers , which formerly / had wrote to him on this fubjcti of purification. K^And therefore thinking it fitter that I fh'ould publifh them( of the two) then he,{ I havefaved him the charge of printing them, and annexed them to thefe.

The fourth Difput at ion was added\becaufe it is the very heart of our Controverfie, which mo ft of our Difputes ■* about the infirumentall Caufality of Faith as to $ufttfi± cation, and the other Concomitant,are refolved into.

That the Reader may under ft and thefe Difputations the better; / fhallhere at the entrance fherv him the face. of the way that 1 maintain, and alfo of the way that I op* pffe.

The way that 1 plead for is contained in thefe Propofi* tions. i. Man having broken the Law of Nature or works , is loft 5 and difabled to his own Recovery,or to do any works . by which that Law will ever juftifie him.

2 . tfefus Chrifthath Redeemed him from this loft ton* dition,byhis Incarnation, Life^Death,Refurreffion,8cc; fulfilling the Law by his obedience, and fuffering for our not fulfilling it, and thereby fatUfying the Lawgiver ± and attaining the ends of the Law,and more: making him" felf an example to us ofholinefs, and becoming our Tea^ cfyr, High Priefland King, to fave us from all fin and enemies, and recover as to God, for our Salvation,andhis CJory and Pleafure.

3. The Offices and Works ofchrift, are for other ends > as well as for our ju/lift cat ion $ even for our San&iftca-i tion, Glorification, &c.

4, The Believer ought not to confound the offices porks, ,

The Preface.

or ends and effefts , but to apprehend them as difiinftly as he can. **m-r

5. The fame Offices ofchrifl are exercifed in the effecting fever al works: He doth juftifie us both as rrieft, Prophet and King : and he fan fit fie th us as Prieft, Prophet and King, His Death pur chafing both our jujtifi cation and fan ft tfi cation $ and his Teaching (hewing us the way to both, and, his Kingly Office conferring both y though mo ft notably ourjufttfi 1 cation -> and the Prophetical effecting more of our fanftification, then of our jufttfication.

6 9 We muft have part in Cbrifl him felf as our Headjn order of Nature before we can partake of jufiijication, Sanfttfication, ( as following our fir ft faith ) or Glorify cation from him.

7. Though our Phyfical Communion withebrift is effected by a Phyfical change on the foul •, yet our Right to him and to ^ufiification, and other following benefits is the effeft of a free Gift, or Tefiament , or Promife, and that Promife or free Gift is our Titlejvhich is Fundamen-tum juris, or the efficient Infirumentalcaufe.

8. cbrifl and pardon, or juflification y and Right to Heaven,8cc. are given us by one and the fame Deed of Gift: fo that he that hath Right to Chrilt , hath by the fame Title & on the fame terms Right to the[e his benefits.

9. This rromife or Gift is conditional y though it be but the Condition of a free Gift thai is required.

10. No mans works, Repentance or Fa'th U his proper Title to pardon or life , nor any proper meritorious caufe of it ^ nor any efficient, Principal or Infirumental caufes of his Right $ No aft of ours can be more then a meer condition of that Right • and a Caufa fine qua non {which, as it is an aft that'spleajing toGod y andhath the Promife of a Reward^ the Fathers called improperly by the Name

The Preface.

of CMerit, which yet lefs fitly agrees to the Condition of our firft purification then of our Glorification.)

11. Chrifts pardon and life are given by this Gofpel-Fromife on condition of our faith in Chrift, that is , if we become Believers in Chrijl 7 or Chriftiansy which is, if m accept cf Chrift as offered in the Gofpel, and that is, to bring us from our fins and felves to God>bythc atts of his teaching, Prieflly, andjCingly office • Or, if we believe inChrtft as Chrift. So that it is not any one jingle act of Faith that is the condition of purification : nor are the feveral Benefits ofChrift given us on condition of fever al affs of Faith -, as if we had Right to pardon by one aft,and to Chrift himfelfby another, and to adoption by another ; and to Heaven by another, &c. Nor have the feveral afis of our faith as divided an Inter eft in procurement of the Benefits as Chrifts aBions had: But it is one and the fame entire faith in Chrift as Chrift, that is the condition of all thefe confequent fire rial Benefits • without divifion in the procurement. So that the Belief in Chrift as our Tea* cher and King hath as much hand in our fuftification^ as believing in him as Vrieft % it being the backwardnefs of nature to the acceptance of Chrifts Government and Do-tfrine, that is afpecial Reafon why faith is made the condition ofthM pardon, which Nature is not jo backward to accept*

12. The Reafons to be Signed, why faith in Chrift U made the condition of purification, is, i. The will of the free Donor. 2. I he fitnefi of faith to that Office 5 as being fuitedto Gods Ends, and to Chrift the object : , and to mans necefittous eft ate. Not only becaufe it is the Receiving of Righteoufnefs, but for all thefe Reafons to* gether, in which its aptitude doth confift ; and its Apti* iude to the Honour of the Redeemer and free ffuftifieris

the

The Preface.

the principal part of its Aptitude : it being impofihle that God (hottld prefer man as his ultimate end before himjelf.

13. Though the Reafon why Fait his made by God the condition of our purification , mufi partly be fetcht from the nature of faith, which fome call its Inflru-mentalhty in apprehending Chrifl, yet the Reafon why we are Juftified by Faith, mufi be fetched from the Teneur of the Promtfe and Will of the Promifer. So that though the Remote Reafon be that aptitude of Faith , which is the Difpofitio materia yet the formal neerefl Reafon i$, becaufe God hath made it the condition of'the Gift 5 which fball fufpend the efficacy till performed\ and when performed) the benefit (l)allbe ours.

14. As Faith hath its denomination from fome one er few acts, which yet fuppofe many as conccmitdnt and confequent ': So thofe concomitant and confequent Acls have their anfwerable place and Inter eft in the for efaid Conditionally 3 as to our part in Chrift an A purification.-

15. i^fnd therefore it was not the Apofiles meaning to fet Faith againft thefe concomitant atfs, ( as Repentance ', hope in Chrift,defire ofchrifijove toChrift^&cc) and to exclude thefe under the notion of Works ; but cvn-trarilj to fuppofe them in their order.

i6.?heburdenfcme works of the Mofaical Law, ftp/toed to be fuch as from the dignity and perfection ef that Law, would juflifie men by procuring fardon of fin, and acceptance with God , are they that the Jews oppofed to Chrifls Righteoufnefs and purification by Faith , and which Paul diffuteth againft > and confequent ly agamft any works , or acls , or habits of our own, oppofed to chriji, *r this way of free juftification by him.

(as ) 17. T6«

The Preface.

17. 7 he not loofing our Iuftifi cation and Title to thrift and Life , hath more for its condition, then the fir ft Reception or Pofjeftion hath. And fo hath the final Unification at judgement, if men live after their firft believing.

18. purification at judgement, being the Adjudging us to Glory, hath the fameconditions as G lor if cat ion it [elf bath.

Reader, In thefe Eighteen Propofitions 5 thou mayft fully fee the Dd&rine that I contend for, which alfo in my Confeffion, Apologie, and this Book I have exprefled.

And now I will fliew you fomewhat of the fate of the Dodfrine, which the Diflenters commonly do propugne, but not fo largely, becaufe I cannot open other mens Do&rine fo freely and fully as I can do ,my own.

1. 7hey agree with me that Chrifts Right eoufnc§ is the meritorious or material caufe of our Iufiification, though fome add that it is the formal caufe , / ftp}of* it is but amiftakenname.

2. 7hey agree that Chrift, and pardon } and Life, are Given us by the Gofiel-Promife.

3. They yield that an entire Faith in Chrift as Chrift, is the condition of our Right to his entire Benefits.

4. But they fay that the Atts of Faith in their procurement of the Benefits , have as divers an Intereft as the Atis of Chrift, which Faith btlieveth.

5, And they fa), that it is fome one aft ( or two, or fome of them) that is the (ole )uftifying aft, though others be comprefent.

6. 7bis

The Preface.

6. This luftifying att fome call the Apprehending of Chrift as a Sacrifice : feme Affiance, or Recumbency, or Re fling on him, as a Sacrifice for fin, or as others, alfo on his atfive Right eoufnefs ; or an Afprebenfion of Chrifts Rigbteoufnefs •, or as others , A perfwafton that bis Pro-mife is trite •, or an Affent to that truth ; or as others; an Affurance, or at leafl a Beliefs fide Divina , that we arc jufiified.

7. They fay, that the neerefi Reafon of our lufiifica-tion by this fanh is, becatifc it is an hrfrument of cur J u-fiification, or of our Apprehending Chrtfts Righteoufnef: And' fo. that we are jttftifiedby Faith as an Infirumenial efficient caufe*, fay fome : and as a P afrit Receiving lnflrument,fay others.

8; They fay, that there being but two wayes of Iufti* fication imaginable, by faith, or by works ^ all that de-fertthe former way (if they deff air not of i unification ) fall under the expectation of the latter: And I grant that Scripture mentioneth no third way.

9. Therefore fay the), feeing that Pauls I unification by Faith, is but by the acl before mentioned : whoever looketh to be juftified, in whole, or in part, by another acl {as by Faith in Chrifl as Teacher, as King , by defiring him, by Hoping in him, by Loving him, by difcla'ming all our own rigbtecufnej?,&c t ) doth feek luflification by Works which Paul difputes againfl, and fo fetagainflthe $nly true luftifixation by Faith.

10. Tea, and they hold, that whoever looks to be lu-ftified by that acJ of faith, which themfelves call the Iw fltfying act, under any other notion then as an lnflrument, doth fall to ]unification by works, or turn from the true Unification by Faith.

By theft unwarrantable Definitions, and DinincJions,

and i

The Preface.

and additions to Gods Word $ A lamentable perplexity is prepared for mens fouls •, it being not pofsible for any living man to know, that he \u(l hits on the jujlifying Act, and which is it , and that he takes in no more, &c. andfo that he is not a LegaUfl, or Jew, and falls not from Evangelical luftification by faith in Chrijl. So that Iu-ftification by faith in Ckfijl as Chrifl, ( considered in all effential to his Office ^) is with them no luflification by faith in Chrift, but j unification by Works, [o much dif-ovoned by the Jpoflle, the expectants of which are fo much condemned. 1 have gathered the fum of moft of the DiJ]enters minds as far as I can under ft and it* if any particular man of them ^ difown any of this, let him better tell you his own mind: For I intend not to charge him with any thing that he dijowns. The Lord illuminate and Reconcile all his people , by his Spirit and Truth* Amen.

— fc*s

The '

E R RATA.

PAgc 6. line 2$. read that 1. p. 13 Aio.r.7//* Cbriiium. p.i^.f.^.r.promhcntii. i. . ZLr.bath.p.iS.l.l.T.ajthi*.\.i4.r.pruofof.. p ip.'.n.r.bethe. 1.34.r.c^. p.21. l.i7.r.^fjf««.p.i4«/«35. r -^«^P«*9/' I ^ r '^«^- p-Si' f .lir.muflbe p.}?. l.6.v>witb. $44.1.1.1.1 need, p^^./.jo.*-. Combination. p.$2.'. n.r *j. p.5^./i6.r. noftriA*li*x,exclufton. $.64.1.10.1.cutfe. $.74*l.$.r.c*pitibtu. p.8 i./.i3.r.»0. I.20. r./i:/. $.t^L6.b'.otouia^tinfl. $$7. l.xi.x.thithA.zi. v.execution. p.887.12. read there.$.94- !.io.r.notion.$9$J.^.r.u. l&x.yovr. p.99.1. 19.x. as mediate it. p.i ip.f, l6.t.as. p^is?.'. %.x.tbat hebath not. p.136. /,i8.r Cfo?/?. p.139 / i$.r. fltftfrf«j.page 152./ i7-r. ^e/f. p. 16^7.38.1*. we may. $.\6%.x.Gods. p. 170 1. 17. x.figns. p.i7J.f.if« tdivers. p.17 % J-19*r>he that wo, fa not. $.i^o.l.4.r.or.$.iS$.'.i9.x.cafuafs.$,iB6.t. z%.x.fenju.^.i97'l.i9.r.?otcntia. p.2a8.',8.r. Pdrret.\.ii.T. c PaJfivein.p.zio I 24.1-. mediante.$.ziz.l.i z.x.except.$. z$$.t.7.x<inthe.r).i4l.\ 32. blot out fi/'.p. 2fa./.i3, t.veyitatu. v.ztf.l.\4.x exalted.'p.z7i.l.io.-.Yigbteouuvi.i%6.l.\'j.x.he.\.z4.x.tbe.x>. 2^oJ.i.r.wi/'^.p.294./.22.an(i/.26.and^.1657.13 and 26. ioi % qu<eT.qua.$^99.'. l.T.unproved p. 314.^. $6r.c«//.p 3 i9.'.i4>r./foit «• -p.3 20./. 14 r.//^. p.3267.31. r. /r«ir.p.3 54./.alt.r.pr.tW3rw»L\p 360./.i7.r.G^.p.36i./.32.r.^#£&.p,38£,'.27.r. Jj jf not.p.i%7-!-1i"t-f<wttificdtion. .$.19 o.Kiz.r. morally- p. 598./. 1 j.r./>r^d^.l.»3 Z^lmfOUtemy,.

» ^^l£^^««^

CO

zs.

Queft. Whether ve are fuftified by "Beliveing in fefus Chri/i t as our Kjng and Teacher • as wed as by belieyin? in his "Blood: Aff.

Hough I have oft fpoken to this Qucftion in the ears of the world , as taking it to be of very great Confequence; yet upon the Invitation of this opportunity, I (hall once again attempt a brief Difcuffion of it ; and the rather, becaufe the Anfwers of a Reverend Brother (Mr. Make ) to my for* mer Arguments, and hi* Arguments for the

contrary opinion, may wrong the Truth and the fouls of men,

if their Fallacy be not manifefted by a Reply. And I (hall firft fpeak fomewhat of the Importance of the

Queftion, and then of the fenfe of it, and then endeavour a

B clear

CO

-dearRefolution, and the Confirmation thereof, and the Confutation of the contrary conceits.

And for the firft, I lhall give you my thoughts of it in thefe two Propofitions.

Proportion i. The difference amongft Proteftants about this Queftion is not of fo great moment, that either party muft 'Eo nomine be judged to deny the EfTentials ( or Fundamentals) of . the faith,and fo to be of a different Religion from the other, or to fall(bort of Salvation.

I lay down this Proposition firft, Becaufe of the Papifts who ftand looking upon all our differences with a mind too like the mind of the Devil; rejoycing in them, and endeavouring to encreafe them, and to make them feem greater in the eyes of the world,than indeed they are, that fothey may make ufe of them for the reproaching of our Profeflion, and take an advantage from them to make the truth and Servants of Chrift become odious unto others.

Secondly, And I do it alfo for the fake of fome ( even too many ) among our felves, that fpeak ofcontroverfies as they are concerned in them.or as the party to whom they joyn doth fpeak of them, or as they appear to them in the dark, or at a diftance, or upon a hafty fuperficial fearch ; but have not the skil ( nor fome of them, the will,) to open the true ftate of a Controver-fie, and make the difference appear no wider, then indeed it is.

To the proving of the Propofition, it muft be obferved, Firft, that the Affirmers do yield, thafit is not the Do&rine or Government of Chrift, but his blood that is the Ranfome for our fins, and his Righteoufnefs that is the fole Meritorious Caufe of our Juftification : and that believing in Chrift as Prophet and King, is not a proper Inftrument of our Juftification; and that Chrift as a Ranfome for us, and a deferver of our juftification, is the formal Objecl of that other ad ( which accordingly be-iieveth in nim, ) and not of this act of believing in him as Prophet and King.

On the other fide, it i« granted by them that are for the Negative, that it is our duty to believe in Chrift as a Prophet and ftirg and that it is of necetfity tofalvation, yea to juftificaftion it fdfj For they yield that it is the Fides ft<t JtiftificAtf)\z faith

by

by whch wc arc JulifieJ ; but not qssd Juftificat, or that it Ju-(Hficthnot ^r^,asfuch: They yield alfo that it is a Condition of Juttificacion , for fo they confcfs that Repentance it felf is •, but they only fay, that it is not the Inftrument of Juftt-fication, as they think the other a& is. So that the difference is here: They yield all that we affirm( if I can underftand them; ) but they affirm fomewhat morethemfelves, which we do not yield: f hey grant that believing in Chrift as our Teacher and Lord is a Condition of our J uftirication, and the fidej q*& fmfi** Heat ; which is all that I defire : But then they add, that the Belief in Chritis blood and Righteoufnefs is the Inftrument of our Juftiflcation, and that it juftifieth qna i*lU ; which we utterly deny, if the words be properly taken; and Tropes flhould not upon choice be made the terms of our Queftion , while there are plainer to be had. So that by this time its eafie to fee that neither of thefe opinions are fuch as muft unchurch or damn us, ormakeusHereticks. Firlt, We that are for the Affirmative are out of that danger; for we hold no more pofitivclv then is yielded us by the other. AH that they can charge us with, is this Negative, that [ believing in Chrifts blood doth not properly Juftifie as an Inftrument '( that is, as an efficient Inftruroental Caufeof our Juftification) nor yet cjua talis:'] And I think they will not lay our falvation on the Affirmative, when they confider what we yield (of which more anon) And on the other fide, we are far from palling any damning femence on them that are for the faid Inftrumentality; efpec.ally as we perceive it commonly held. Let no Papift therefore infult over us and fay, we are difagreed in our fundamentals,unlefs he be refolved to do it in defign againft the light of his own confeience. I the rather prcmife this Caution, becaufe I hear that the Papifts do mutter thus againft U5 already to filly people that cannot fee their deceit : T hey fay £ I; not the death of Chrift a fundamental ? and yet fome fay thar he^ied for All, and fome fay he died only for theEleft ; fome fay he paid the Uem % and fome but the Tan-tttndem ] but they tell not the people the true ftate of the Con-troverfie, and wherein we are agreed,or rhatthey differ as much about the extent of the death of Chrift among themfelves, Without fuch a charge. Chrift i< the Foundation : but yet whe-

B 2 tfcer

C+)

ther his hair were cut, or not, or whether he were thirty three or thirty five, or fifty years old when he died ; or whether he was buried in a Garden, or in a Sepulchre of ftone, thefe are not the foundation. So much to the fiift Proposition for narrowing our difercnce.

Proyofition 2. Though this controverfie be not of fuch Moment as is denied, yet is it of great weight, and the Confequents of the Errors of one party hereabout, are fuch, as if chey were held praSically and after the proper fenfe of their exprefsions, would be a great hinderance to falvationjf not plainly hazard it. And therefore ths queftton is not to be caft by , as needlefs or unprofitable. It is fo neer the great matters of our Redemption, J unification, and the nature of faith , that it is it felf the greater. And if Aruefiw fay true.that truths are fo concatenated, that every Error muft by confequence overthrow the foundation, then it muft be fo in this. The confequents fhall be mentioned anon in the Arguments 4 where it will be more feafonable. And in great matters, it is not a contemptible Error which con-fifteth but in mif-naming and mif-placing them : It is a very great help to the clear and full understanding of Truthsjto have right Notions and Methods. And the contrary may prove dangerous to many others, when the particular Patrons of thofe miftakes may be in no danger by them. For perhaps their firft Notions may be righter than their fecond ; and they may not fee the confequents of their miftakes; and yet when fuch miftakes in terms and methods (hall be commended to the world, other men that hear and resd their words, and know not theic hearts and better apprehenfions, are like enough to take them in the raoft obvious or proper fenfe, and by one diforder to be led to more, and to (wallow the Confequents as well as the mif-leading Premifes. And therefore I muft needs fay,that this point appeared] of fuch mom^nc in my eye?,that I dare not defert that which Iconriiemly take to be the Truth, nor facrifice it to the honor or picafure of man.

For -the-ex plication of the terms it is needlefs to fay much,and I have neiiher time for, nor mind of needlefs work. By £?t*fti~ fixation "] here we mean not either Sancliflcation a!one,or fandi-iication and remtfllonconjunct as making up our Righteoufncfs,

" a*

CO

as the Papifts do : £ though we deny not but fometime the word may be found in Scripture in fome fuch f'enfe : ) For thus it is paltcontroverfie, that our juttihcation, that is, our fan&ificati-on as to all that followeth faith, is as much, if not muchmoie, from our belief in Chnft as Teacher and King, as from our belief in him as a Ranfome. But by Juftification we mean ihac Relative Charge which Proteftants ordinarily mean by this word •, which we need not here define.

The Prepofition [ Bj ] (when we fpcak of being.juftifi: j by faith ) is not by all men taken in the fame fenfe. Fir ft, Sometime its uied more ftri&Iy and limitedly to fignifle only an effi-ciency,or the Jntereft of an Efficient caufe. And thus fome Divines do feem to take it, when they fay that we are jultitied by faith in Chrifts blood and Righteoufnefs, and not by faith in him as a Teacher or a Lord : which occafioneth the Papifts to fay our difference is wider then indeed it is : For the word [_^jl hath an ambiguity; and in their fence, we yield their Negative though not their Affirmative, in the laft-mentioned conclufion. Secondly, Sometime the word [ By } is ufed to fignifle a Condi-tionality, or the Intereft of a condition only in fpeciil. And thus we take it when we explain our felves in what manner it is that we are juftified by faich> and by thefe queilioned acts in particular. And therefore thofe Proteftants Chat difpure againft us who are for the Affirmative, do (if I undcrftand them ) <fc only the propriety of the phrafe which weufe, but not the thing or fenfe which we cxprefs by it; for they grant that thefe ads ot faith are Conditions of our Juftification, when they have ne\er fo much difputed, that we are not juft.fied by them, and fo a fmall fyllable of two letters, is much of the matter of their ca troverfle.

Thirdly, fometime this word is ufed to fignifle the Intereft of any other caufe as well as the Efficient and th'ar either generally, or efpecialTy of fome one. This Paper is white 7?j the wh-te-nefsasthe formal caufe : we are moved to a godly life Bj G and falration^s the final caufe g

Fourthly, Soraet»n:e the term £ By ~] is taken yet rrw largely ( and fitly enough ) for all or the ncereft of anj me a ueiH of the

B 3

CO

fo it comprehendeth all Caufesj, even tbofe Per accikns and Conditions as well as Laules, an all Chat doth but remove impediments. And in thiscompreheniive fenfe we take it here in the Queftion, though when we come to determine what ts the fpecial In:ereft of faith in Judication,' I take it in the fecond fenfe.

Take notice alfo, That I purpofely here ufe this phrafe [_ we are Juftified by Believing, or by Faith] rather than thefe, £ juftifying faith J or [_ Faith doth juftifie us. ] And I here foretell you,that if i (hall at any time ufe thefe laft exprefiions, as led to it bv thofe with.whom I deal, it is but in the fenfe as is hereafter explained- The Reafons why I choofe to ftick to this phrafe, rather then other, arc^ Firft, Becaufe this only is the Scripture phrafe, and the other is not found in Scripture ^ ( that I remember J It is never faid, that Q Faith doth juftifie us ] though it be faid that £ we are juftified by faith. ] And if any will affirm , that I may ufe that phrafe which is not found in Scripture, he cannot fay, I muft ufe it. And in a Controverted cafe , efpecially about fuch Evangelical truths, the fafery of adhering to Scripture phrafe, and the danger of departing from itisfo difcernable, (and fpecially when men make great ufe of their unfcriptural phrafes for the countenancing of their opinions, ) I have the more reafon to be caute-lous. Secondly, Becaufe the phrafes are not alwaiesof one and the fame fignification.The one is more comprehenfive then the other, if ftri&ly taken. To be juftified by faith ] is a phrafe extenfive to the Intereft of any Medium whatsoever: And there arc Media which are not Caufes. But when we fay that £ Faith doth juftifie us ~\ or call it [ juftifying Faith ] we ex* prefs a Caufality, if we take the word ftridly. Though this laft phrafe may fignifie the Intereft of a bare Condition, yet not fo properly and without draining as the former. The Reverend Author of the feond Treatife of Juftification, is of the fame mind as to the ufe of the terms^but he conjectures another reafon for the Scripture ufe, then I fhall ever be perfwaded of, vtz,, that it is becaufe. Credere is not Agere ^ but Tati ; to Believe is to Suffer, and not to Acl : that it is a Qrammnti^U Aftion % but Pfofoatij a Pajfion. Though I thiik this no truer,

then

(7)

then*that my brains are made of a looking glafs, and my heart of marblejyet is there fomwhat in this Reverend mans opinion, that looks toward the truth afar off. For indeed it incimateth that as to Caufalityor Efficiency; faith is not Adive in die juftifying of afinner, but is a mrer condition or moral oifpo-(Ition, which is neceflary to him that will be in the neareft Capacity to be juftifyed by God.

The laft words, Q Believing in hi$bhol~\ I ufenotasthe only way that is taken by the Opponents; but as one inftance among divers. For they ufetoexprefsthemfclves fovarioufly, as may caufc us to think by many ( as we know it of fome ) that they take more waies then one in oppofing us. Firft, Some of thcmfay.that the only Ad of faith that juftifieth, is our believing in Chrifts blood, or furTerings, or humiliation. Secondly, Others fay, That it is the believing in, or apprehending, and refting on his whole Righteoufnefs, even his Obedience as Obedience, to be it felf imputed to us. Thirdly, Other Reverend Divines fay, that it is the apprehend ng and refting on his Habitual, as well as Adive and Paflive Righteoufnefs; that his Habits may be imputed to us, as our Habitual Righteoufnefs, and his Ads as our adive Righteoufnefs • in both which together we are reputed perfed Fulfiikrs of the Law ; and his furTerings as our Satisfadion for our breaking the Law. As for rhofe that mention the Imputation of his Divine Righteoufnefs to us, they are ^o few, and thofe for the moft oart fufpeded of un found nefs, that I will not number it among the Opinions of Proteftants. FourthlyjOthers fay,tha: the juftifying Ad of Faith is not the apprehenfion of Chrifts Righreoufncls or Ranfome -, but of his Perfon, and tftat only as he is Prielt, and not as Prophet or King. Fifthly, Others cbfok that it is the apprehenfion of Chrtlts perfon, but not in his ; nrire Prteftly office; for he performeth fome Ads of his P.ieftl/ office for us ( lnterceillon ) after vvcarc jutrtfied : Therefore it is his Perfon only as the Sa r isfierof jutKe, and Meritor of Life, which they make the adequate Objdof the juftifying Ad of Fai'rh. Sixthly, Other sfay,that it is bothhis Vc rfon a-, d his fatisfadfon, Merit;Rig! eeoufriefc, vet, Pirdon ani jufti-fiationit ftlfj that is the adequate Objed : By which thev

muft

cs;

muft needs grant that it is not one onlyfingfe Aft, but many. .Seventhly. One Reverend man thats now with God ( Bifhop Vfoer) undcrlianding that I was engaged in this Controverfie, did of his own accord acquaint me with his Judgement, as tending to reconciliation: Andbecaufel never heard any other of the fame mind.and it hath a confiderable alped < I fhall briefly and truly report it as he exprelTed it. He told me, that there are two Ads (or fort of Ads ) of Faith. By the firft we receive the Perfon of ChrinV as a woman in Marriage doth firft receive the Terfon of her Husband. This is ourlmplantation into ( hrift the true Vine , and gives us that Union with him, which muft go before Communion and Communication of his Graces, and fo before juftincation. The fecond of Faiths Ads are thofe that apprehend the Benefits which he orTereth j Of which Justification is one,and this is ftridly the juftifjing Ad of Faith, and followeth the former. So that ( faid he) it is true that the firft Ad which apprehendeth Chrifts perfon doth take him as King, Prieft, and Prophet, as Head and Husband,that we may be united to him.: but the following ads which Receive- his Bc» nefits do not fo, but are fuited to the feveral benefits. ~)

The opinion is fubtile, and I perceived by his Readinefs in if, that it -was one of his old ftudicd points, and that he had been long of that mind ; my anfwer to him was this .- [You much confirm me in what I have received: for you grant the principal thing that I defire; but you add fomcthing more which I cannot fully clofe with, but (hall plainly tell you what are my apprehen-flons of it. Firft, You grant that the ad of faith by which we are united to Chrift, and which goes firft, is the Believing in, or Receiving whole Chrift as Prieft, Prophet, and King. This will do all that I defire. Secondly, You add, that another ad,even the Receiving of his Righteoufnefs is after neceflary, that^we may be juftified. Your reafon feems to be drawn from the difference of the erTeds: Union goes before Juftification,therefore the uniting ad goes before the juftifying ad. This is it that I deny-, MyReafonsarethefe. Firft,Scripture dillinguifheth between our Union with Chrift and our Juftification:but no where between the uniting and juftifying ads of faith. Secondly, The nature of the thing requireth it not, becaufe faith juftifies not

. by

CjO

by a Phyfical ca ufality, as fire warmeth me ; but by the moral intercft of a condition : and the fame ad may be the Condition of divers benefits. Thirdly, Scripture bath e xprefly made the Receiving of the perfon in his Relations to be the Condition of the participation of his benefits: Q As many as received kim^to them gave he power to become the fons of God ;.f ohm. 12. whoever believeth in him {kill net peri/h, but, dec. believe in the Lord Jeftiti and thou /halt be faved&c.~\ Fourthly, Your own Similitude cleareth what 1 fay : Though the wife have not pofief-fion of all thac is her husbands as foon as (he is married ^ yet the hath Right to all that is her part, and poffeflion of the benefits mecrly ReUuve % which confift but in a Right. The accepting his perfon in marriage is the condition to be by her performed to inflate her in his Honours fo far as (he muft partake of them. When (he is made a wife by that Confent, there needs not any other aft before (he can be noble,honourable,a Lady,a Queen, &c: For the former was the full condition of the firft pofTefljon of this benefit; and the benefit immediately refulteth from the Union. Fifthly, 1 conceive that tbcfe two ads which you mention are but one moral work(though divers Phyfical ads)and to be done without any interpolation of time, before we can have Chrift for Union or Juftification. For the end is Effential to Relations: and he that receives Chrift, muft take himtofome end and ufe: and that muft be to Juftifie, Reconcile and fave him ; to bring him to God that he may be blefied in him. He that doth not receive Chrift to thefe ends , receiveth not Chrift as Chrift, and therefore cannot be united to him; and he that doth thus receive him, doth both thofe ads in one which you require. Sixthly, And the cafe is much different between Phyfical and Relative benefits : For its true, that when we are united to Chf iit, we may have after need of renewed ads of faith to adu-atc the Graces of the Spirit Inherent in us; For here Right is one thing, and Pcftefjio* is another : But the Rtla r?*of Son-(hip, Juftification, &c. arc benefits that arife from the promife or free Gift by a mcerrefuhancy to all that are united to Chrift; and whoever hath prefent Right n them, even tl erehy hath pofleffion of them, fo that this anfwereth your Reafon. For there is no fuch uifhnce of time between our Union wi.fr Grift

C and

(10)

and Juftification, as that any ads of our own muft interpofe ; but they are in todem inftanti^ and differ only in order of nature. In fum, we prove a promife of pardon to al! that receive Chrift himfeif, and believe in him : If any will affirm the neceffity of any other aft before we can be juftified, it is incumbent on them to prove it.

This was the fubftance of ray Anfwen to which the Reverend Biftiop faid no more ; whether fatisfied or not, I cannot cell : But I thought meet to recite his Judgement, both becaufe it comes fo neer the matter, and becaufe I know not of any other that faith the fame or fo much of feeming ftrengch againft us.

Againft all thefefeven particular Opinions, lam now to defend the Thefis; when I have firft told you, in certain diftin-ctions and propofitions, how much I grant, and what I deny ; which I (hall in (hort difpatcb.

And here I need but to rehearfe what I have faid already to Mr. Blakf, pag. 3.4. or to give you fome (hort account of my thoughts to the fame purpofe.

Firft, We muft not confound Juftification by Conftitution or Guift,and juftification by the Sentence of the Judge, and the Execution of that Sentence, which are three diftinft things.

Secondly, We muft not confound Juftification with the affu-ranceor feeling of Juftification.

Thirdly, We muft diftinguifh between our firft Juftification from a ftate of fin, and our daily Juftification from particular Ads of fin.

Fourthly, Between thatwhirh is neceffary on Chrifts part, and that which is nccefTary on our patt to our Juftification.

Fifthly, Between Chrifts purchafing our Juftification, and his actual juftifying of us.

Sixthly, Between thcfe twofenfesof thephrafc[;*y?*jM£/ Faith ] viz. as by an efficient Caufe, or as a meer Condition.

Seventhly, Between che Caufality of faith in the Phyfical iflfe&s of fandificarion on the foul, and its conducing to the efficacy of the Promife in our Juftification. Propofition 1. Ex pme Cbrifti % We eafily grant that

CO

it is not his Teaching, or Ruling us, but his Ranfome and Obedience that are the Meritorious caufe of our Juftification and Salvation.

Profofirion 2. Therefore if Chrift did juftifie us ptrrrodum cbjefti apprehenfiin the neareft fenfe, as the Belief of facred Truths doth make a Qualitative impreffion on the foul in our Sandification, and the exciting and ading of our Graces then I fhould confefs that it is only that Ad of Faith which is the ap-prehenfion of this Objed,that doth help us diredly to the benefit of the Objed.

Proportion 3. But it is not fo; For the Objed juftifuth us caufally by way of Merit and Moral procurement, and the benefit of that Merit is partly the Promife conveying to us Juftification, and partly Juftification conveyed by that Promife ( not to fpeak now of other benefits ) and the Promife conveyetrYjuftification by Moral Donation as a deed of Gift, or a Pardon to^a Tray tor: Therefore the Gift flowing purely from the Will of the Giver, and the Promife or deed of Gift being the Immediate Jnftrumental efficient Caufe of ir, as it is jlgnum volur.tatu Doiuttru , our Belief or Apprehcfifionf///* talis cannot juftifie as, nor have any nearer or higher intereft in our Juftification, then to be the Condition of it, as it is a free Gift. And therefore the Condition muft be judged of by the will of the Donor exprelTcd in his Promife, and not immediately by the conceits of men concerning its natural agreeablenefs to the Objed in this or that refped.

Propofition 4. Yea, Even ex parte fori (It 9 though he Merit Juftification by his Ranfome and Obedience, yet he aBu*//j jnftifieth us as King of his Church, and that in regard of all the three forts or parts of Juftification. He givtth it confti-tutively by his Promife, as Lord and Lefijlator and Be*ef*ftor s onthefe terms of Grace. He/e»te»cetk us Jur>, as our Judg ; and he executeth that fentence as a ]nft Judge, governing according to his Law?. So that if Faith did juftifie ex nutttra rei, which they call its Inflrumentalitj , I fee not yet but that the apprehenfion of Ctrift as Lord and Judge maft juftifie us, becaufe the Objcd apprehended doth thus juftifie us. Propofition 5. Ieafily grant that in our 4SW?*yfc<ff*V* or the

Qi exciting

exciting anl excrcifc of our Graces, the cafe ftandcth as the Opponents apprehend it to do in Juftification. This Intereft of the Ad mud be judged of by the Object apprehended. For it is not the Belief o' a Promife that feareth us, but of a Tkreatning; nor the Belief of a Threatning that £omfcrteth U5,but of a Prom fe. For here the Objed worketh immediately on our minds, fer nudum objefli apprehen/i: But in Juft ification it is not fo, where God is the Agent as a Donor, and there can be nothing done by us, but in order to make us fit Subjects; and the change is not Qualitative by an Object as fuch, but 'Rjlative by a Vundamentum which is without us in the Gof-pel, and nothing within us but a qualifying Condition, without which it will not be done.

Propofition 6. Accordingly i eafily grant, that the Senfe.ot Afiurance of Justification in our Confciences is wrought by the Ohjett as an Ob)eU : Becaufe this A$urance is a part of our Santlification. But that Object is not dire&ly Chrifts Ranfome, but the Promife through his blood, and our own Faith which is the condition of that Promife.

Proportion 7. I eafily grant that Faith in Chrift at Lord or Teacher of the Church, is not the Inft rumental efficient Caufe of our Juftification.-They need not therefore contend againft mc in this. But withall I fay, that faith in his Prieft-hood is not the Inftrumental efficient Caufe neither; though I allow it to have a nearer Phyfical Relation to the Ranfome which merit-ech our Juftification.

Proportion 8. Though there is a greater (hew of Reafon to affcrtthe Intereft of thefingle Belief in Chrifts Prieft hood , for a particular Pardon ,then for our firfigeneral Pardon; yet indeed it is but a (hew,even there alfo.For it is not only the applying our felvesto his blood or Ranfome,but it is alfo the applying our felves to whole Chrift , to make up the whole breach, that is the Condition of out particular Pardon, ( fo far as a particular Ad of faith is a Condition ) which though it be not a Receiving Chrift for Union with him,as we did in the beginning, yet is it a receiving him ad hoc et fcundum quid ; and a renewed Confent to his whole Office, and adhefion to him as our fpe-cial remedy for recovery from that fall, by freeing us both from the guilt and ftain of Sin, Propofition

Profofitim p. It is undoubtedly the duty of ©very Sinner, in the fenfe of bis guile and mifery. to fly to the Ranfo.aie of Chrifts blood and the Merit of bis Obedience, as the fitisfa-dionto Gods Juftce, and thePurchaferof nur Juirifkauon. And he that doth not this, how willing foever he may fcem to learn of Chr.ft as a Mafter, or to be ruled by him, yet c*nnoc be juftified or faved by him.

Propjfuion io. I eafily grant that Faith qu^Cbriflum Pro-pbetam et Dominant recipe, doth not juftifie i but only fides qui fbnflum Tropbetam & Dominum recipit, t$- qu\ eft pro-mijjlonis Conditio prMta. But then I fay the fame alfoof Faith in Chrift as Prieft, or in his Righteoufnefs.

Having exp'ained my meaning in thefe ten Propofirion?, for prevenring of Objections that concern not the Controverfie, but run upon miftakes, / flail noVe proceed to prove the Thefis, which is this.

C Thefis. Weave jumped bj Qod y by our 'Btlitvb fin Cbrift ^ as Teacher and Lord, and not only bj 'Believing in bis blood or C Right eoufiefs.

Argument i. My firft Argument (hall be from the Con-ceffionof thofe that we difpucc with. They commonly grant us the point contended for: T herefore we may take it for granted by them. If you fay, What need you then difpute the poinr, if they deny it not whom you difpute with? I Anfwer, fome of them grant it, and underftand not that rhev grant it us , becaufe they underftand not the fenfe of our AfTertion. And fome of them underftand that they g^ant it in our fenfe,bur yet deny it in another fenfe of their own- and fo make it a (trite about a fyllable. But I (hall prove the Conceflion, left fome yet difcern ir nor.

If it be grar/edus, that Believing in Jefus Chrift as Lord and Teacher, is area! part of the Condition of our Justification, then is it granted us, that by this Bel eving in him we are juft;fied, as by a Condition ( which is our ienie, and 3II that we afTert ) But the former is true : Therefore fo is the later. \

For the proof of the Antecedent ( which is at! ) FiHI, Try whether you can meet with any Di ine that dare deny it, who

C 3 bclievcth

believech that Faith is the Condition of the CovenantSecondly, And 1 am fure their writings do ordinarily confefs it. Their Doctrine that oppofe us,is, [\\H Faith » both a Condition and aninllrument ; but o;her Acts, as Repentance &c. maybe Conditions, but not Inltrumcnts. Aad thofe that have waded fo far into rhis Controverfie, feem to joyne thefe other Acts of Faith with the Conditions,but not with beh hument.Thirdly, They exprefiy make k antecedent to our J^ii, fiction, as of mo-ral neceffity, ex conflitutione permitien*ti y ana f;v it h the Fides qu<ejuftific*t : which is the thing defined-, if there be any fenfein the words. Fourthly, They cannor deny toVaithin Chnft, as Lord and Teacher, that which they commonly give to Repentance, and moft of them to many other Acts, But to be a Condition ( or part of the Condition ) of* Juftification is commonly by them afcribed to Repentance; therefore they cannot deny it to thefe afts of faith. No that you fee I may fairly here break off, and take the Thefit fro Co*tccffu> as to the fenfe. Nothing more can be faid by them, bur agamft our phrafe whether it be proper to fay that we arc juthfiedBy that which is but a bare Condition of our [unification, which if any will deny .* Firft, We (hall prove it by the confent of the world,that apply the word [ By ] toany Medium: And Dr. Tvfifs that told them ( contr. ^orvinum) over and over that a condition is a Medium, though it be not a caufe • and I think none will deny it. Secondly, by the confent of many Texts ofScnpfure : But this muft be referred to another Deputation, to which it doth belong, viz. about the Inftrumentality of faiih in juftifying us, which, God willing,I intend alio to perform.

Argument 2. The ufual language <*f the Scripture,is,that we are juftifled by faith in Chnft, or by believing ^n him, without any exclusions of any effcntial part of that faith. But faith in Chrift doth efTentially contain our beleving in hm as Teacher, Prieft, and King, or Lord : therefore by believing in him as Teacher, Prieft and Lord,we are juftified.

The CMajor is pad the denial of Chriftians, as to the firft part of it. And for the fecond part, the whole caufe lyeth on it; For the Minor alfois pafl all controverfie. For if it be effennal to Chrift as Chrift to be God and man, the Redeemer, Teacher,

Prieft,

C'5)

Prieft and Lord: then it is efTntial ro faich in Chrift (by which we are juftified) to believe in him as God and roan,the Redeemer, Teacher, Prieft and Lord. But the Antecedent is moft certain : therefore fo is the Con <:quent.

Thereafonofthe Con r equencc,is,becaufethe aft here is fpe-cificd from its Objeft. All this is paft further queftion.

All the Qucftion therefore is Whether Scripture do any where expound it felf, by excluding the other effential parts of faith, from being thofe ads by which we are juftified ? and have limited our juftification to any one aft ? Ibis lyeth on the AMir-mers to prove. So that you rauft note, that it is enough for me to prove that we are juftified by faith in Chr<ftjefus : fortius Includethall the efTentialafts; till they (hall prove on the contrary, that it is but fecundutn ateid y and that God hath excluded all other eflkntial afts of faith fave that which they affert j The proof therefore is on their part, and not on mine. And I (hall try anon how well they prove ir.

In the mean time, let us fee what way the Scripture goeth,and obferve that every Text by way of Authority* doth afford us a feveral Argument, unlefs they prove the exclufton.

Firft, CMark^ 1615,16,17. £ Go ye into all the world and preach the Gofpei to every Creature : he that believeth and U bap* titled [hall be faved ; and he that believeth not fbafi be damned : and thefe figns (hall follow them that believe ,&c.] Here the faith mentioned, is the believing of the Gofpei, and the fame with our becoming Chriftians : and therefore not confined to one part or aft Oi faving faitb.That Gofpei which muft be preached to all the world, is it that is received by the faith here mentioned ; But that Gofpei doth efTentiaily contain more then tbe do-ftrine of drifts Pi bfthood therefore fo doh that faith..

Object, h u not J fifiification but Salvation that it there pro-mifed.

ssinfve* It is that Salvation whereof Juftification is a part : It is fuch a Salvation as all have right to as foon as ever they believe and arc baptized, which comprehendeth juftification : And the Scripture here and everywhere doth make the fame faith without the leaft diftmction, to bethecond.tionof JuftihcaMon and of our Title to Glorification : and never parcels out the

fever*!

fevcral effects to feveral acts of faith ; except only in thofe Qualities or Acts of the foul which faith is to produce as an efficient caufe. To be juftified by faith or Grace , and to be fa-ved by faith or Grace, are promifcuoufly fpoken as of the fame faith or Grace.

Secondly, fohn 3.15 16, t8. He that believethin him [hill not ftrijby but have ever I a ' ing life.'] 'He th*t btiieveth on htm is net condemned."] Not to be condemned, is to be j'ftifi d. Condemnation find Juftification are oppofed in Scripture., Rom. 8. 35,4. Here therefore a favingh\i\\ and a juftif Ug are made all one. And itis£ Believngin Chrift } without execution of any effential part, that is this faith ; It xsJ^Believing in the Name of the only begotten Son of God.\ ver. 18- which is more then to believe his Ranfom.

Thirdly, John 3.35,36. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into hi* hand , he that believe: h on the Son , hath ever lading life; and he that believeth not the [on,Jhall not fee life* but the wrath of God abldeth on htm.'] To have Gods wrath abide onhimistobeunjuftirled. And the unbelievers oppofed to the Believers before mentioned, are fuch as [ Beleve not the fan :"] which phrafe cannot poflibly be limited to the affiance in his blood : It is the [ o&Txi-QaV ] often tranflated Difobedient: figni-fying,faith Willet^ both unbelieving and difobedient, but rather. T)ifobediey>t> properly it is unperfwaddble. But of this more anon. And the faith here mentioned is [Believing on the [on] entirely, without exclufion of any efTcntial acts; nay exprefly including the act in queftion, by (hewing that it is faith in Chrift as Lord, into [ wbofe hands the Father hath given all things ] as the connexion of thefe words to the foregoing doth manifeft.

Fourthly, #<?», 1.16,17,18. lamnota[hamedoftheGofpelof Chrift 1 for it is the power of God to [alvation to every one that believeth for therein is the Righteoufnefs of Qod revealed from

faith to faith, as it is Written, the juft [hall live by faith.'] where faving and juftifying faith is made the fame, and chat is to be a believer of the Gofpel, or in Chnft, without limitation to any one effential part of it.

Fifthly, Rom. 3.22. f Even the Righteoufnefj of"God t \* hick is by fath ofjffas (hrift, unto all % and upon all them that &tI.eve. J

Here

(17)

Here it is faith in Jcfjs Chrift by which we are juftificd t which therefore includeth all that is eflfential to it.

Object. Vtrf. 25. It is /aid to be bjfa, tb in his blood.

A»f*. 1. But there is not a fyiiable confining it to faith in his blood alone. It faith not, ( by faith only in bis blood ) Secondly, The ordinary courfe of Scripture is to call it by that name (faith in fefus Chrift ) which comprehcndeth allthatseflfentialto iti But fometime upon fpecial occasions, iti denominated from fome one notable act or part, And that is, when it is the fcope of the text, to denote more the diftinct Intereft of that part of Chrifts Office which is related to that act of faith, then any fole Intereft of that act of faith it felf. And (o the Apoftle here mcntionetb faith in his blood as a fpecial act, becaufc he now draweth them efpecially to obferve that blood which is the Object of it • and in other places he inftanceth in other acts of faith; but commonly fpeaks of it entirely. And I think the Opponents will grant that as ( only ) is not here expreffed , fo neither is it implyed : for then it would exclude aifo, faith in the reft of his fatisfactory Humiliation, or at Ieaft, in his active Righteoufnefs, if not in his Pcrfon or Relation : of which more anon.

So verf. 18.30, 3 1. Its called ( faith ) entirely, or without re. ftriction by which we are justified; and therefore none of the effentiais are excluded.

But it would be too tedious to recite the particular Texts 1 Its known, that [ by faith 3 and Q by believing ] in Chrift, without exdufion or limitation, is the common phrafe of Scripture,when it fpeaks how we are juftified : as may further be fcen, Rom^.i, 2. 6c 93 2. G4I. 2.16. ( ttv are juftified bj the faith ofjef* Chrift, and by believinginjefus Chrift, asoppofed to the works of the Law ; but not by faith in hisPriefthood,or Ranfom, asoppofed to faith in him as our Lord and Teacher ) Gal. 3.1 1,24,25.26. & ,5.S>c». Eph 2.8,9. & 3.12,17. Phil. 3.9. Rom. 9 30.HfJ.11. throughout,/*/;» 6 35,40.47. AEts 10.42,43. Rom.io 10.Attt 12-39- From thefe and many the like I argue thu?.

The Scripture doth afcribe our Jufiification to faith; and doth not limit it to any one part of farth.cxcluding the reft : Believing in Jefus Chrift as Redeemer, Prophet, Prieft and Kinjf, is effenti-ally this faith. Ergo fiic.

If the Scripture fpeaksof faith effentially, not limiting it ad partemfidei t thtn fo muft we : But the Scripture doth f 0 ; Ergo 9 Sec. It is nowhere more neceffary then in fuch cafes this co hold to the Rule, of not diftinguifhing ubi lex nondift ingulf. Firft, Becaufe it is an adding to the dotlrins of Chrift in a point of weight, Sccondly,Becaufeic favourethofa prefiimptuousak-traUion from the Condition Impofed by Chrift hrmfelf. If a Prince do make a General ad of Oblivion, pardoning all Rebels that will enter into Covenant with him, wherein they confent to Accept his pardon, and take him for their Soveraign Lord • He that (hall now fay, that Returning to his Allegiance, or confent -ing to the Princes Soveraignty, is no part of the Condition of the Traytors pardon,but that they arc pardoned only by accepting of a pardon, and not by the other ad:, will certainly be guilty of adding to the act of his Prince, and of detracting from the condition by him required; and fo is it in our prefent cafe.

If Godfpeakof any thing eflentially, we rauft not prefurae without fufficient proof of thereftriction, to expound k only d$ parte ejfentiaii. If he invite a Gueft to his marriage feaft, he me ans not the mans bead* only,or his heart only : for neither of thefeistheman. If he require a lamb in facrifice, we muft not expound it of the head only, or heart only of a Lamb.

To this Argument (briefly in my Apology ) Mr. TZlakt ( having firft excepted at the newnefs of the phrafe [_ Lord-Redeemer 2 doth anfwer thus Q lf*y % Chrift is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer? and as our CWafter or Teacher ; but faith in Jttftification eyes Redemption, not'Dominion.'] Repl. Firft, The Phrafe [ Faith in fuftification] is as unacceptable to me, as£ Lord-Rideemer] is toyou:not only for the Novelty, but the ambiguity, if not the falfe Doctrine which it doth import. Firft, If the meaning be [ Faith as it is the Condition of our fftfttfication, ) then its contrary to your own Conceffion after, that this fbould eye Chrifts Priefthood only 5 and its an untruth, which you utterly fail in the proof, or do nothing to it. Secondly, If you meanQ Faith in its effeBing of onr fuftifi-cation^ ] then it importeth another miftake, which you have not proved f viz,, that faith doth efTed: our Juftificacion, If you mean I Faith in Receiving Juftification J either you mean

the

the proper V&flivc Receiving, and this \$ buz Juflificin, and the man Receiveth it as the Subjed, and his faith is but a Conditi-on, or means of it: Or you mean the Moral aUtive 'Jlletaphe* rical Receiving; which is nothing but Confenting that it (nail be ours; or accepting: And this is : neither part of Juftificati-on, nor proper Caufe ; but a Condition, and but part of the Condition: And therefore here your meaning muftbeoneof thefe two, Either That Ail of Faith which is the accepting of fufirfcation, is not the eying of 'Dominion : To which 1 reply, Firft, taking it largely as a moral Ad, its not true; for its comprehenfive of both, of which more anon : but taking ic ftri&Jy as one PhyficalAct, its true: Secondly, But then its nothing to the pnrpofe : For we are not more truly juftifyed by thatvAct which is the accepting of Juftiftcation, or Confenting to>e juftified, then we arc by the Acceptingof Chrift for our Lord and Mafter ; the reafon of which, you have had before, and< (haUiave more follyjanon ; orclfe you mean as before exprefTed, That All of Faith Which is oar £o'nfentwg to fuflification, is the whale Conditio** of our fttftification s and not th$/eying of Dominion ; But of *hat before. If Imay Judge by youc Doctrine elfevvhere expreffed, you mean only That tki all of Faith which accept eth of faftifica'ion, is theonly Inftru* ment of fuflificaiion -of which in itsdue place: It may here fuffice to fay again, that I affirm not that in queftion to the be Inftru-ment of it.Be not offended that I enquire into the fenfe of your ambiguous phrafe, which I truly profefs, is to me not intelligible, till you have explained in what fenfe it is that you intend it; and therefore my enquiry is not needlefs.

Ar. 3. If the Scripture doth ( not only by the fpecifkke Denomination, as was brft proved, but alfo ).by defcription, and mentioning thofc vrfry acts, include the believing in Chrift as our Lordand Teacher, &c % in that faith by which as a Condition, we are juftified ; then we are juftified by believing in Chrift as our Lord and Teacher, &c. not only as a facrifice or Meriter of Jufttficati jn. But the Antecedent rs true; therefore fo is the Confcquent.

I prove the Antecedent by many Texts.

Rom, 10 4,^,7,8,2,10. For Chrift is the end of tht Lxw

D 2 for

a°)

for Righteoufnefs to every one that believetL ■* — """ '''» • But the Righteoufnefs Which it offaith /petty b on this wife : Say not in thy heart, tVhofhall afcend into Heaven f that U to bring Chrifi down from above : or who fballdefcend into the deep f that it to bring up Chrift again from the dead : Bat What fnth it ? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouthy and in thy hearty that it the word ef faith which we preachy that ifihoujhalt confefs with thy mouth the Lfrd jefus> and Jhait believe in thy heart that god raifed him from the dead, thou fhalt be faved j for With the heart m*n belie-veth unto Righteoufnefsjtnd with the mouth confejjion is made unto Salvation.^ Here it is evident, that it is a "Believing unto Righ-teoufnefs chat is mentioned, and therefore it is the Believing by . which we are juftified. And then it is evident that the faith here called [ a believing unto Righteoufnefs ] is the believing in the Lord Jefus ; exprefly Chrift as Lord and Saviour, is made the Object of it y and is not confined to a believing in one part of bis Priefthood only. Alfo \jhat Qod raifed Chrift from the dead) is the exprefled object of this faith. And the Rcfurrc&ion of Chrift is no part of his facrifice or raeer Prieftly Office.

Rom.** 24>2 5 • C But for U6 alfo % to Whom it /hall be imputed^ if we believe on him that raifed up fefus our Lord from thi dead ^ Here ic is evident that it is J unification it felf that is the Benefit fpoken of, even the imputing of Righteoufnefs : And that faith Jhcre is mentioned as the Condition of that Imputation \ If we be-. lieve ] And that this faith is defenbed to be firft a believing in him that raifed Chrift, and not only in Chrift. Secondly, A believing in Chrift fefu* our Lord 9 who is the exprefs objed of it; and fo his Lordihip taken in ; and thirdly, a believing in his Re furrettion, and not only in his blood or obedience. So that I fee no room left to encourage any doubting, whether we are juflifi-ed by believing in Chrift as Lord, and in his Refhrre3ion, and in God that raifed him, as the Condition of our Justification. John i .9,11,12. £ That was the true light that lighteth every

man that comet h into the world. He came to his ow» $ wd kit

own received him not : But as many as receivedMm, to 1 hem gave he poWer to become the fons of god , to them that believe in his Name,"} Here it is maaifeft, Firft, that it i* the faith by which we are juftifted thatfe^ fpoken of; for its commonly agreed

that

$2.1)

thatjuftificationis here included in Adoption, or at leaft thae its the fame a ^ of faith by which we are adopted and juftified. Secondly, Aifo tha 1 : the objed of this faith is Chnft as the Light t which is not hi c meer Priefthood. Thirdly, And that it is his perfon in his full office, and not fome fingle benefit. Fourthly, that it is called Q bis 2^a-ne • J and [_ "Believ'mgin hU Name] is more then confenting to be juftified by his blood y and in Scri-pture-fcnfc comprehendeth his Nature and Office: and is all one as taking him as the true Meftiah, and becoming his Difciples; Fifthly, And its much to be Noted, that it is not by way ofPhy-ficalefficacy by apprehenfion ( as I take Gold in my hand, and fo receive pofleffion of it ) that faith hath its ncareft Intereft in our Adoption: hue it qua|ifieth the fubjecc difpofi ively in the fight of God, and fo God gives men Potter thereupon to become his fons.

So the forecited wordf, hhn 3 .\ 1,25,36. Where Life is given on Condition thar we believe on the Son ; and that is exprcf-fed as the object of that faith, as he is one that [ Cometh from Heaven t and 14 above a'l 9 ani whom the Father loveth , and bath given all th'-ngs into bis ban h.

And fo hbn 5.22 2} ,24. Q He bath committed all judgement to the (on^ that a'lmen fiould honour the Son, even at they honor the Father; V9rilj % verily, I fay ur.to you, ht that hrareth nj Wordi andbelieveth on him that ftnt me ka bevedafimg life-* and JbaBnot come into Condemnation] hhre ihe faith mentioned is that Which freeth men f*om Ctnumnaticn, and therefore is is by which we are Suftified: And the object of ic is the Word of Chrift ( and therefore no: only his Prielthood ) and the Father as fending the Son, even to his whole office of Redemption.

Moreover, that faith by which bur Juftificu. >n is con r nued, it is begun by this (both they and we are agreed in , though fome yield not that any thing more is requi.ed to its continuance.) But the faith by which Juffificacion is continued, is ''he 'Belief of the Gofptl, Which u preached to every Creature and not only one branch of it. Co/. 1.21,12,23. And it is called, CW. 2.6. a Receiving Cbrift lef.a the Lord.

John 20.3 I. Theft things are Written , that ye m'ght believe that hf*u is the Chrift, the Jon of Gcd and that believing ye might

D 3 bavi

c*o

have life through his Nawe : ] That faith by which we have life,' is certainly it by which we are juftified : for as ] unification is par: of that fife, fo Right to Eternal life is given on the fame terms as junification is. And the object of this faith here is, Chriftin Perfon and entire Oriice , thefon of Cod by whofe Name we have life.

sittsz.io Ji,3*,33>?4>5S^3^^7i38. C Knowing that Qod hid from With an O.ath to him, that of the fruit of hu loynet at* cording to thefle/h) he would ra^fe up (fhrift, to fit upon his Throne, he feeing this before [pake of the Refurrellion ofChriftjhat hisfotd VPas not It ft in his He//, ntither his fiefh did fee Corruption : This fefus hatbGodraifedup, whereof ft 1 * a r e all vritnejfes; therefore

being by the right hand of God exalted —-=— therefore /et all

the hoftfe of Ifrael knoV? affuredly that Qod hath made this fame lefus Whom ye have Crucifiedjtoth Lord and Chrift. Noty when

they heard this* ThenVctev faid unto them. Repent and be

baptized every one of you in the Name of lefus Chrifl , for the

Remljfion of fins .*] Here it is evident that Remiflion of

fins is a Benefit that by this faith they were to be made partakers of ^ and fo that it is the faith by which we are ju{tified,thae they are Invited to : And that the Object of this faith implyed in the terms , Repent and be haptized, &c. is the Name of Jefus Chrift, and that eminently in his exaltation, as Rifen, and fit at the Right hand of God, and as Lord and Chrift.

So Atts 3.19. 22.15. Repent therefore and be Converted, that

y our fins may be b/otted out For Mofes truly faid, A Prophet

Jha/l the Lord your God raife up .] Here the Jews are ac-

cufed for killing the Prince of \ife,verf. 15. and exhorted to Repent thereof, and fo of their Infidelity, and be converted (to Chrift, and fo to become Chriftians, ) which is more then one act of faith ; and this was that their fins may be blotted out: And Chrift as Prophet is propounded to them as the object of this faith, which they are exhorted to.

So A8 t 10. 42,43. with 3cj ? 37,38,40,4i.£ And he commanded us to preach unto the p?op f e, and to tefiifie that it is he that is ordained of Cjed to be the fudge of quic^ and dead ; trloimgive all the Prophets ytitnefs y that through hu name, Vchofoever be-l.evtth in him Jha/l receive Remiffvn of fins. ] Here the faith is

defer ibed

(*3)

defcribed which hath the Promife of Remiflion. And the Objed of it is at large fet out to be ftfm Chrift as I ord $f a // t ver. 36. as twitted ftith the Holy Ghoft and ^i:b f*weri tajftj from the dead^ and made the Judge cf the Quick and the dead « and it is called entirely a Bditzir.g in W, and the Remiflion is through his name.

v4Cl. 16. 31. The faith of the Jaylor aspcrfwaded to for life: is the believing in the Lord fjuj Chrift entirely : and it* called a Beli ving in God y ver. 34.

1 Tet.z. 4,5,6,7. The faith there mentioned k that By which We are juftified; he that belieytth en him fhAlnot bs confounded^ and the Objed of it \s,rthole Chrift <*; the Corner fton^EUtt and Freciws.~]

?ohn$. 10, 11,12, [The faith there mentioned, is that by which we have Chrijt and Life] : And'the Objed of it is, [the Son of Qod 2 ana * L G 0 *] an d [ the re cord that God gave *f his Son 3 even £ that god hath given m eternal Life, and this lift is in his Son. ]

tJrtat* n. 27,28,29. The faith there mentioned, is called £ a comming to (thrift wear} and heavy- laden , that he may give thtm reft "J which muft comprehend Reft from the Guilt of fin and pumfhment. And the Ad of that Faith is directed to Chrift'as one to whom all FoVter is given by the Father, and as one whofe yoak and burden we muft take upon us. But I (hall add no more for thh.

To this laft Mr. BUke faith, pag. 564. This Text Jhews the 'Duty of men to be, net alone to fcekreft and eafe from Chrift, bnt to learn ofChrtft and follow h ; m : But neither tUeir learning nor their imitation, but faith in his hh*4 t is their freedom or fxjiifi-caticn. Repl. Properly neither one ad of fairh nor other is our J unification. Faith ttagmality in the Habit, and an ad in the excrcife: and J unification is z Relation. Faith is a part of our Sandifkation ; Therefore it is not our JutvificAtion. But fuppofing you fpeak Meronymically, I fay both ads of faith are our Juftification, that is, the Condition of it. And the Text proves it, b> making our Subjedion not*only a Duty, but an exprefs Condition of the Promife. And this Conditionally you here before and after doconfefsorgrant.

Argument 4. If we sire juftified by Chrift as Prieft, Prophet and K ngconjun& j y, and not by any of thcfe alone,much Jefsby his Humiliation and Obedence alone; then according to the Opponents own Prircpl.s ( who argue from the dift.nct Jntereftof tbe fcveral parts of the Object, to the diftind Interest of the fcveral aces of fa;th ) we r;re juftified by bdieving in Chnft as Prieft, Prophet ,nd K ng ; and not as Humble and Obedient only. But we a-t juftified by Chrift as Prieft, Prophet and K ng, i&c. ?rgo % &c *The Confequence is the»r own. And the Antecedent I (hall prove from Several texts of Scripture, and'from the nature of the thing beginning with the iaft.

And rirlUt if ro be fuppofed, That we are all agreed that the blood and Humiliation of Jefus Chrift, are the Ranfome and Pricethatfatisfieththcjufticeof Gnd for our fins, and accordingly muft be apprehended by the Believer; And many of us agree alfo, that his Active obedience as fuch> is part of this fa-tisfaction, or at leaft, Meritorious of the fame effect of our Juftification. But the thing that 1 am to prove,is, that the Meritorious Caufe is not the only Caufe and that Chrift in his other actions Js as truly the efficient Caufe,as in his meriting, and that all do fweetly and harraonioufly concur to the entire effect; and that faith muft haverefpect to the other caufes of our Juftifif cation,and not alone to the M eritorious Caufe, and that we are Juftified by this entire work of Faith and not only by that Act which refpects the fatisfaction or merit. And fit ft, I (hail p rove that Chrift doth actually jurtifie us as King. The word Juftificauon^ as I have often faid ( and its paft doubt) is ufed to fignifie thefe three Acts. Firft, Condonation, or con-ftitutive Juftification, by the Law of Grace or Promife of the Gofpel. Secondly , Abfolution by fentence in Judgement* Thirdly, The Execution of the former, by actuall Liberation from penalty. The laftisoftenercall'dRemiftionof fin ; the two former arc more properly called Juftification. J Firft, As for the firft of thefe, J argue this: If Chrift do as King, and benefactor, (on fuppofition of his antecedent Merits,) Enact the Law of Grace or promife by which we are juftified , then doth he as-King and Benefactor juftifie us by Condonation.

On, or conftitution. For the Proraife is his Inftruroent by which he doth it. But the Antecedent is certain, therefore iois the Confequent.

As the Father by Right of Creation was Rector of the new created world, andfo made the Covenant of Life that was then made : fo the Son ( and the Father ; by Right of Redemption is Rector of the new Redeemed world, ana'fo made the Lawtf Grace, that gives Chrid and Lift to all cha^c will believe. As it is a Law, it is the Act of a Kirlg : As it is a Deed of Gift, it is the Act of a Benefactor s as it is founded in his death.and feppofeth his facisfadion,thereby it is catted his Teft ament. In no refpect is it part of his fatisfaction or Humiliation or Merit itfrlf,but the true effect of ir.So that Chrifts'merit is the Remote Moral Caufe of our Juftirlcation, but his granting of this promise or A& of Grace,* is the true natural efficient Instrumental Caufe of out Juftirlcation , even the Immediate Caufe.

Secondly, Jufttficrttofiby fentenceof Judgement is undeniably by Chrift as King: For God hath appointed to Judge the World by him, Aft.17.ji. and hath committed all Judgement :o him John 5. 22. And therefore as Judge he doth juftifie and Condemn. This is nor therefore any part of his Humiliation or Obedience , by which he ranfomethfinners from the Curfe. To deny thefe things, is to deny Principles in Politicks.

Thirdly, And then for the Execution of the fentence by a&ual liberation, there is as little room for a doubt, this being after both the former, and the aft of a Re&or, and not of a Surety in the form of a fervanr. So that it is apparent, that as trie Merit of our Juftirlcation is by Cnnttin his Humiliation y So our a&ual juftirlcation in all three fenfesis by Chrift as King.

And therefore Faith in order to Juftirlcation, muft accordingly refpect him.

Secondly,As theTeactler oftheCburch,Chrift dothnot immediately juftifie, but yet mediately hedoth 5 and it is but mediately that he juftifieth by his Merits. The Gofpel is a Law that muft be promulgate and expounded, and a Doctrine that muft be taught and preffed on finners, till they seceive it and believe,

E that

C*<J)

that they may be juftified.- And this Chrift doth as the Teacher of his Church. And Faith muft accordingly refpect him.

Thirdry,TheRcfurreftionof Jefus Chrift was part of his exaltation by Power andConqueft, and not of ht$ Humiliation-and yet we are juftified by his Refurreclion, as that which both (hewed the perfection of his fatisfa&ion, & by which he entred upon that ftate of Glory,in which he was to apply the benefits. Fourthly, The Interccffion of Chrift is a part of his office, ts he is a Prieft forever after the order of LMelchUedeck^i but ic is no part of his Humiliation or Ranfome. And yet we are juftified by his Interceffion: And therefore Faith muft refpes it for Juftification.

Let us now hear what The Scripture faith inthefe cafes, Mattthe^9.6. [Tint that you may knW that the Son ofman bath PoWer on earth to forgtve fins, &c. ] Here it is plainly made an Ad ofPower>andnotof Humiliations forgive fins. Mat. 11.27*28,29. *AU things are delivered unto me of my Father ,&c. fometo me a ^) e ***** **' wmtj, &c fo Mat; %%. 18,19. compared with Markj6. 15,16. (hew that it is an acl: of Chrift exalted or in Power, to pardon, or grant the promife of Grace.

John 1 • 12. To give power to men to become the Sons of Qod^ mufl be an aft of Tower. John 5.22,23,24' it is exprefs of the fentence. *ARs 5.31 .£Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savi-wr, for to give Repentance to Ifraelaud forgivenefs of fins. ] He forgiveth as a Prince and Saviour.

*AEl. 10,42,43. he is preached as the fudge of quick and dead t and fo made the Object of the faith, by which we have Remiffion of fins.

Rom. 4.25. £ Who wo* delivered for our offences, andraifedfor cur faftification.] And this Refurreclion (as is faid)was part of his Exaltation. And the Apoftle thence concludes fas is aforefaid) that this is the faith that is Imputed to us for Righteoufnefs \Jf we believe in him that raifed up Jcftu our Lord from the dead^ verf;26..

torn.8.33 >3 4. XjPho fhalllay anything to the charge of Godt Hfiff?, UuQcdibat jfiftifieth: wh&ti he thatcondemnetb ? it it

Chrift

C*7)

Chrift that He A, yea rather that is rifen again , who u even at the r ight band of god , t? he alfo makfith inter ceffion for us. J Here Cjod^ and the Re fur re tit on, and SeJJion at gods t ight hand , and the interceffion of Chrift, are all made the grounds or caufcs of our Juftification, and not only Chrifts death ; Yea, it is expieft by Q it id Chrift ihat died,yea rather that is rifinfiiC.']

i £V. 15.1,2 3,4. The faith by which Paul tells them they were faved, had Chrifts Refurredion for its obj\&, as well as his dying for our fins.

?hd^. 8.9,10. /W/way of Juftification was firft to [win Chrift, and be fund in km ] and fo to have a Rigkteou[nefs of God by faith in Chrift ( whole Chnft, ) and not that of the Lay? : that he m ght know the power of his Refitrreflion&c.

The true Nature of this faith is defcribcd, iPcM.21. [Who by him o\o believe in God that raifed kirn from the dead 9 and gave him Glory % that your Faith and Hope may be in God.']

I Pet.$ .11. £ The like Figure whereunto even 'Baptifm r doth

now mifo fitve u*~ by the Rejurrtftion of Jefus Chrift , who is

gone tnto Heaven\ and is on the right hand of God; Angels and Aw thoritiesy and Tower)\ beirg Made fubjeB to km.}' J t is certain that the falvation of Tlaptifm confifteth very much in Remiflion of fin or Juftifitation.

In a word, it is rooft evident in Scripture, that merit and fattf-fa&ion are but the moral, remote preparatory Caufes of our Ju-ftificawon (though exceeding eminent, and muft be the daily ftudy,and everlafting praifeof the Saints ) and that the perfecting nearer efficient caufes, were by other acls of Chtift; and that all concurred to accomplish this work. And therefore even ex parte ( krifti j the work is done by his feveral ads, though merited by him in his humiliation only. And therefore it s paft doubt on their own principles, that faith muft refpeft a#,in order to our Juftification- And the faith by which we arc jnft'-ried muft be that of the Eunuch, Atts 8.37. that believed y*-tba'l his heart that Chrift was eke [on ofGod t and fo received him a< f hriftennrelv.

Argument 5. If it be a necefTary Condition of out tiing IdftiKtd {or the Bemiffion of fin , char we profefs a belief in more then Chrifts Humiliation and merits chen is it a neceffary Condi-

£ 2 tioo

(i8)

tion of our aUual Kewiffun offin , that we re Ally believe in more than Chrifts Humiliation and Merits : But the Antecedent is ccrtain.For thePrefcript,Af*;.28.19,20,and theconftandy ufed formof Baptifm, and the Texts even now mentioned, 1 Tet^. 21. J£t.%.$7>do all (hew it: And I have more fully proved it in my Difpute of Right to Sacraments. And the Confequence is undeniable: And l think all will be granted.

Argument 6. If the Apoftles of Chrift themfelves before bis death, were juftified by believing in him as the fon of Cod, an-the Teacher and King of the Church, ("yea perhaps without bed lieving at all in his Death and Ranfom thereby) then the believing in him as the fon of God, and Teacher and King, con-jun& with believing in bis blood, are the faith by which we arc now juftified. But the Antecedent is true : therefore fo is the Consequent.

The reafon of the Confequence is, becaufe it is utterly im-probable that the addition of further light and objects for pur faith, fhould null the former, and that which was all or fo much of their juftifying faith, fhould be now no part of ours.

The Antecedent I prove, CMatt h. 16.21.22,23. [ From that time forth began fefusto fhtw unto his 'Difciples, how that he muftgo unto Jerufalem, and fuffer many things of the Elders and chief Prlefts and Scribes, and be kjlled t and be raifedagain the third day : then Peter took, him and began bo rebukjth'm* faying, He it

far fnom thee Lord, this (hallnot be unto thee ] &c. John 12.

16: 1 : hefe thfngs wider/load not his Difciples at the firjl j bat when fefus was glorified^ thenficc* Luke 28. [ Then he toof^ unto him the twelve, and faid unto them ; Heboid, we go up to Jerufalem, and all things^ that are 'Writtenby the Prophets concerning the fon ofm*n>'/haUbe accomplifhed : For he [ball be delivered to the G entiles r and (hall be mocked andjpitefully intreated andjpit upon, and they /hall fcourgehimmd put him to death, and the third day he fhall rife again - And they under flood none ofthefe things ; and this faying was hti [rem them, neither knew the] the things which Were fpoken^]

Luke 24.20,21,22. [Thechief Triefts ana* Rulers delivered aim to be condemned to death,and have crucified him ; but We trssft* id thit it had been he which fhould have redeemed Ifrael : and be •

fide

(*9)

/idt all this to day is the third day fine t theft thing! were done • and certain women alfo of our company made us afton (hed which ftert

early At the Stpulchrt O fools andfioW of heart to believe all

that the Trophets have fpolejn ! Ought not Chrift to havefuffered tbefe things, and to enter into hu Glory ? verf. 45. Then opened he their under ft anding that they might under{land the Scripture.^

John 20.9. [For as yet they kr.ew not the Scripturt that hemuft rife again from the dead.} By all this it is plain that the Difciples then believed not Chrifts death or Refurretticn.

Yet that they were juftified, is apparent in many Texts of Scripture,where Chrift pronounccth theme/MH by the word which kehad fpokenjohn 1 5.5. and oft called them bitfed, Mar. 5. & 16.17. Lu\e 6. And he faith that the Father loved them : John 16.27. They were branchs in him the living Vine-, iWexhorted to abide in him, John 15.5,6,7. — And that they were Believers is oft expreft , and particularly that they Believed in him as the fon of God, and trufted it was he that fhould redeem Ifrael : that is by Power, and not by Death : and that they took him for their UMafter and Teacher ,and the King of Ifrael; fome of them defiring to Jit at his right and left hand in his Kingdom, and ftrjving who fhould be the grcattft about him, John. 16.27. Tht Father h'mfelf loveth joufbecaufc ye havtlovtdmt, and have believed that 1 came out from God.] John 1.49. [ Nathaniel an* ftoered and faith untohim, Rabbi, thou art the fon of god : thou art tht King oflfraeQ Here was the faving faith of the Difciples, Matth. 16.16. Simon Peter anfwered and faid , Thou art Chrift , the fon of the living God. ]

Objcd. Bat was it pojfible for them to be juftifitd without tht blood of Chrift ?

esinfw. Nt>: as to the Fathers acceptance, his blood even then before it wasfhed, was the meritorious caufe of their Jufti-fication : But they were juftified by it, without the knowledge or belief of it, thought not without faith in Chrift as the fon of God, the Mefllah, the Rabbi ♦ and the King of Ifraeh Which alfo (hews that faith did not then juftifie them in the new Notion of an Inftrumehtal caufe apprehending the purchasing caufe ; or that the effeds of Chrifts feveral ads were not diverfifyed according to the feverd ads of faith to thofe as Objeds.

(3°)

I hope all that have Chriftian Ingenuity will here uodcrftan^ that I fpeak not this in the leaftmcafure to diminifh the excellency or necefiity of that ad: of faith which confifteth in the believing on Chrift as crucified, or in his blood and Ranfom I Or that I think it lefs neceflary then the other to us now, becaufe the D»fciples then were juftified without it. I know the cafe is much altered ^ and that is now of necefiity to J uftifkation that was not then. But all that I endeavour is, to (hew that we are juftificd by the other aftsof faith, as well as this,becaufc it is not likely that ihofe ads fhould not be now ju Hfving, in conjun&i-on with this , by which men were then juftified Without this.

Argunent 7. )( the fat sra&ton ami merits of Chrift be the onlyObjectsof the fiftifying a of alth, then (accordingto their own principle*) they mutt on the fame reafon, be -he only obiectsof the fan&tfy ng and faving ads of faith. But the fa-tisfaction and merit of Chn r are not the only Objects of the fanctifying and faving acts of faith: therefore not of the jufti-

fyiag-

To this Mr. #/^anfwererb, by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit; and four terms in he Syllogifm (asm other terms I had cxprtjflld it.; And faith Q (retooka* Chnji for /*-ftifiration 06 fati jying Ihft>ce, and meriting p* Amund remiffion % not 4S meriting fanttification. ^ Repl. But this is his mif under* Sanding of plain words I he term £ CMeritor ' was not equivocal, but the General comprehending both effects.- And thai which he nakedly affirms, is the thing which the Argument makes againft. Here it is fupp fed as a granted truth, that wc can be no more fa notified, then juftified without Chrifts blood and merits : and io the fcopeof the Argument is this Chrift as a Ranfom and a Meritor of fanctification.is not the only object of the fanctifying act of faith: therefore by parity of Reafon, Chrift as 1 Ranfom and Meritor of Juft fication.-s not the only object of the juftifying act of faith. The Antecedent of this Enthymeme or the Miner of the Argument thus explained^ not denied by them. They confefs that faith for fan# fixation doth receive Chrift himfelf not only as the Mtricor of it, but as Teacher Lord, King Head, Husband; and doth apply his parti. caiar profiles. But the meriting fanctification by his Blood

and

GO

and Obedience, is no part of Chrifts Kingly or Prophetical Office, buc belongs to his Priefthood , as well as the meriting of juftification doih. For Chrifts focririce layes the general Ground-work of all the following benefits, both Juftirication, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification: buc it doth immediately effect or confer none of them all • but there are appointed wayes for the collation of each one of them after the Purchafe orRanfom. So that if the apprehending of the Ranfom which is the general Ground do only juftifie; then the apprehending of the fame R^nfora as meriting fanctirlcation,(hould only fan&ify. And neither the juftifying nor fanctifyiqg acts of faith fhould refpea either Chrifts following acts of his Priefthood, (Inter-ceffion ) nor yet his Kingly or Prophetical office at all. And therefore as the fanctifying act muft refpecc Chrifts following applicatory acts, and not the purchafe of fanctificationonly • fo the juftifying act (to fpeak as they ) muft refpect Chrift> following Collation or application, and not only his Purchafe of Juftification. And then I have that I plead for : becaufe Chrift effectively juftifles as King.

Argument 8. It is the fame faith in Habit and A& by which we are Jufttfied, and by which we have right to the fpi-rit of fanftification ( for further degrees J and Adoption, Glorification, &c* But it is befieving in Chriftas Prophet, Prieft and King,by which we have Right to the fpiric of fan&ification, to Adoption and Glorification: Therefore it is the believing in Chriftas Prophet, Prieft and King, by which we are juftifi-cd.

The r JMinor I feppofe will no? bedenyed; lam fure it is commonly granted- The M*pr I prove thus.

If the true Chriftian faith be bu:onein eflence,andone undivided Condition of all thefe benefits of the Covenant, then it is the fame by which we are juftified, and have Right to the other benefits (that is, they are givt us on that one undivided ConditionJBut the Antecedent is true:;;? I prove by parts thus.

Firft. That it is but one in effence. I think will not be denied; If it be,I prove, it, firft, from Eftoe* 4- jf» Thtre vane faith.

Secondly, If Chrift in the Effemials of a Saviour to bebe^ Hevedin, be but 0»* v then the fauh that receiveth him, can be

buc

CjO

but One: But the former is true: Therefore fo is the later. Thirdly, If the belief in Chrift as Prophet, asPrieft,and as King, be but feveral EfTential parts of the Chrfflian faith, and not Feveral forts of faith, and no one of them is the true Chri-ftian faith it felf alone ( no more then a Head or a Heart is a humane body, ) then true faith is bnt ont ( confiifting of its effericial parts J Bat the Antecedent is undoubted, therefore ft) fstheConfequent.

Secondly, And as Faith in EfTence is but One faith, fo this One faith is bat One undivided Condition of the Covenant of Grace, and it is nor one pa«c of faith that is the Condition of one benefit, and another part of another, and fothe feveral benefits given on feveral ads of fair h, as feveral conditions of them : but the entire faith in its EfTentialsis the condition of each benefit: and therefore every eflentiai partis as well the Condition of one promi fed benefit, as of another. This I prove: Firft, In that Scripture doch nowhere thus divide , and make one part of faith the condition of Juftification,and another of Adoption, and another of Glorification $ &c> and therefore it is not to be done. No m?*n can give theleaft proof of fuch a thing from Scripture. It is before proved that its one entire faith that is the Condition. Till they that divide or multiply conditions according to rhe feveral benefits and ads of Faith, can prove their divifien from Scripture, they do nothing.

Secondly, we find in Scripture not only Believing in fbrifl made the One Condition of all benefits : but the fame particular a&s or parts of this* faith, having feveral forts of benefits afcribed to them (though doubtlefs but as parts of the whole conditions. ) Its eafie, bun needlefs to ftay to inltance.

Thirdly, Otherwife it would follow by parity of reafon,that there muft as many Conditions of the Covenant'as there be be* nefVs to be received by it, to be refpecled by our faith : which would be apparently abfurd. Firft, Becaufe of the number of Conditions.Secondly, iecaufe of the cjuality of rnem.Forthen not onry Juftirlca'ion muft have one condition^ Adopcidn another and Sanfttfka: : on another, and Glorification another,and Comfort and Peace of Ccnfcience another j but perhaps feveral

graces

Cfl)

graces muft havefeveral conditions, and thefeveral bfeflings for our prefent life and Relations and Callings, and fo how many forts of Faith (hould we have aswelUs jufiifying faith ? even one faith Adopting, another Glorifying &c.

And (as to tbequality)itisagroundie s conceit that the belief or Acceptance or every particular inrenourmerc^ (houla be our title to that particular mercy : For chcn the covetous would have tide to their Riches, becaufe they aice t them as irom Chrift,and the natural man would have this titlesohts hejltb, and l'fe, and fo of the reft : wberrasitis char that it is faith in thrift as Chrift, as God and man, King Prieft ar.d Prophet, that is the coidrionof our Title, eve t to health, and life, and every bit of b eid fo far as we have it as heirs of the Promsfe.

T k pro mi ft i<th\: / i hi*gs Jhall W«r£ together for gooJ (not to \€r>'rt that is wiling-." have the benefit, but) u them that lewQcd RofD.S.28. '/ wt fee^ : rft thi K %dtm </ Cod emttk R gbieevO-efs, ( r.ot righteoufrjef pardon

aline ) other iiingt Jbtllbt* ldtd % Ma

Fourthly, If the Receiving of Ch> it as Que ft, c(l>ntially,kc that upon which we h.» ve title to his bq c Bcs then there are not feveral acr« of faith receiving thofc feveial benefits, neceflary as the condition of our Title to them. But the Antecedent « true : as I prove thus.

The Title to Chrift himfelf included)* title to all thefe benefits (that are made over to the heirs of Promife: ) But on oar acceptance of Chrift we have title to Chrift himfelf : therefore upon our acceptance of Chrift(as the fimplc condition)we have title to all thefe benefks.

Jfa*».8,32, £ He that (pared net hU own fon^ but gave him up for U4 al/ 9 h$w fb&llbe not with him a!fo freelj give us a/l things ? ! fo that dU things arc given in the gift of Chrift, or with him* Th erefore Receiving him is the means of Receiving aff.

I John 5,11 $ i 2. £ God hath given us eternal I fe,and this lift U in his fon . He that hath the fon hath life ; una ht that hath not the fon hath not life.] So that accepring Chrift as Chrift, makes him ours ( by way of condition;) and then our life ot Juriifica-tion and fan&ificationisinhirn and come* with him ¥ . faming to Ckrifl as Chrift, is the fole undivided condition

of 'Life\ John 5.40. Te Vfiiilnot come to me that ye may hive

Yet here I muft crave that Ingenuou? dealing of the Reader, that he will o fe;ve ( once for all, and not expect that I fhould on every call recite it ) that though I maintain the unity of the condition, no: only in onpofition to a feptrating divifion , but alfo to a diftribativediviflon of Conditionsjyet I ftiil maintain thefe three tiungf. Firft that quoad materi de Co*,d^l>nis % that faith which is tbecondition,doth believe all the efTenti^l parts of Chrifts office diftwtllj ; and fo it dorh not look to his Ex Itati -en in ftead of his Humitittion ; nor e Contra ; bu f looks to be Rtnfomed by him as a facrifi:e. ?nd metitoriouflf jufitfiei by his Merit s y and *£?*•*/// juftified by him as Ki*g y judge , ard B»e~ f^Uor\ &c And chat it eyeth alio d'>(lUBly tbofe Benefits which falvation doth ef ntially confi • in (at leaft.) And it takes Chrife finally to Juftitie, Adopt, San&ifie, Glorifie, &c. difiinttlj* But (till its but one condition on which we have Title to all this.

Secondly, That T maintain that in the Realwor}^ of fanflifi-catio» 9 the feveral ads of faith on feveral objects arediftinct efficient caufes of the actmgof feveral Graces in the foul. The Belief of every attribute of God, and every Scripture truth, hath a feveral real effect upon us; But it is not fo in Juftificati-on, nor any receiving of Right to a benefit by Divine Donation^ for there our faith is not a true efficient caufe, but a Condition : and faith as a condition is but One, though the efficient acls are divert The Belief of feveral Texts of Scripture, may have as many fanctifying effects on the foul; But thofeare not feveral conditions of our Title thereto. God faith not Iwill excite this Grace if thou wilt believe this Text, and that grace if thou wilt believe that Text.In the exercife of Grace God workethby ourfelvesas efficient caufes; but in the Juftifying of a (inner, God doth it wholly and immediately himfelf without any Co-efficiency of our own, though we muft have the difpofition or Condition,

Thirdiy, I ftill affirm, that this One undivided condition may Jhave divers appellations from the Refpe^ to the Confequent benefits ( for I will not call them the tffeftr 5 ) This one faith may

be

CW

be denominated ( importing only tbe Intereft of a condition ) ^jaftifyhg faitb, ifttftifjing Faith, an -AActing faith, ifaving faith, prefervixg faith, &c. Bat this is only, if not by extrin-fick denomination, at the moft but a Virtual or Relative 6U ftindion • As the fame Center may have divers denominations from the feveral lines that meet in it: Or the fame PiMaror Rock maybeEaft, Weft,North, or South, ad Uvam, vtl ad dextram , in refped to feveral other Correlates : Or ( plainly^ as one and the fame Antecedent, hath divers denominations from feveral Qcnftqutnts. So if you could give me health, wealth, Honor, Comfort, &c. on the condition that I would but fay One word [I tbanl^you*. ] that one word, might be denominated an enriching word,an honouring word, a comforting word ftom the feveral Confequenrs. And fo may faith. But this makes neither the Materialt, nor the Formale of the Condition co be divers: either the faith it felf, or condition of the Promife.

Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general, and of Gods impofed Condition in fpecr-cial, enough to perfwadeus that the benefit dependeth ufually as much or more on fome other ad, as on that which accepteth the benefit it felf: then we have reafon to judge thar our Jufti-fication dependeth as much on fome other ad, as on the acceptance of Justification 5 but the Antecedent is true, as I prove ; Firft, As to Covenant Condition in general, itismoftufual to make the promife confift of fomwhat which the party is willing of, and the condition to confift of fomewhat which the Promifer will have; but the Receiver hath more nc d to be drawn to. And therefore it is that the Accepting of the benefit promifed is feldome, if ever, exprefly made the Condition ( though implicitly it be part • jbecaufe it is fuppofed that the party is willing of it. But that is made the exprefs condition., where the party is moft unwilling: So when a Rebel hath a pardon granted on condition he come in, and lay down arms , it is fuppofed that he muft humbly and thankfully accept the pardon ; and his returning to his allegiance , is as ?ruly the condition of his-pardon, as the putting forth his hand and taking it is. If a Prince do offer hirafeif in maraiagc to the poorclt Beg-

F 2 gar,

gar, and confequemly offer Riches and Honors with himfelf, the accepting of his perfon is the expreffed condition, more then the accepting of the riches and honors ; and the latter dc-pendeth on.thc former. If a Father give his fon a purfe of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him, or ask himfor-givenefsof forae fault; here his kneeling down and asking him forgivenefs, doth more to the procurement of the gold, then putting forth his hand and taking it.

Secondly, And as for Gods Covenants fpecU^xt is moft certain, that God is his own end, and made and doth all things for himfelf. And therefore it were blafphemy to fay that the Covenant of Grace were fo free astorefpedrwaiw wants only, and not Gods Honor and Ends, yea or man before God. And therefore nothing is more certain then that both as tothe ends, and mode of the Covenant, it principally refpe&eth the Honor of God. And this is it that man is moft backward to, though mpft obl;ged to. And therefore its apparent that this mull: be part, yea the principal part oFthe condition. Every man would have pardon and be faved from he!l : God hath promifed this which you would have ,on condition you will yield to that which naturally you VtonU not have. YouWottldhave Happinefs; but God Will have his preeminence j and therefore you Jball have no Happinefs but in him. You would have pardon : but God trill have fubjeftion, and Chrift will have zbe honour of being the bountifull procurer of it, and willbt your lord, and Teacher, and San&ifier as well as Ranfom: If you will yield to one, you (hall have the other. So that your Juftification dependeth as much on your Taking Chrift for your Lord and Matter, as on your receiving Justification or confenting co be pardoned by him. Yea the very mode of your acceptance of Chrift himfelf and the beneHcsoffered you, ( thatyou take them thankfully, Iovingly,humb!y, renouncing your own worth, &c*) arcner ceffary pares of the condition of your pardon. There is as great aNeceffity laid upon that pajt of the Condition which Chrift* honour I eth on , and that in order ta your Juftification, as of that part which dire&ly refpe&eth your Salvation. And me thinks common reafonand ingenuity fluuld tell you that it rr.uft !beft>> and that its iuft and meet it (hould be f% And therefore

I may fafely conclude * * ttatur* rei , that the taWngof Chrit for our Teacher and Lord, is as truly a part of the condit on of our Juftification, and our 1 unification lieth as much upon it, as the Affiance in Cbrifts furTcrings.

Jf you fay, Q "But the efficiency Is mt tqtialjhougU it be equally a Condttim ] I anfwer; Neither of then* have any proper efficiency in juftifying us uniefs you will unfitly ca'l the Condith-nalny an Efficiency pt the Acceptablenefs of believing in the fight of God, an efficiency there is no fuch thing to be afcribed to our faith as to the cried of Juftification.But this belongs to another Controverfie.

I know not what can be faid more againft this, uniefs by the Antinomiws who deny the covenant of Grace to have any prosper Condition, bu" only a priority and pofteriqrfty of Duties. Bu* the exprefs conditional terms of the Covenant do put this fo far out of doubt, and I have faid fo much of it in other writings, thit I (hall not trouble my fc!f here with this fort of Ad-verfaries: Only to prevent their miftake, I (hall tell rhem this: that in a condition there is fomewhat Effentia/^nd that is found in the conditions of Gods Promife; and therefore they are pro-per.conditions: and there is fomewhat tsfcctiental •. asFirft, fometime that the thing be Vncertain to the Promifer: This is not in Gods Conditions : It is enough that in their own nature the things be contingent. Secondly, That the matter of the condition be fomewhat that is gainfull to the Prornifer,or other-wile have a merit, or moral caufalicy : But this is feparable : In out cafe it is fufficient that it be fomewhat that God hketh tivetb, or is pleafing to him, though it properly merit not.

And the evident Reafon why God hath made fome Prcmifes conditional, is,that his Laws and Prtmifes 'may be perfectly fuit-ed to the nature of man on whom they muft work, and fo may (hew forth Godslnfinite Wifdom, and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends: and man mav be drawn to that which he is backward to f by the help of that which he is naturally more forward to, or by the fear of that evil which naturally bedoth abhor : As alio that the Holinefs of God may fhine forth in his Word j and it may be feen that he lovech Juftice, Holinefs, Obedience, and not only the perfonsof men : and fo

F .3 all ,i

m

(38)

"nil his Attributes may be feen in their conjun&Lon and the beauty that thence refulteth in the Glafs of his Word,

Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are jultifud, be the Not-be-believing in Chrift asKing,Prieft and Prophet, than the faith by which we arc juftified, is the believing in him as King, Prieft and Prophet. But the Antecedent is true : therefore fo is the Con-fequent.

Only the Antecedent needs proof, though the Confequence have the hard hap to be denyed alfo.

Here note, that by The condemning Vnbelhf, I mean \ hat which is the peremptory-condemning fin according to the fpe-cial Commination of the Gofpel: Where I fuppofe firft, that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works, which is (Imply for fin as fin.Secondly, And a diftinft condemnation by the New Law of Grace,which is not fimply for (in as fin,but for one fort of fin in fpecial,that is,the final rejection of the Remedy : And of this fort of condemnation I fpeak in the Argu* ment. The confirmation of this diftindion Khali* be further called to anon b; Mr. Blake.

The Antecedent 1 prove. Firft, from John 3. 18,19.20,21. £ He that belteveth on him u not condemned 5 (T here 3 s the justifying faith: ) But he that belteveth not , u condemned already^ (Theres the condemning unbcliefjContradidory to the juttfying faith ) [Btcanfe he hath net believed in (he name of the only begot' ten Son of god: ] (here is a fpecial condemnation proved, diftin&from that by the Law of works. ) £ And this i; the condemnation (\\\1X is the condemning fin or taufe) that light is come into the World, and men loved darky eft rather then light, be-caufethtir deedtivere evil] For every one that doth evil hatetb the light, &c. The ioverfedefcribeth the Condemning unbelief, and the 20.gives the reafon of mens guiltinefs of ir. And the unbelief defenbed is a (hunning or not coming to Chrift as he is the Light to difcover and heal their evil deeds.So that if contradictories will but (hew the nature of each other, I think our controverfie is here plainly refolved.

So is it in Pfal 2.12. [ Kife the Son left he be angry, and je ferijbfrom the Way 5 when hh Wrath is kindled but a lhth> blefed

are

Cjp)

are allthej that put their trufi in him. J The faith that faves from punifhmenr, faverh from C-uilt : The fai-th that faves from Maik, is jafttfytrjg faich : The faith here defcnbed , is that which faves from pumfhment: And the faith here dcfcritad is C ktfjing the Son, ] which comprehendeth fubjc&ion. and depen-dance, and love; and is the fame for all that, which is after called [_ trufting :n him* ]

So Luke 19. 17. [_ But thrfe mine enemie* which would nop th&t I fcozldr aign over them, bring hither . ard dsfhoy th>"n before me. 1 Unwiliingnefs to have Chnft raign over them, is here made ( not a common, bur ) the fp cial condemning (in,, called commonly Unbelief j and fo is the contrary to justifying faith.

So fohn 3,36. [" He that beleveth on the Son, ( this as all confei*, is Jaftifi ing faith ) hath everlajling life : aid he that be-lieveth not the Son, Jball not fee life, but the wrath of God abid-tthon him. "\ Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the privation, the contradiftory or contiary to juftifying faith.Firft, becaufe they are fo directlyoppofed here dcnominatively, that elfe the words would be equivocal,an 1 not intelligible.Secondly, Becaufe the contrariety of cflrV&s alfo is added to put the thing paft doubt. Q The Wrath of God abideth on lim "| is contrary to pftifying, which takes *he wrath of God off him ; efpeciaily confidering,that it is curfing, comminatory, obliging wrath that is principally meant,* the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation.

And that materially this unbelief thus oppofed to juftifying faith doth coniift in contumacy„ rebellion,or unperfwadablenefs, is plain in the words, [_ l 3 ****&* rd via. ] which ilgnifie T They that are contumacious or dtfobedient to the Son, or unper-fftadtble. ]

And 1 fohn 5. 10.11,12. This faith and unbelief are oppofed; and the unbelief confiftcth in [ not believing the record that God h*th given of his Son ] and that record is not only concerning Juftification, or the merit of it.

So 2. Thtf. 2. 12. F That all they might be damned, Vtho believed not the ttmh % but had pleafure in unrighteoufnefs. ~] So 2 Jheff.i .8,9, 10, [. That obey not the Gofpel of our Lordjefus

Chrifi]

(+<0

Chrifi 3 is the defcription of the V nbelitvers >o$$okd to [tkem that believe, jycr, 10.

So fo. 8.24. [If ye believe not that T am foje flail die in jour ^«/,]which as to the act and effect is contrary to justifying taith. And T that I am he ] is not only [_ that I am the Ranfome J But alfo £ that 1 am the 'Jtfejfiab and Redeemer.*]

So John itf.8|9. Q He Willi reprove the world of fin.- *

( not only in general that the^ are ilnners, buc of this fin in jpecie) becauje they beheved tm in n-e.]

Many texts may be cited where juftifying faith and condemning unbelief are defcribed from acts or the under ft anding ( though the will be implyed ) as believing^or not beliex i»g that Chrifi i6 the [on ofQod&c. which cannot poffibly be reftrained to his Ranfom and Merit alone.

The Confequencc cannot be denyed, if it be but underftood that this unbelief doth thus fpeciaUj condemn, not in general as fin, or by the meer greatnefs of it, but as the privation of that faith by which only men are juftified. For Privatives (hew what the Positives are. And if this unbelief did condemn only as a fin in general then all fin would condemn as it doth : but that is falfe. And if it condemned only as a great fin, then firft, every (in as great would condemn asitdotb; and fecundly, it would be Derogatory to the precioufnefs and power of the Remedy, which is fufficient againft the greateft fins, as great; It remains therefore that as ir is not for the fpecial worth of faith above all other Graces, that God afiigncd it to be the condition of Juftifi-cation- fo it is not for a fpecial greatnefs in the fin of unbelief that it is the fpecially condemning fin , but as it is the Privation of that faith ( which Jbecaufe 'of itsj peculiar aptitude to that Office, is made of fuch ncceflry to our Juftification.

But faith Mr, Blake £ " This u Hkf the old Argument ; Evil " work* merit condemnation : therefore good Works merit'fa Jvati-*' on. An ill meaning damns our good meanings therefore faves."^

Repi Firft, A palpable miOake. Meriting, and faving by merit, arc effects or efficiencies,fo plainly feparable from the things themfelvcs, that the invalidity of the Confequence eafiiy appears: But in good fadnefs, did you believe when you wrote this, that he that argueth from the defcription or nature of a privation,

(+1)

vation,toctiedefcription or nature of the thing,ofwhfch it is the Privation, or that argueth from the Law of oppofires and con-rradidions,doth argue 1 kc him that argues from the moral fepa. rable efficiency, or efTed of the one, to the like efficiency cr effect of the other ?

Secondly.But underftand me to argue from the effed it (elf it you pleafejfo it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Covenant of od : I doubt not but the Argument will hold good.As under the Law of works it was a good argument to UyT^t-per-fefl-obeying is the condemning evil: therefore per feci-obeying is the jxftifjing coition.]So is it a good argument under the Covenant of Grace CO fay- Not-believing in Chrifl as King t Pru(l and Prophet^ is the fptcidty-condemningnnbelief^ therefore btlicvtno in: Chrifl a ' King>Prieft & Prophet,i* the faith by ^hich ire are jujli-fied^ The main force of the reafon lyeth here , becaufe elfe the Covenant were equivocating,and not Intell»gible,if when it faith \_He that believeth (bailbe(aved;anA he that believeth not (hallbe damned ] it did fpeak of one kind or ad of faith i n one Pro-pofition, and of another in the other. I f when it is faid , [ He that believeth Shall be juflifed fom all things , &C and he that believeth not (hall be co::iemned] [ if you btlieve lots /half not come int$ condemnation ; but if you believe notion are condemned^ and the K>ra>h of God abidtth on you] [_ He that beleveth /hail be forgiven, and he that believeth not /hall not be fnrgiven~] I fay % if the Affirmative and Negative Propofitions, the Proraife and the Threatning do not here foeak of the fame believing, bur divers, then there is no hope that we fhould underhand tn 3 rn,and the language would necefikate us to err. Now the ?apifts Argument abeffetlU hath no fuch bottom ; Bad works damn Jhere-fore good rrorkj fave. For the Covenant is not [ He that doth good Workj /hallbe faved , and h th it doth badno'k* jhall be condemned But b? that obejeth ~erfeBl\ fhtllbt j*(}i c iid ) a*d he that doth not {ball be condemned Or if thi'V argue from t'^e threatningoftheGofpelagatnftbad worj:s,to the merit o r r^od, quoad modnm procurandi , it will Tot hold, viz. that rfy

procure damnation by way of merit : the> efore gcoJ •t'sr^r p-o:ure falvat on t-rytay of merit. For there is note item rat..^ and fo no ground for the Confequence; Nor did 1 argue ad modrm pro-

G cur and'f^

CH)

c urandi-f\ Re)eBWg Chtift as King doth condemn by way of merit \ therefore accepting him as King doth lave by Veay of merit ]This was none of my arguing : But this £ Re jetting or not believing in Chrift as King^is part of that Vnbeliejwhich is by the La^ of grace , thrtatned with condemnation : therefore accepting or believing in Chrift At Kingjs part of that faith which hath the Promife of Juftification ] And fo if a Papift (hould argue, not ad modun* procurand'h but ad nautram aUm & effetti ; I would juftifie his Argument |~ Raigningfin, RebeUionjr the abfence of Evangelical good Vvorkj,** Threatned by theGofpel with condemnation at Judgement : therefore good worlds have the Promife of fall ation, or ju-ftifcation at Judgement^

. And that I may and muft thus underftard the Condemning Threatning,and the Juftifying promife, to fpeakof one and the fame faith, I am aflured by this: becaufe it isafual with God inferipture to imply the one in the other. As in the Law of works with perfect ma ,the promife was not expreft, but imply-ed in theThreatningQ In the d*y that thou eateft thereof^ thou Jbalt die. ] So in the Gofpel the Thrcatning is oft implyed in the promife [ H* that believeth JhaU not perijh ] When the Lord faith [ The foul that finr.eth JhaU die^ It implyech that [ the foul that fwneth not fhall not die. ] And though we cannot fay the like of the prohibition of Sating the forbidden fruit,that is, becaufe the fame Law did on the fame terms prohibite all other fin as well As it. And £ in the day that thou ftnneft, thou /halt die 3 do tn imply [_ if thou fin not^ thou fbalt not die. ] So £ he that believeth^ {hall befaved, ] doth imply, he that believeth not) /hall be condemned. And fo, If thou believe , thou Jbalt be juftified, implyeth, // thou believe not, thou JhaU not bejuftified. If you confent not to this, you then muftmaintain that this Covenant excludeth not Infidels from falvation,thc term only being not implyed in the promife of pardon to Believers : But if you grant all this, ( as fure you will ) then it is moft evident that Believing is taken in the fame fenfe in the promife, and in the tbreatning: For no man breathing can tell me, either how a Promife to one kind of faith, can imply a tbreatning againft the want of another kind or ad ofiaith ; or elfe what that other faith muft be that is fo implyed, if not the fame. And

C+3)

if h be the fame faith that is implyed (vthich is a mod evident truth ) then it w.ll follow that if I prove the Threatned unbelief co be a Rejecting of Chrift as King the faith then that is made the condition of the promifc,mult be the accepting ©f him as King as well as fried. But 1 have proved that not believing in Chrift as King, is part of the unbelief that is fpecial. ly threatned weith condemnation • therefore believing in hinv asKmg is part of that faith which hath the promife, or is the Condition of Juftification.

But faith Mr. ??>' <l% [ f further anfvotr , RejeBin^ Chrift as Kt»g* is aft* a g** 'ft the moral Law, wkkh damns : Tetfome-rrhzt more then fubjeBim to the floral Law is required that a [inner m*J be f*ved 3

Repl. For my part, I know no Law but moral Law. Its aftrange Law that is not Moral, as it is a ftrange csftimaithzt is not ej*id Phyftcum. But yet I partly underftand what fome othersmeanby thephrafe. CMoral L ^ •, bnt what you mean I cannot tell, for ail your two volumns. And its to fmall purpofe to difpute upon terms whofe fenfe we be not agreed in, nor do not underftand one another in: And you muft better agree withy ourfelves before you agree with me: 1 eannot reconcile thefefpeeehes. Mr. Blake of the C I kpoto no other Rule bnt the old Rule:

Covenant, fag. < the Rule of the Moral LcCto\ that is with

III. d mea Rule,a f erf ell Rule\ani the only Rule*

Mr. Blake here. C Tet fonefthat more then fubjettion to the

pag. 565. <^ Moral Lave is required) thatafcnner may

C kefaved.

I am confident you will aliow me to think you mean fome-wbat more ex parte noftrj, and notonJy ex pArte Ckrifti: And can that Jomewhat more be required without any Rule requiring it ? And yet I find you- fometimes feeming offended with me a for telling you 1 underftand you nor.

But I further anfwer you : The rejecting of Chrift as King, is no further afin againft the Moral Law, then the accepting him as King, is a duty of the Moral Law. Wrtl you not believe this without a Difpute, when you are told by Paul, that where iktre it no Law % then it no tranjgrejJion^nA elfewhere that fin is a

Gi tranfgrejfion

C44)

tranfgrejfion of the Law t And need not ftand to prove that the fame Law which is the Ruie prefcribing duty, is the Rule difco-vcring fin, even that fin which is the Privation of that duty. I defireno Readers that will not receive thefc things without any mere arguing.

Mr* Bia'<e adds {_'Vnbelief t ifW>efps*k p*ptrij t d°tb Yiot at *M condemn, further then as it is a breath of a Moral ommandmertt. The privation of Vebicb yon fe*k, onij holds the ftr.tence of the La^9 in force and poorer agawfl us : wheh rns thrnkj fhotsld be yen*judgement as Bellas mine k feeing you are Wont to compare the new Law ( as you cull it ) to an all of oblivion : Add an ail of

oblivion fives many^bm condemns none. — ~|

; Repl.lt i s in more then one thing I perceive that we differ. %t this is a truth that you muft not fo eafily take out of our hands. Though having had occafion to fpeak largely of it clfewhere, I (hall fay but little now.

Firft, Again, I know no Commandment that is not moral.

But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly

as delivered by Mofes, or as written in Nature ; I am not of

your mind, nor ever (hall be. To be void of the belief of

thefc Articles of the faith f that thU fefus u the Chrift, that he

Was atlually conceived by the Holy Ghoft,born of the Virgin Mary,

fuffered under Pontius Pilate, "toas crucified, dtai and buried : Rofe

again the third day, ajcended into Heaven ; fitteth in our nature at

the right hand of God ; gave the Holy ^hofi to his Apoftles to

confirm the 'Dcclrine of the Gofpel \ with many more; doth cou-

demn further then as it is a breach either of the Mofaical or

Natural Law: yea in forae rcfpe&s as it is no breach of thofe

Laws.

And yet the fame fin materially may be a breach of feverai Laws; and condemned by feverai.

Secondly you very much miftake my judgement here , if you think it the fame with yours : Nor will the mention of an aft of oblivion juftifie your miftake. I iuppofe an Aft of oblivion may poflibly have a Penalty anexed,f as, that all that ftand our, and accept not of this pardon by fuch a year or day, (ball be remedilefs, andlyable to a greater Penaity, ) And I think if no Penalty be named, there is oneimplyed.

For

C+5)

For my part, I am fatisficd that the R'medv ing Law or the Law of Grace , hath its fpenal Tbreatoir)g t ivhen i f >o<t?nread if, |_ He that believttb PjaIL be Uvtb. wd he ihit belirveth r>ot fiall be damned} and [_ unlefs ye beheue that (*mbe, jt (hull die inyourfins. ~] And I cake it to dufer from the rhreatning of the law of works, thus.

Firft, In the matter of the condition ; which is not fin in general ; any fin; butajjptiWfir), w*. the final rejecting the Remedy ; that is, Refufing to turn to G d by faiih in Chrift.

Secondly, In the Penalty: Firft, The Gofpel Penalty 9 is Non-liberation from the curfe of the Law. Not to be forgi-venor faved. This had been but aN^gation, and not. Penal, if there had been roChrftand Cofpeh But i-t is a privation and penal, now, becaufe by a fpecial fin, we forfeit our hopes and poiTib licics. Secondly, As to the degreej find it will be a far forer punifliment, Heb. 10. 29. The Law of greateft orace d»>th threaten the greatcft punilhmenr. I hirdly, And doub.kfs in Hell, Confciencewill have a fpecial kind of Accufa ions and felf tormentings, in rerle&ing on the rcfufals of the remedy, and treading under foot the blood of the new Covenant; which is a punifhmentthat was never threatned by the Covenant of works. Fourthly, And there will be a Privation of a greater Glory, then ever was promifed under the Law of works Fifthly, As alfo of a fpecial fort of eternal felicity, confiding in loving the Redeemer, and finging the fong of the Lamb, and being his members, &c.

Thirdly, And as there are thefe rive differences in the Penalty, befiiesrhnofthe Condition of it, fo is there a confidcra-ble modal difference in the confummation it felf. ttffc. that of the Law of works was not peremptory, excluding a Remedy; but the Threatning of the Law of Grace is peremptory, excluding all fur her Remedy t6 all Eternity; which I think is a moft weighty dfT.rence. I know.thisisno: mnch pertinent to our prefent ( ontrovcrfie; but you have made it neceffary for me thus to touch it : But I (hall not digrefs now to prove it to thofe that fee it not by its own light: But I muft fay, that if [ (hould be drawn by you to deny ic> I fluwid have but a

C40

Ifoange Method of Theology inmytuiderftanding, and (houid think I let open the door to more Errors then a few. So much for the proof of the Thefts. The Principal work is yet behind, which is to confute the Arguments or the Opponents. I call it the Principal work, becaufe it is incumbent on them to prove, who make the limitation and reftri&ion,and add a new propoficion to the Dodrine of the Oofpel; and till the/ have proved this propoficion, our ground is good ; we fay that Q Relieving in-tbe Lord Jeftts Cbrip ts the faith by which We art juftifitd £ and this is pad denyal in the Scriptures, They fay,that \_Beleving in him at,* R*nfom a*i <PH' chafer , or ap unbending his RigbteouJnefs.it the\ only aB of faith' by which we arejufiiHed, ] and not alfo Believing in him as Lord^ Teacher, fnterceffor,dv. When they have proved the reftri-Sion and exclufion, as well as we prove our Alfcrtion that excluded no edcntial part of faith, then the work is done, and till then they have done nothing.

And firft, before I come to their Arguments, I (hall confider of that great Diltin&ion, which containcth much of their opinion, and which is the principall Engine to deftroy all our Arguments for the contrary. And it is to this purpofe.

{^'Belemngin the Lord fefttt (thriftas King^Teacher^LC.is the cC fides quae j uftirlcat, but it juftifieth not qua talis ; but qua fides *• in Clirittum fat is facie ntem, &c. Fides qua Juftificat, rnufl be ** d.ji i guijhed from fides quae J uftificat. A man that hath eyes ** doth hear, and that hath ears doth fee $ but he beareth not as he *' hath eyes, but as he b*th ears ; and he feetb not as he hath ears± ** but as he hath eyes. So faith Vthich believeth in Chrift as King € ^doth jufttfie, but not qua talis, as it believeth in him as Kingjbut ^as it believeth in him or apprehendetb him as our Right eoufnefs.

Repl. As juft and necefTary Dirt indionriddcth us out of the frfculefs perplexity of confufed difputings; founfound Diftmcli-ons^elpecially with feeraing fubtilt^, are Engines to deceive and Head us into the dark. The laft time I anfwered this Di-Hinction, I wasTo improvident as to fay, that^t[ it is the general <?heati~} meaning no more then a Fallacy ^nd thinking the word bad fr^nified no worfe: But Mr. Blaise publiftieth this Comment QOihacfyllaMe \jsin4M itfeemsjon have met Withapac&flnt*

poflort, and that of the moft Learned in the Land, that out cf their great Condefcenfeon have writ ten for your fatisfafiion. This word you thinks founds harfblj from Mr. Crandon, as indeed it doth > and is n6 fmall blemifb to his great fains ^ yon may thin judge koVP it Kill found fromyourfelfin the ears of others.

Such infinuations.as if it were to breed diiTention between thofe Learned Brethren and my felf, are not fair dealing. FirftJ d o not remember one or two at moft of all thofe Brethren, that in their Papers to me.ufed that diftinftion / How then can you tell the world in print, that it feems I have met with a pack of Impoftors, even them you mention ? Did you ever fee my Papers,or theirs? Did they ever tell you that this diftin&i-on is in them ? I folcmnly profefs it was not in my thoughts Co much as to intimate that anyone of their Papers was guilty of thatdiftinftion. But if you will fay fo, what remedy But perhaps I intimate fo much in my words-In what words > when I fay, that[%// that I have to do with, grant the Antecedent ] and whats that to the queftion in hand?many a hundred may grant that this ad is the fides qna % that aflert not the other acl to be the fides £**, and allow not theufe of the diftin&ion which I refiftJ But perhaps its my next words that imply it£ For the general cheat it by the diftinttion. of fides qua and qua. Sec. ] But fure iC cannot be underwood,that its general with ai the world, nor general as to all that I have had to do with:There is no fuch thing faid or meant by me ; for then it muft extend to all that are of my own mind: and I told Mr. 'Blaks enough of the contrary as to theperfonshementioneth, by telling him how they owned not the Inftrumenrality of faith,and then they cannot well maintain this ufe of this diftin&ion. It is the general deceit or cheat of aM that are deceived by itjand of moft that in this point oppofeme. But if Mr. Blake think cither that all that vouch-fafe me their writings, do it by way of opposition ( when many do it but by explication and reconciliation ) or that all that op-pofe me,do oppofc me in that point,hc thinks no truer then here he writes.

Secondly. And as he feigneth me to fpeak of many reverend perfons that I never roeanr, fo he feigneth me to take them aclu-ally for Impoftors, becaufe I take the diftinction for a cheat.

But

C4*)

But is it not poffible that it may cheat or deceive themfelves, though fome never utter it to the deceiving of others ? Much lefs a3 impoftors with an intention to deceive : I would you had never learned this art of confutation.

Thirdly, But I perceive how you would take it if I had ap-plyed this to your felf. And what is this, but plainly to forbid me to difpute with you ? ( which I had never done on other terms then for Defence.) Can I not cell you that your Argument is a Fallacy, but you will thus exclaim of me 7 as making you an Impoftor ? why then if you be fo tender ,-who may deal wirh you ? On the foregrounds; if I fay that your Major or Minor is faifc, you may tell the world I make you a Lyar; and I muft either fay as you fay, or let you alone ; left by contra-diclion I make you a Lyar or an Impoftor. Prove that ever I blamed Mr. Crandon for fuch a pafTage as rhis, if you can. It isnotQ&#BW]thusapplyed,bnt other words that I excepted agaioft j I will not yet believe it all one to call an Argument or diftin&ion a cheat or fallacy % and to call the perfon a Cheater and Deceiver,, aud that defignedly.as purpofely diffem-bling his Religion.

Mr. Blakf proceeds. £ Anil match marvel that this dijlin-. * s ftion,that everywhere elfe would pajs, andbeconfeffed tube of ^necejjlty y to avoli confufionin thofe diftinft capacities in which < c men ufually aft, fbouldhere not alone be quefiiorted, but thus u branded. Does not everj man that undergoes various relations\ ** vanoufly aft according to them ? And do not men that make ad-4t drefs , addrefs themfelves in like variety t He that is at once a " c Husbands Parent^a UWafter t a School-mifter, a Phyfician $ afts u varioufly according to all oftheje capacities. Some come to him *>'as a Fother ^ fome as a Mafier y feme as a Teacher ; all of them ^tome to him as a Phyjician: But only they that come to him as s < a Phyficianare curedby him. Believers through faith go to 5< Chrift tkat bears all the Relations mentioned. But as they feek* u . v fatisfaftion in his bloc d-/beddings which is an aft of his Frieft-" hood^ they are )u(l<fed. ]

%j\>L I ever granted that we are juftified by trufting in Cbritb blood :. But no: £ only }by that. Secondly * .ft. was God that fought fatisfaftidn inChriife

blood.

(4S>>

blood, the Believer fceks fpr the fruit of that fcrisfa&i-tion.

Thirdly, Butnowto the dWnftion, ] ft.ill rc4lycufreely my thought of it, and the reafons of my ufifting your ute of it, and then anfwer your reafons for it.

And fiift, VVen-uft underftand what it is that isdiflinguift-ed : whether the Habit of faith, or the Ads? As far as lam able to underftand thenvhey that underftand themfelves, do in-tend to diftinguidi of the Habit by a virtual difiLflion , and their meaning is Q The Habit of Faith Vohichprodnceth both thifc afts tcth jttft.fie: but not m it frodnceth the aftof believing in Chrifi as Lord\Teacher, Sec. but as it prodnceth the Aft of belie-ving in hu bloo<i\ that \s t \_The habit is the remote caufe ; and the aft uthe nearer cau/e i and theh^bit)ufifiethbfthit^Aft x and not by the $ther. J I verily think this is their meaning; I am fure this is the molt probable and rational that I can imagine. Buc thenfirft, This contradi&eth their ordinary aflertion, that it is riot the Habit of faith, but the aft by which we are juftified. Secondly, Then they do not mean that the a«5t of believing in drift as Lord, &c. is fo much as the fides qu* y wbich if they will fpeak out and make no more ado, the controverfie will be much better underftood. For then it is a queftion thats eafily apprehended, Whether only the aft of faith in thrifts fatisfaftiou dojufiifie, or the believing in Chrifi as King, "Triefi and Prophet* or all that is effential to Chiftian faith J This is a plain cafe ; which fides qu& and sjua do not illuftrate.

But then I muft add, that this begs the queftion asufedby them, but decideth it not. And as [_ ana ] refpecteth but the Matter of the condition ; q. d. The habit as it produceth this aft, and not that^ is the condition $f J unification ] ( for elfe it * juftiflcth neither as it produceth the one or the other , ) fo it is the very Queftion between us, Whether it be one acl, or the whole efTence of the Chriftian faith that is the Condition ?

And this fuppofeth the determination of other controversies that are not yet determined. There are three opinions of the Habit of faith. Firft, that the feveral acts of faith, have feveral habits. Secondly, that the divers afts have but one habit of faith diftind from the habits of other graces. Thirdly, That

H faith

fikh, iove,aad all graces have but one habit. If the firft hold,, then the diftin&ion as before explained, hath no place. If the laft hold, then the Habit of Love, or Fear, may be on the fame ground, faid to juftifie.

If I have before hit on their meaning, then the diftin&ionof the Habit hvirtuaiis, and thediliinction of the ads isreafa, and they totally exclude all acts, fave that which they fix.npon; not from being prefent, but from a co-intereft. But from what intereft ? Oi a Caufe ? that we deny even to all: Of a Condition? that they grant to thefe which they exclude.

Next, we muft underftand the members of their Diftinction : And fometime they exprefs one branch to be £ fides qua jufiifi-c/tt~] and fometime [fides qua apprehends Chriftum f*tisfacten<-MWji&c] As to the former, it cannot be contradiftinct from [ faith in Cbrift as Lord, ] but from faith Asfanttifying, &c. it being but a denominative or virtual diftin&ion of one and the fame faith, from the feveral confequents. And fo I eaiily grant that fides qiajnfiificat y nonfanElificat vel glorificat, and fo of all the eonfequcnts of it. As it is the condition of one, it is not the condition of the other : which is no more, then to fay that there is between the confequents Diftinttio realis , from whence the Anteeedent(Really the fame)may be denominative-ly or virtually diftinguiflied : As the fame man that goeth before a hundred particular men, hath a hundred diftinct Relations to them, as Before them all. The very fame condition in a free Gift, may be the condition of many hundred benefits^ and accordingly be Relatively and denominatively diftinguifh-ed ^ when yet it is as truly the conaition of all as of one,and .hath, equal intereft as to the procurement.

And as for the other phrafe that [^ fides qua recipit Chriftam fati facientem^ufiificAt ,] properly it is falfe Docrine; if qua fignifiethe neareft Reafon of faiths intereft in procuring lufti-ficationj for then it is but to fay that Q fides % qua fides, juftifieat ] which is falfe. The denomination and the defcription exprefs but the fame thing ; fides is the denomination; and Receptio Cbnfii isthe defcription.' if therefore it juftifie qua Receptio Ckrifli, then it juftifieth qua fide*, that is. qua hac fides tnfpecie: wjucfc is to afenbe it to the ^ credere with a witneft. And clfe -

where.

c*o

Where I have difproved it by many Argument!.

But if quabc taken lefs properly, as denoting only the aptitude of faith to be the condition of Juftification, then ftill the Quefticn is begged. For we fay, that as the ace of believing in Chrifts blood- fhed hath a fpecial aptitude in one refpect,fo the ace of believing in hisRefurrcction, Interceflion, &c. and receiving him as King, Teacher, &c. hath a fpecial aptitude in other refpects, upon which God hath certainly made them tfte Conditions of our Juftification with the other.

But if any fliould diftinguifh of the ace of faith,and not the Habit, and fay that [_Udes ana, credit in Chriftum ut Regem % j tt[}ifi:at 9 fednon qua credit in Chriftum tit Regem ] I accept the former as being all tbaeldehre, and grant the latter: But then I fay the like of the other act of faith, that Q fides qua credit in Chnflum [Atisfacientem nonjuftificat, becaufe fides f*i fides,non juftificAt) fed fidisp'J conait.o pr*ftita.~] And I think I need to fay no more for th e opening the Fallacy, that this diftindi-onufcth to cover.

And now I come to perufe all that I can find that is produced to fuppore this diftinction, And the raoft is certain pretended iimilitudes , that have little or no fimilitude as to this.

. The common fimilitude is [_ A man that U oculatus heareth % hut not qua oculatus, but qua auritus, &c.] Repl.Firft, If you take q nl ftrictly, the affirmative is not true. For then aquatenui ad omne^ every man that is auritus would hear: whereas he may ftop his ears, and be where is no found, o-c. Andaman that hath eyes may win*, and be in the dark, &c. Secondly, Iffl*afignifie the aptitude,-or caufal intereft, I deny the fimilitude ; It Is dtjfimtle : and the reafon of the difference is evident ; for a mans eyes are Phyfical efficient caufes of bis fight, and his ears of bearing; naturally in their aptitude and potenti* ality determined to their proper objects: but faith is no efficient caufe of our juftification,or of our intereft in Chrift at all; much lefs a Phyfical efficient caufe. But the Intereft it hath is Moral,which dependeth on the Donors will • and it is no higher then that of a condition: and thexefore the act that Phyfically hath leaftrefpect to the object, may in this cafe if the Donor

H z plwfo,

c**o

• pkafc, do as much to procure a Title to it, as that which hath the neareft phyfical refpect to it. As if you have a deed of Gift of a Countrey on Condition you will difcover a Traitor, or marry one that oweth it; here the alien act hath more intereft in procuring your Title, then your Apprehending, or treading on the foi!,or taking; poffefiion 5 yea or accepting the deed of Gift it feif. So God hath made our Accepting of whole Chrift to'be the condition of life and pardon ; and confequently, the Accepting him in other Relations (in which he deftroyeth fin, advanceth God, &c.) doth as much to our Juftificati-on as the accepting him at our Ranfome.

Now to Mr. BUk.es Reafons; when he faith that this dift'm-B\on woMpafs every whereelfeas neeeffaryfie is much miftaken: for as he doth not tell us at all what fort of diftinction it is, whether Realis, Raiionis, Modtlis , Formdis^ Virtualis^ &c. fo I could give him an hundred inftances in which it will not pafs in any tolerable fenfc , but what are his own felect inftances, from a mans various Relations to the variety of his actions and their effects. But is it Chrift or the believer that you put in thefe various Relations ? Its plain that you mean Chrift : But thats nothing to the queftion: I maintain as well as you that Chrift performeth variety of works, according to the divers parts of his office, and that he meriteth not Juftification as King, but as a Sacrifice ; as he effectively juftifieth,not as a facrifice, but as a King; and he teacheth as a Teacher, &c. this was never denyed by met But the queftion is whether the Intereft of the feveral acts of our faith be accordingly diftinct ? which I deny, and confidently deny. In the works that Chrift doth in thefe feveral Relation?, there is diftwethrealis, and Chrift is the proper efficient caufeof them. But though our faith muft accept Chrift in all thefe Relations, and to do the feveral works in the feveral Relations, yet it is no proper caufe of the effects, and C as I faid ) the intereft it hath in the procurement is meerly moral, and that but of a condition, and therefore it is to be Judged of bj the will of the Donor.

But you fay that [ only they that const to Chrift as a Thyfician are cured by him] Repl. Very true : I never denyed it: Bun not only By coming n him as a Phyfimn \ efpeciaily as the Worker sf this one part of the cure. Yob

(53)

You add [ r Beiieve*s through faith go to Chrfi that beareth all t% tht Relations mentioned:^ ut as they feekfatisfatlion fa kit blood-Jhedding, they a^e Jufiifed. ~\ Repl. Very true ( if by as you underfhnd only the aptitude of the act to its office, and the certain connexion of the erled : otherwife it is nor as they beJieve at all that they are juftifiedj jbut it is not only as they feek fatis-faction in his blood ; butalfo as they believe in him as King, Teacher, Rifing, Interceding, c^. Though it be Chrifts blood, and not his Dominion, that Ranforaeth us; yet his promife giveth the fruit of that blood as well on the condition of believing in him as King, as of che believing in his blood. Hitherto we have come fhorc of your proofs, which next we (hall pro-ceed to, and freely examine.

Mr. Blake. / [hall take the bodlnefs to give in my Arguments* to ma^egood that faith in Chrfi qua Lord^doth notjuftifie. Firft^Tbat which the types under the law ^appointedfor atonement and expiation, lead us unto in Chrift % our faith mu(t eye for a-tonement, expiation, and reconciliation ; this cannot be denyed : Theft Levitical Types lead us doubtlefs to aright object , being Schoolmafters to lead us unto Chrift, and Jhaddows whereof he is the]ubftance\ As Mfo to that office in him (Who is the object of faith) which ferves for that work : But theft types lead us to Chnfi in his Pried (y office for the moft part as facri firing, fometime a* **-Strceaing J f3hnl.29-2.Cor.$.2i. I Pet A. 1%. tsf greatptrt of the Epiftle to the Heb. is a proof of it."]

Reply I grant you both Major and Minonbut the queftion is a rneer ftranger to the Juft concluiion.Firft,;t will not follow.be-caufe our faith mufteye Chrift as Prieft for Reconciliation, that therefore it muft eye him only as Prieft for Reconciliation. And if only be not in , your exclufion cf other acts of faith followJ not.

Secondly, No, nor if it were in neither : for ex parte fhrifti for Reconciliation only Chrifts Prtefthood is to be eyed as the meritorious caufe ( fpeaking in their fenfe that take the prieftly office to comprehend not onl/ Chrift as Sscriflcer, but as facri-fice,vea & as obeying in the form of a fervant,the fitnefs where-oft now pafs by:J but ex parte nofirl the fo eying him is not the 9nly act of faith by which we are juftified : fq thac for is ambigu-

(T40

oiis: and either fignifieth Chrifts procurement of our Juftifi-cation,or ours : In the former fenfe I grant as aforefaid, thefe Types ftiew us that Chrift a*/? as Prieft and facnfice doth fa-tisfie for us. But as to the procuring Interefi of our faith, thefe Types (hew us not that only this act procurech our Intereft. Nor is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any fuch thing. Jo.i. I9.faith that,Chrift^« Lamb of Godtakethatitaj the fin of the world, J but it doth not fay that only believing in htm as the Iamb of God is the faith upon which we have pare in his blood, and are juftified by him. i Pet. i. 18. tels us we frere Redeemed by bis precious blood\ but it doth not tell us that only believing in that blood is the faith by which we have" intereft in ic-but con-trarily thus defcribes that faxlhjver. 21. [ Who by him do believe in God that raifed him from the deadend gave him glory, th*tyour faith and hope might be in God. ] 2. £or. 5.21. tells us that he was made fin for us, &c. but it faith not that our believing thus much only,is the full condition of our Imeteft in his Righieouf-nefs;But contrarily exprefTeth it by [ our oVrn being reconciled to God ] to which c Paul exhorteth.

Thirdly, The Types which you mention, were not all the Gof-pelCorCovenantofGrace^rPromifeJ then extant: If therefore there were any other parts of Gods word then, that led tfiem to Receive Lhrift entirely as the Mejfiab, and particularly as the King and Teacher of his Church, and promifed life and pardon on this condition, your Argument then from the Types alone is vain; becaufe they were not the whole word (unlefs you prove that they exclude the reft, which you never can.) And indeed not only the very firft promjfe of the feed of the woman,^r.doth hold out whole Chrift as Prieft,andProphet and King, as the objed of juft fying faith, but alfo many and many another in the old Teftament.And the Epiftle to the Hebrews which you cite, doth begin wkh his Kingly office as the object of our faith in the two firft chapters, which are aJmoft all taken up in proving it.

Fourthly, you confefs your felf that Chrift as Interceding is the objed of juftifying fa th; and if you mean it of his Hea^ venly interceflion ; that was no part of his meritorious obedi-dience or humiliation .Its true indeed, that it is for the application

(ft)

tion or Collation of the fruits of his blood, aixlfo is much of his Kingly and Prophetical office too.

Mr. Blake. [Secondly, That which the Sacraments urj.tr the (jofpel, fitting forth fhrifl for pardon of fin, lead us mto % that our faith muff eye for Reconciliation, Pardon and fufiif cation. This is clear. Chrtfi in his o^ton injlituted ordinances ^oillnot rwf-guide us\ "But thefe lead us to Chrijlfuffering, dying for the par-

den of fin, Mat 26 2S. A broakjn, bleedings dying Chrift

in the Lords Supper is received.

^p/;,Firft,I hope you would not makethc world believe that I deny it; Did lever exclude a dying Chrift from the object of juftifying faith ? But what ftrange Arguments are thefe, chat are fuch Grangers flili to the queftion? yon prove the indufion of [ faith in Chrift dyings'} but do not fo much as mention the exclufion of the other ads of faith, which is the thing that was incumbent on you.

Secondly, If you fay that [ only ~] is meant by you, though not expreffed, then I further reply,chac this Argument labouring of the fame difeafe with the Iaft,requreth no other anfwer. Firft, The Sacraments being not the whole Gofpel.you cannot prove your Exclufion from them>unlefs you prove fomewhac exc/ufive in them ( which you attempt not,that I fee,) Secondly, If therefore you underftand the Minor exclufivcl y as to all other parts of Chrifts officej deny it, and the texts cited fay not a word to prove it.Thirdly^ And if they did,yet faith may eye a dying Chrift only as purchafing Pardon ; and yet ex parte Chrifti chat ad: that fo eyeth him may not be the only ad that is the condition of our Tide Co a dying Chrift or co che pardon purchafed. Fourchly,And ycc(chough ic would not fervs your curn)evcn tx parte Chrifti, your exclufion is fo far from being proved that ics contradided borh by che Sicramenc* and by Scripcures : much more ex parte noftri,yo\ir excufion of che other ads offaich.For, Firrt,!n Baptifmitsappireru(which is appointed forourfolemn initiacion incoa ftaceof lultificacion • which che Lords Supper is not.) Firft, Chrift foundeth ic in his Dominion, CMat. 28. 18. *A 11 poVver is given to me in Heaven und Earth ; go ye there* fore&c. Secondlv, He miketh che very nacure of ic co bean entering men into a ftate of Difcipks, and fo engaging them

to

c#)

i<5 him as their Mafler, <ver. ip. Go je therefore and Dlfdpk ( or teach ) alligations, baptizing them* Thirdly , The words Of the Jews to John ( If thoH be not that Chrijl nor Elias, nor that Prophet, Why baptizeftthou? John 1.25.) and their flocking to his baptifm, and the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 14.15. ( I thank

God that I bajtized nine of you, left anyjhouldjaj , that I

baptized in my ownname)&o plainly fhew that baptizing was then taken, as an entering into a ftate of Difciples. And 1 have before proved that baptifm doth lift us under Chrift the Commander, King and Matter of the Church. Fourthly, And therefore the Church hath ever baptized into the name of the FatherSon and Holy Ghoft, with an abrenunciatton of the fk(h the world and the devil, not only asoppofketo Cbrifts blood, but as op-pofites to his Kingdom and Dodtrine. Fifthly, And the very water fignifieth the fpirit of Chrift as well as his blood ; Though I think not, as Mr. <JMe*d^ that it fignifieth the fpirit only. Sixthly, And our coming from under the water was tofignifie our RefurredHon with Chrift, as Rom. 6. (hews. So that it is certain that Chrift in all parts of his office is propounded in baptifm to be the object of our faith, and this baptifm comprizing all this, is faid to be £ for the Remiffion of fin. ]

Secondly, And though the Lords fuppcr fuppofe us juftified, yet he undcrftandeth not well what he doth, that thinks that Chrift only as dying is there propounded to our faith. For,Firft, In our very receiving we profefs Obedience to Chrift as Ki* g, that hath enjoyned it by his Law. Secondly, And to C hriii our Teacher that hath taught us thus to do. Thirdly, Thefigns thernfelves are a vifible word (of Chrift our Teacher) and teach us his fufferings, promifes, our duty, &c. Fourthly, By iaking,eating,and drinking,we renew our Covenant with Chrift; And that Covenant is made with him not only as Prieft, but as the Glorified Lord and King of the Church. Gn his pare the thing promifed which the Sacrament fealeth,is, ( not that Chrift will dye for us,forthars done already, but) that Chrift will actually pardon us on the account of his merits. And this he doth as King : and that he will fan&ifie, preferve, ftrengthen, and glorifie us: all which he doth as King, though he purchafed them as afacrificc. On our part we deliver up our feives to him

to

CT7)

to be wholly his; even his Difciple*, and Subjects, as well as pardoned one?. Fifthly , Yea the very bread and wine eaten and drank do fignifie our fpirkual Union andConmu-nion with Jefus, whoispleafed to become one with us, as that bread and wine is one with our fubftance. And furely it is to Chrift as our Head that we are United, and not only as dying for us: and as to our Husband, who is moft dearly to be loved by us, and is to rule us, and we to be fubie& to hinr^being made bone of his bone, and flfhof hisflefti; Epke. 5. 2>o 1.2 ,30. Sixthly, We are to do it as in remembrance of his death, (o al.o in expectation of his camming, which will be in Kingly Glory, v. hen he will drink with us the fruit of the Vine new in the King-come of his Father

Qbjttt But Chrift doth not pardon fin inall the^refpects. An ftp. Firfr. But -in the.Sacramert he is reprcfented to be believed in entirely m all thefe refpects. Secondly, And he par-donethasKing, though he merit it as afacrifice. And as his Sacrifice and Merit are the caufe of all that following, fo therefore it is fpccially reprefented in the Sacrament, not excluding but including the reft. Thirdly, Believing in Chrift as King and Prophet,even as his offices refpecl his Honor and our fan&i-ty, may be as truly the condition of our Juftitication, as believing in hi9 blood.

Mr. Blake. As the fpWit ofGoh guides faith, fo itmujlgo to (Jot) for propitiation and mttonement. 'But the Holy Qhoft guidsfaith to go to the blood of Chrift for attornment,Rom.},.Z*>. & 5.9. Sph.i.j- 1 fohv.i.y.

Reply.C0»c^f0f#w:Thei:onclufion can be but this[_t hire fore faith muft go to the blood of Chrift for attonement^Vfhe ever qneftioned this I But your Thefis which you fet at the Head of your Arguments, was Q Faithin Ch r *ft 3 ua Lord doth notjufti-fie"] which is little kin to any of your Arguments.

But in the explication, you have here, at laft, the term OrJy % and therefore I may taVe that to be fuppofed in the Argument; But then with that Addition, I deny your Minor. The texts mentioned fay nothing to prove it.

Rom. 5. 25. hath no only in it, nor any thing exclufive of the other acts of Chrift: And if it had, yet it would not follow

C*8)

that ail other ads of our faith were excluded. As bis blooi is the meritorious caufc, and fo the foundation of all the bene-fks,and fo a!) the App ! yingCaufes are fuppofed in the mention ofit.and not excluded Jo are all other ads of our faith in the mention of that ad.

Rom, 5.9. faith not that we are ju (titled only by his blood. N ?r is it any adding to the Scripture, to add more, unleft you can prove that theft texts are the whole Scripture, or that the other Scriptures add no more.

Sploe. 1.7. and 1 John i. 7.do neither of them exclude either the other ads of Chrift, or other ads of faith : Nay f-;hti feems to make fomewhat elfe the condition on our part, then the belief in that blood only , when he faith there [ if we walk in the Light as he is in the Light, we have fellow [hip one with another, add the blood of fefus C^ Yi ft ^u Son cleanfeth us from all fin ] Or if you think this£*/] denoteth but a fign, yet other texts will plainly prove more.

To conclude, If f were to go only to the blood of Chrift for atonement,yet it would not follow, that going to that blood only for ir r is the only act of Faith on which Juftificationis promifed or given me in the Gofpel , as is before declared.

(JKr. Blake. You demand, [fVill you exclude his Obedience, RefurreBhn, interceJfion~]? To which i only fay, I mar veil fit 'the que ft ion : // / exclude thefe, J exclude hii blood: His [bedding of blood was in Obedience, John 10.18. Phil. i.K.his RefurrtBion Was his freedom from, the bands of death , and an evidence of our difcharge by blood: His interceffion is founded on hii blood* Vie intercedes not as we by bare petition, bui by merit : Heprefents hu blood 4s the high Trie ft in the Holy of Holies,

RtpL It was the thing I had to do, to prove that Rom. 3. 24. and thofe other texts, are not exdufive of all but his blood, and that the word Only is no more meant, then it is expreffed in shem. A nd now you grant it me: And needs muft doit, while Scripture tells us, that by the Obedience of one, many are made Righteous, Rom. 5.19. and that he is Rifenfor our Jufttficatiov, Rom. 4 25. and that Righteoufnefs fiallbe imputed to us , ifwe Mkve on him that raifedup fefm our Lord from the dead.ver,24.

and

and It is Cjod that juflifitth : vfho is he that condemneth f it it Chrift that dyed, yea, rather that is rifen again , who is even at the right hand of god; who alfo m \eth Intercejfton for hs % RomS 55, 34. he that believeth all thefe texts will not add onlyto the firft,atjeaft if he underftand them; for they do not contradict each other. Well I but you marvell at my queftion 1 I am glad of that 1 Are we fo well agreed, that you marvell at my fup-pofition of this difference ? To fatisfie you, my queftion im-plycdthis Argument. If the Refurre&ion, Inrerceffion, &c m be not in thofe texts excluded, nor faith in them, then wc may not add only to interpret them ^ but e^c.Ergo.

But let us hear the reafons of your marveling. Firft, As to Obedience, you fay His [bedding of blood Was in Obedience. An-fwer. Hut though all blood-(hed was in Obedience, yet all Obedience was not by blood-fhed, nor furTering neither. And the text Rom, 5.19 feems to fpeak of Obedience as O bedience, and not only as in blood fhed.

Secondly,You fay His RefUrreElionvfat his freedom ,&c. Anf But Suffering is one thing,and freedom from furTering is another thing. Therefore faith to our purification muft eye Chri fts conquer! and freedom from death as well as his death it felf. Moreover, Re furred ion was an act of Power, and his Entrance on bis Kingdom.and not a mcer act of Priefthood : Nor will you ever prove that faith ( to Judication ) muft only look at the Refurrection as connoting the death from which he rifeth.

Thirdly, You fay , His Inter cejfionu founded on his blood ,&c. *Anf#er. So is his Kingdom and Lordfhip, Rom.\/\ Q.Mut. 18.18. Thil. 2.9,10. It feems then faith in order to Justification muft not only look as Chrifts blood,but that which is founded on it. His Government, in Legiflation, Judgement , Execution, is all founded in his blood. &c. becaufe he hath drank of the brook, in the Way , therefore did he lift up the Head , Pfalme 1IO. 7.

You add He Interceeds by Merit. Anfwer. Not by new pnrchafing Merit, but by the virtue of his former Merit, and the collation of the effects of it from the Father. Andfo he Reigneth and Governeth both by virtue of former Merit, and for the applying that Merit and attaining of its Ends.

12 Whereas

(6o-)

Whereas '.therefore you fay If 1 exclude theft, I ' fhallexclude his blood ; 11 is a weighty Anfwer. And the like you may fay alfo of his Kingly and Prophetical office. The operation of them are fo woven and twifted together by infinite wifdora, that all do harrnonioufly concur to the attainment of the ends of each one; aqd if you lay by one, you lay by all; you exclude Chrifts blood as to the end of Juftification, if you include not his Kingly and Prophetical offices, and look not to him as making the Covenant or Grant ol pardon in his blood; and as teaching and perfwading and working us into Union with himfelf that we may have part in his blood: and as conferring daily the fruits of his blood as King, in Renewed pardon of daily fins • and as juftifying us at Judgement as King and Judge. His blood is a Foundation without a buijdingjf you.take it without all thefe :_ Overlook thefe, and you deny it as well as by overlooking his Refurrection.

Befides, Seffion at Gods Right Hand which is one thing thac the A poitle inftanceth in, Romans 8. 3 5. is his Glorifica.ion it felf.

And when you fay Q He prefects hii blood as High Prieft % &c] I anfwer. But not as a renewed facrifice v prefentingic is not (hedding it,or offering it in facrifice. And the presentation is not a minding God of what he knows not.or hath forgot,or an arguing with him.to extort his Mercy -,but as the value and merit of Chrifts facrifice hath its continual Being before God, fo Chrift d jth give out all his benefis to his Church as procured &nd received from the Father by the merit of his facrifice : and this is his Interceflion. But your arguing yieldeth, that to Justification, we muft not only believe in Chrift as fhedding his blood for us on earth, but alfo on Chrift as prefenting his blood for us in heaven: which is enough to my ends.

f JA4r. Blake. Ton tell me further that the thing I had to prove iras not the exclupon of faith in his commands , but of faith in fori ft 04^ Lord and Teacher, f can no more diftingutfb Lord and Com* mand than. I can "Blood and Sacrifice ; it being the office, of a Lord to Rule, as of blood to make atonemer t.

RepL Firft , If you cannot diftinguifti/ there's no remedy b^tyou mufterr by confufion, Its obvious to an ordinary understanding

(6i)

derftanding that even Blood and Sacrifice may as well bediftin* guifhed as Earth and Man, or Inland Writing ; [ Blood ] figni-fyingonly the matter, yea but part of the matter ; and £ * Sacrifice^ figmfying that matter with its moral Form. Secondly,And its as obvious that Lord and Cemmand do other-wife differ then Blood zndSacr ficefor Lord,** it fignifieth principally a Proprietary^ far*? calo diftind from command,as (landing in another/j?r/>/: And Lord as it fignifieth a Re&or,doth differ from Command, as the efficient from the effect; which is other-wife th^n as part of the matter doth from the whole informed.

It is no Argument againft the truth which I maintain, that you cannot diftinguifti thefe.

Thirdly, If it be the office of a Lord to Rule ; then you may well diftinguifti betwen the office and the work: But indeed in the firlt fenfe, Lord fignifieth a Proprietary, and but in the fe-cond, a Rulers Power; which is not alwayes properly called an Office neither j no more then the Soveraign is properly an Officer.

Fourthly, To make Atonement is not all one as to be a Sacrifice, which was your form?r term: for Atonement is the effect of a Sacrifice : not of blood as blood, but as a Sacrifice meritorious and accepted.

Fifthly, And as to the point in difference between us,the difference is palpable and weighty between believing in Chriftas Kng, and believing or obeying his Commands. As his Kingly Power belongs to the Ccnftittition of his myfticalbody or Re-publ ke, and his commands that flow from it to the AAmiriftrz-tiok : fo Subjection to his Power and Relation, and confent-ing to this conffitution do enter us into the Body and unite us to him : wtan believing and obe; ing his Laws for Adminiflr4uUn % do follow as the fruits. If you could have diftinguiftied between the Root and Fruits, between Faith and Obedience, between tnakiig Difciples^a d teaching to obferve,&c. Wat* 28.19,2 \ or b coming ^Difc pies, and Learning j you might have diftinguifiied between becoming a Subjttl and obtjing. And what ever you do I am fure others of your way do grant, that Receiving Chrift *s Lord and Teacher, is the faith that juftifieth, though not.f tea talit, but they will not fay fo by receiving or obeying his

Governing Laws, which arediftincc from the conftitution or fundamental Law.

Mr. Blake. You yet tell me it was fitteft for Paul to fay ,bf faith in hx blood 5 becaufe he intends to connote b th Wh^t we are y* ftfled by ex parte Chrifti, W What We are juftfled by ex parte noftri ; but the former principally. To this J Jay, If this were fitttfifor Paul, then it u unfit for any to come in with Animiadverfions ,and tell ws of any other thing ex parte ( hrifti, or ex parte noftri for fufifiration. I pray ycu rfft here an A We are well agreed. Her e is Chnfts Prieftl) Office on hu part alone , and lam refolved to lookno further.

%jpL Though I may not hope to change you, if you are Refolved, yet I may take leave to render a reafon of my contrary as peremptory Refolution : I am refolved to look further ex parte Chrifti, then to his blood, yea or his whole Merit, yea or whole Prieft-hood for my Juftification; even to whole Chrift, and in fpecial to his Regal conftitution and fentence. Yet I reft where you defire me, as to the Truth of what r faid-andifwe are agreed, its becter then I can perceive in your other words. Firft, Though Paul there mention the Prieftly office alone, yec that's not all his Epiftle?,nor all the Scriptures^nor doth he here exclude the reft.

Secondly,lt may be fi'teft to Pauls defign in that particular dif-courfe to mention/*'*£ in his bloody and yet it may be fie for another to comein with animadverfions, and tell you of more ncceflary both ex parte Chrifii & noftri. Its common to exprefs our meaning of a vholc in a fummary notion taken from a chief part: And indeed in Political difcourfes it is hard to meet with a fitter way of expreffion.

Thirdly, Paul himfelfwas not of your opinion, nor Chrift neither,and yet it was not unfit for them to difcover it.Thc fame Paul that here thought it fitteft to mention faith in his blood, did elfewhere think it fit to mention falsification by hU Obedience&nd that he Rofe again for our Jufttficatisn ; and to promife Jmputa-tion of Righteoufnefs to us, ifVce believe on him that ra /"-ed up fe(H5 our Lord from the dead^ Rom. 4.24, 25. with the like paffages before mentioned. But moft frequently it is the comprehenfive phrafe of [ believing in Chrift J efts* our Lord]

thac

that he ufeth.The fame Chrift that calleth himfelf (o of: the Lord and Mafter of bis/ollowers, txcludeth not thereby his other Relations; And when he faich in one place £ J am the Vhi] he may freely fay elfc where,£ / am the good Shepherd: J And he that fpeaketh oMiymg Aofon hu life for thefh-.tp^ doth not thereby make it unfit to mention o f .her Paitoral a is for them. And he that tels us of eattnghuflefb anidnnking hi* bloody intended not theexclufion of the Jfirit thn quu kjeth. I am therefore Refolved by his Grace to adhere to whole Chrift as the objecl of that faith which i9 the Condition of JuhNfication. And I think this full comprehend ve faith is fafer then the groundlefly diftmguifhing faith; and this Do&rine more agreeable to the Scriptures.

Mr. Blake. Fourthly, Our faith muft hoJ^on fhrift foot to obtain righteonfatfs by him % b) virtue of which \\>e m*y appear before God as righteous; But it u bj his Obedience at a (ervant that We obtainrighteoufaejs,and ft and before God as righteous ', Rom. 5. 19. by the obedience of one many are made righteous.

Repl. Firft, I grant the whole: but its nothing to our Que-ftion. i ts a flrange error that runs through fo many Arguments, that they fhould be impertinent to the queftion. You fliould have concluded that Faith in Chrift qua Lord^oth notjuftifie ] which in termini* is the conclusion that you undertook to prove: whereas all that this Argument will conclude, is, that £ our faith muft lool^at Chrifts obedience for Right eoufnefs, &c. ] which I have faid no more againft then you have done.

Secondly, But if Q Only ] be implyed as adjoyned to [ $bedU encethzn it will exclude hi> Suffering as fuftenng in that formal refpeel, and take it in only as the Matter of his Obedience.

Thirdly, And by this A r gument you deftroy what you not only mantained, but refolved to ftick to in the laft, that is, that it is not fit for any one to tell us of any other thing then faith in his blood for juft fication, and that you are refolved to look no further then Chrifts Prieftly office alone. For Obedience extendeth further then blood flied: therefore if we are juftified by Chrifts whole obedience, then by more then his blood. Yea you will be put hard to it to prove, that all Chrifts obedience was offered by him as aPreift to his Father: It belongs to a

Subject

t43

Subject, a Servant, a Son to obey; but obedience is far from being proper to a Prieft.

Fourthly, If you intend the Major exclufively as to ail other considerations of the objed, Iftilideny ic as falfe. Our faith (even as the condition of juftification ) muft look at Chrift, not onlj to obtain Righteoufnefs by him , but alfo to fubjeft our felves to his Teaching and Government,and to glorifie him in and for his Mercy.

Fifthly, Yea, the Minor it felfis falfe, if you imply the ei-clafive Only. For we obtain Righteoufnefs and are juftified before God effectively by Chrift as King firft by conftiiution, and fecondly, by fentence, as well as meritorioufly by Chrfft as Prieft.

Mr. BU)st.FifthIy 9 That way that Chrift tco\ to bring us to GW, cttrfdith muft eye ana follow : But Chrift by de*th the Sacrifice of of h:mfelf brings us to (y^,lPer. 3.1 8. Chrift alfo hath once juffer-ed for fins >the] aft for the unjuft&c.

Repl. Still the fame error ; an Ignoratio Elenchi. I grant the whole, but the conclufion's wanting. Did I ever denythat/<?r/^ muft eye and follow Chrifts death to bring us to Gob ? yeafor Juftification. But you fhould have faid [by his de:.th alo<<e ] or you fay nothing. And when you prove that by his death alone Chrift brings us to God, you will do fomewhat. And yet if you did, it would not follow that we are brought to God in Juftification only by eying the caufe of Justification as fuch.

Mr. Blake.Sixthly, As Chriftfreeth usfrcm the curfe/o heja-ftifies us^andi^ thst notion eur faith muft look to him for litftifica-tion. This u plain j Juftification being no other but our acquittal from thecurffi which u the fentence of the Law of Mofes,/tf#. 13. %.but Chrift freeth us from the caufe infuffering as a Sacrifcejiot ruling as aLord , Gal. 3.13. Chrift hath Re itemed us^&c.

Repl. ¥\\&.£pnly ] is again left out in the Major proportion, and fo I grant it: But if it be implyed thac faith mufi look to him for Juftification only in that notion as he jnft>fietk us t yea only as he meriteth Juftification, then 1 deny it, and you fay nothing to prove it. Secondly, The exclufive of your Minor is a dangerous error; Chrift freeth us from the curfe by J uftifying us as a King, and teaching, and ruling^nd fan&ify i.ng us 5 and not only

by

c*o

by becoming a curfc for us; For if yofr here put in £ Only you plainly exclude all his Obedience as fuch, and much of it materially ; for it is not a curfed thing to obey God. TheLawcurf-eth for difobeying: therefore Obeying is not the Curfe, nor is it materially a Curfe to Love God, and Truft him.and be zealous for his Glory, &c. The whole office ofChrift isimployed in freeing us from the Curfe : and when Paul faith, he was made a Curfe to free us, he never faid or though: thathedid nothing <\k to free us; for an hundred texts do tell us of more.

Thirdly, And on the by I muft fay, that I am not of your mind in the defcription of Judication ; for, omitting the controver-fie whether Juftificacion only free us from the Curfe, I do not believe that this curfe is only the fentence of the Law of Mofes, If it were, cither you muft prove that all the Gentile world that beard not of it was under the Law of Mofes ( which abundance of rnoft Learned men deny with better grounds then you have to affirm it ) or elfe that all thefe are under no curfe for Juftificati-on to remove. The Law of Nature was materially part of the Mofaica? Law; but the form denominateth.

So much to Mr. Slakes Arguments, which are fo little to the purpofc, that if the weight of thecaufe, and the prejudice of fome Readers did not call moreearneftly for a Reply, then any appcrance of ftrength in them,I had fpared my felf and rhe Reader this Labor.But that[ Cbrift <u Chri% u the ob\ cl of that faith by which as a Condition Vre muft bejuft.fisd] andfo th*t we are not jftfififd only by believing in hn bloody bftt alfo by beltevi*z in him entirely as fefus Chrift our Lord* and by becoming A* DifcipUs^ or true Chriflians^] this is a truth , that deferveth more then my Pen to defend ir« and that while God afTordeth me time and ftrength, I (hall never defert.

DISPVTATION

OF

Whether any Wor\s beany Conditions of it X

Conteining a neceffary Defence of ancient ferity , againji the unneceffary Oppofition of a <very Learned y ^e<verend y and dearly Beloved (Brother , in his Treati/e of Imputation of KighteouJneJs y and his Leftures on John IJV

By Richard "Baxter.

London

Printed by Robert Wtitt, for Ntvil Simmon? % Book-fdlc* in Ki&rmin/ler, 1657.

Whether J^or\s are a Condition of f unification i (*And fo whether we arejujlified by lVor\s as finch a Con* dition k

Hough we have faid enough already on thcfe Qaeltioni ( which ttfr difpatch I joyn together, ) yet feeing there are fome that rauft need* have more, or the fame again; I (hall yield fo far to their Importunity, as to recite here briefly the ftate of the Conttoverfie,and fome of that evidence which is elfewhcrc more largely produced for*!he truth.

And Firft, We muQ explain what is meant by Worbj> and what is meant by J unification ; what by a £ Condition] and what by the Prepofition by here, when we fpeakof Juftirkation by works: And then we (hall lay down the truth in feveral prepo-fnions, Negative .and Affirmative. It feemsftrangcto me to hear men on cither fide to fpeak

K 3 againft

*•

CtO

againftthe Negative or Affirmative of the Queftion, and reproach fo bitterly thofe that maintain them, without any diftkK dion of explication; as if either the error lay in the terms, or the terms were fo plain and univocal, that the Propofitions are true only on one part,what fenfe foever they be taken in. No doubt but he faith true, that faith that Works are the Condition of JuftirlcarJon:and he faith as true,thac faith they are not, if they take the terms in fuch different fenfes as commonly Dif-puters on thefe Queftions do take them. And its paft all doubt that £a man ujuftipedby faith without therverkj of the Loft ; and that it it not of Works, hut of Grace x and its as certain that [4 man 14 juftified bj works and not by faith only, and that by their Words men {ball be juftified, and by their Words they/hall be condemned. ~] Gods word were not true, if both thefe were not true.

We muft therefore neceflarily diftinguifh : And firft of Works.

Firft, Sometime the term, Work* Is taken for that (in general) which makes the Regard to be not of grace but of Debt : Meritorious works: Or for fuch as are conceited to be thus meritorious, though they be not. And thofe are materially, either Works of perfeft obedience without (in, ( fuch as ^ dam had before his fall, and Chrift had, and the good Angels have,) or clfe Works of obedience to the CMoJaical Lato , which fuppofed fin, and were ufed in order to pardon and life, but miftakingly by the blind Unbeliever*, as fuppofing that the dignity of the Law did put fuch a dignity on their obedience thereto, as that ic would ferve to life without the fatisfadion and merit of Chrift, or at Ie,ift muft concur in Co-ordination therewith. Or clfe laftly, they are Gofpel duties, thus conceited meritorious.

Secondly, But fornetirae the word Works is taken for that which ftandeth in a due fubordinatidfi to grace: and that firft, moft generally, for my moral virtuous tsfttions, and fo even faith it feif is comprehended and even the very Receptive or fi-duciali ad of faith : or lefs generally,for external ads of obedience, as diftind from internal habitual Grace:and foRepen-rance, Faith, Love, &c> are not Works.- or for all ads external and internal except faith it felf. And fo Repentance,

Defire

(70

Defire after Chrift, Love to him, denying our own Righteouf 1 nefs,diftruftinourfelves,c^. are called Works. Or elfe for all Ads external and internal befides the Reception of Chrifts Rtghceoufnefs to Juftification : And fo the belief of the Gof-pel, the Acceptance of Chrift as our Prophet and Lord by the Title of Redemption,withminy other ads of faich in Chrift, are called works: befides the difchiming of our own Righte-oufnefs,and the reft before mentioned.

Secondly, As for the word Juftifisatbn y \t is fo varioufly taken by Divines, and in common ufe, that it would require more words then I fhallfpend on this whole Difpute, to name and open its feveral fenfes-, and therefore ( having elfewhere given a brief fchem of them ) I (hall now only mention thefe few which are moft pertinent to our purpofe. Firft, Some take Juftifics-tion for feme Immanent Acts of God, andfomefor Transient. And of the former fome take it for Gods eternal Decree to juftifte, which neither Scripture calleth by this name, nor will Reafon allow us to do it, but improperly. Sometime its taken for Gods Immanent prefent Approbation of a man, and Reputing him to be juft , when he is firft fo conftituted. And this fome few call a Transient A&, becaufe the Objed is extrin-fick: But moft call it Immanent, becaufe it makes no Alteration on that object. And fome plead that this is an eternal ad without beginning, becaufe it is Godseflence which is eternal; and thefe denominate the Ad from the fubftance or Agent- And other fay, that it begins in time, becaufe Gods EtTencedoth then begin to have that Refped to a finner which makes it capable of fuch a denomination : And fo thefe fpeak of the Ad de-nominatively,formally, refpectively : Both of diem fpeak true but both fpeak not the fame truth.

Sometime the word Jnftificatiin is taken for a tranflent Ad of God that maketh or conduceth to a change upon the extrin* lick object. And fo firft, Its fometime taken by fome Divines, for a Conditional Juftification, which is but an ad that hatha tendency to that change ; and this is not actual Juftification. Secondly, Sometime it is taken for actual Juftitication,and that is threefold. Firft, Conftitutive ; Secondly, Sentential: thirdly. executive. Firft, Conftitutive Juftification, is firft either in the

qualities

C7*)

qualities of the foul.by inherent holynefs • which is firft perfect, fuch Adam (once ) and the AngelandChirft had • fecondly,or Imperfecl, fuch as the fan&ifiedhere have. Secondly, Or its in our Relations: when we are pardoned and receive our Right to Glory: This is an ad of God in Chrift by the free Gift of the Gofpel, or Law of Grace: and it is firft, The firft putting afinner into a ftateof Righteoufnefs, out of a (late of Guilt. Secondly , Or it is the conrinuing him in that ftate,and the renewing of particular pardon upon particular fins. Secondly, Sentential pardon or Juftification, is, firft, by that Manifeftation which God makes before the Angels in heaven. Secondly, at the day of Judgement before all the world. Thirdly, Executive Juftification, viz. the execution of the aforefaid fentence,(lefs properly called Juftification, and more properly called pardon,) confifteth in taking off the punifhment inflicted, and forbearing the punifhment deferved, and giving pofTefiion of the happinefs adjudged us : fo that it is partly in this life, viz. in giving thefpirit, and outward mercies, and freeing us from judgements ( And thus fanctification it felf is a part of Juftification ) and partly in the life to come, in freeing us from Hell, and pofleffing us of Glory.

Thirdly, As for the word £W«w»,the Etymologifts will tell us, that it firft (ignifieth tsiBionem condmii .• and then, Tajfi-onem,cjua qmdeonditur, and then quaUtatem iffam per quam con-dere ahquis, velcondi aliquid poteft; dr hinc eft pro flat* qui fa-cites eft rem condendo ; & deinceps pro omni ftntu^ quern perfona vel res aut caufa quoqtio moAo hahet ant accipit. But we have nothing to do with it in fuch large acceptions, in which all things in the world may be called Conditions. Vid. Martin, in Nam. They come nearer our ufe of the word, when they expound it by, LModeratio^Circumfertptio, determinate,limitatio.

In Naturals the word Condition is oft ufed pro ratione formally per quam alicttjtts difciplinafub)eUum adaquatu conflituifotet. As €. Q.Thyficus confiderat corpus, cum conditione mobditatis^ Geometer eonfiderat quant it at em cum conditione continuitatis, Arithmetics cum conditione disjunftionu» OWedicus confiderat humanu corpus cum conditione, fiil.qutUnus agretare & fanari pot eft. Sometime alfo any quality, or action, which is/fa* qua non to an

effect

C73)

effect or event is in meet Naturals called a Conditio*; as the drynefs of the wood, and the approximation of it to the fire, &c. are conditions of its burning : the nonimpedicion of a more powerful Agent, is a Condition of the efficacious action of every lower c&u(c,&c.

Many other acceptions of the word in Pbyficks by Zabarel % ClauHus Alberitu and others ; you may fee in Goclenii Lexic* Pbilofopb. in nom. conditio. But we are not in a Phyfical, but a moral difcourfe, and thcrfore muft be underftood according to the fubject matter. It istherfore a Civil or Legal Condicion thatwc have to enquire u/rr-j and muft fetch our defcriptions from Lawyers, and not from Phy'flcks,and therefore it is but deceitful equivocation in fome Opponcnts,to fetch the r oppofition from Phyfical inllances.

The Lawyers give us divers Definitions of Condition, but for the moft part they come all to one in fenfe. Some (*y } conditio eft Lex adfojita hominum actionibus , eat fafpendem , Prat. Condi" tio { fay others ) eft mod's qui fufpendit atlum, donee eo exftentt confirmetur. Vult. in In ft it. de hare, in ft it, . § .3. n. 6. Accurfus faith, Conditio eft fufpenfio^cujus dtfutter 0 effeBw vel conftrma-tiopendet: Bart. Conditio eftfuturus evevtur, in quern difprfuh fufpenditur. Cuiacius, (Conditio eft Lex addita negotio^ qu<t do-nee praftetur event urn fufpendit.Thdc are o( conditions defuturoi But thofe that arc deprafenti vel de pr&terito, fufpend not the obligation, unlefs as they are yet futura quoad cogni'imem % though not quoad #jf>,and fo the knowledge of a R'ghc may be fufpended. They are commonly divided into CaftJes, Potefta-tivas, & mixta*. The moral operation of Conditions as fuch, is not in caufing the effect when performed; but in fufpending the cffeA till performed. The reafon of the a;; pointing of them for fuch fufpenfions is various: fometime its becaufe the perfon Giving, promifing, or otherwife conftitutingthc condition, is uncertain of the event of the performance, and would not have the efte& come to pafs without it. But thats not al-waies:foaietime though he might be fure of the event of performance, yet if be that is to perform the Condition be uncertain , it-may make way for this conftitution.lt is therefore a vain Plea of them that fay, God appointcth no conditions of bis Pro*

C70

mifes, becaufe the event is not to him uncertain. Saith tjtfat. Martin, in nom. Cond. { Definirifolet DifpofttiMufufpenfioex event u incerto futuro ei oppofito. Sic fane apud homines qui fata* ra non norunt, fed'DetaJui. certis conditionibus etiam nobifcum . agif. at omninmeventftum ipfe gnarus s pro infinita fua- faf'entia qua pr&videt quid occur furum nobii y & quid no's amflexuri % velde-clinatunfiww. Confer, Deut. 28 2930,51. & 32. Crf-pitobus. J Commonly the reafon of appointing Conditions is thedefireabinefs of the thing to be performed,conjoyned with fome backwardnefs or poffibility of backwardnefs in the perfon thar is to perform it, and therefore he is drawn on by the pro* mife of that which he is more willing to receive : But many other reafons there may be.

Thefi.ft caufeof the Condition, is theRequirer, whether he be Teftator, Donor, Stipulator, Legiflator, &c\ And To the Condition of the Law or Covenant of Grace, is firft,GW/ conditions the Impofer. Secondly, And if s the condition of each Sub]ett as obliged to perform it. Thirdly, And the condition of each profiffwg Chriftim as having Promifed the performance. Fourthly, And the condition of true Cbriftians only as actual Performers of it.

The condition of the Gofpel hath feveral refpects according to the various refpects of the Law that doth impofe it. Its the Condition of a free Gift \ for the Gofpel is a free Gift of ChrifV and Life : It is the Condition of a Fromife ^ becaufe much of the Gofpel benefits are future. It is the Condition of a Tcfta* ment^ becaufe Chrift dying did leave this to the Church as his iaft Will, and it was confirmed by the death of the Teftator. It is the Condition of a premium LaW, and Ad of Grace and oblivion; becaufe God made it as Legiflator and Redor of the world, in order to the conducting of his people to their happi-nef; It is the condition of a Minatory Law , in that it is a duty commanded on pain of death and for the avoiding of that death.

Fourthly, The prepofition [[ by ~] m our prefent queftion, may figmfie, either the ufc and Intereft of any Medium in General. orcle of a true caufc constitutive or efficient. So mncji of the terms.

fropofition

(75)

PropofiticH I. Since Adams fall , it is impoflible for man to be juftified by a perfed finlefs Obedience of his own, ( except Chrift only : ) and confequenriy impoflible for him to bejuftined by the Law confidered in that form aud tenor as ic was given to Adam : for all men are Tinners; and that Law will uftifie no (inner.

Proportion 2. By the works of the Mofaical Law , no man can be juftified. And therefore the Jews feek Righteouf-nefs where it is not to be found, while they think that pardon of fin and acceprance with Cod are to be obtained by the bare works of that Law: while they overlook or re jed Chrift who is the end of that Law for righteoufnefs to every Believer Specially now that Law is Abrogated or ceafed,it were a double error to exped Juftification by its works.

Tropoft, ion 3 Much !efs can they be juftified by the forefaid Law, who in ftead of fulfilling it, do but faifely imagine thac they fulfill it.

Prcpofttion 4. No man can be juftified by works properly meritorious, becaufe no mm hath any fuch.atall; nor may we once imagine that we have any fuch works as Taul fpeaks of ( and the Jews thought they had ) which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt, flaw. 4.4. much lefsthat we are juftified by fuch j even Gofpel works and faith it felfdo not jun\fie on this account, and a conceit that they arc thus meritorious would but turn them into condemning fins.

Prcpjjttion 5. No ad of mans, no not faith itfelf can ju-ftifie as an actor work, nor as This aft in fpecie ; that is, the neareft and formal reafon of its juftifyinglmereftw/*/? not be fercht either from the General or fptcial nature of the act ic feif: and therefore it is not faith as faith, that is, as it is an ap-prchenfion of Chrift or recumbency on him, thac Juftifyeth : nor yet as an Inftrument thus acting. The nature of the act is but its aptitude to its office ot juftifying Intereft, and not the formal caufeof it.

'Trop>fi itn 6> No work or act of man is any true proper ciufe or his juftification, ( as Juftification is commonly taken in the lofpel: ) neither Principal or IuftrumentaI.The hig^eft Intereft that they can havens but to be acondition of our Jufti-

L 2 fixation

C?0

tion, and to a Difpofttio moralU , which therefore fom € call canja diff {t(iv<$, and tome caufit fine qu* tion , and its indeed bat a l^eminailcaufe, andtruly no cattfe at al 1 .

Proportion 7. Whatsoever woiks do ftand in oppofitfon to Ghrif^or difjunct from him,yea or that ftand not in a due (ubordilation to hinyire fo far from Juftifying even as conditions, that, tbey are fins which do defervc condemnation.

Proportion 8. Works, as taken for the Imperate Acls of Obedience external, diftind from the firft Radical Graces, are not fomuch as conditions of our Juftification as begun, or our being put into a juftifkd ftate.

'Tropofition 9, Repentance from dead works, denying our our felvcs, renouncing our own Righteoufnefs, <fre. { much lefs external Obedience ) aFC not the receptive condition of our Juftification, as faith is, that is, Their nature is not to be an ac -tual Acceptance of Chrift that is, they are not faith; and therefore are not defigned on that account to be the Condition of our Juftification.

Proportion 10. God doth not juftifie us by Imputing our own faith to us in ftead of perfect Obedience to the Law, as if at,were fufiteient, or efteemed by him fufficient to fupply its place ; For it is Chrifts Righteoufnefs that in point of value and merit doth fupply its place: nor doth any work of ours jjftifie us by fatisfying for our fins: for thats the work of Chrift the Mediator: Our faith and love and obedience, which are for the receiving and improving of him'and hisR<ghteoufnefs,and fo ftand infullfubordinationtohhn, arenot tobemade co-partners of his office or honor.

Affirm. Prcpofition firft. We are juftified by the merits of a perfed finkfs Obedience of Chrift ( together with his fufftr-ings ) which he performed both to the Law of nature, the Law vfMofes, and the Law which was proper to himfelf as Mediator t as the fubject obliged.

Proportion 2. There is fomewhat in the nature of faith it ftlf *'* Specie, which makes it fit to be eLtted and appointed by God to be the great fummary Condition of theGofpel; that it be Receptive ( an Acceptance of Chrift ) is thenature of the

thing.* ;

C77)

thing; but that it be a condition of our Juftification, is from the will and conftitucion of the Donor and Juftifier.

Prapofinon 3. There t9 alfo foraewhat in the nature of Repentance, felf-denyal, renouncing all other Saviours, and our own r ghecoufnefs, defii ing Chrift,loving Chrift,tntending God and Glory as our end, ( procured by K hrift, ) confciiing fin, &e. which make chera ape to be Difpcfiiive Conditions sand fo to be comprized or implycdin faith the fummary Receptive condition, as its neceflary attendants at leaft.

Propoftim 4. Accordingly God hath joyned thefe together in hisPromife and conftitucion, making faith the jummarj and receptive Condi hn, and making the faid acts of Repentance, fclf denval renouncing our own rightecufnefs ; & declaiming in heart luft Motion by the woiks of the Law,and the renouncing of all other Savours,alfo thedefiringand loving of C hrift offered, and the willing of God as our ^od, and the renouncing of all other Gods] and fo ,of the world, fltfh and devil ; ac leaft in the refolucion of the heart ; I fay making thefe the dif-poftiioi Condi-ions , which are ever implyed when faith only is ex?refTed, fome of them as fubfervient to faith , and perhaps fome of chem as real parts of faith ic felf. ( Qi which more anon. )

Vroprfi ion 5. The Gofpel promifeth Jollification to all that will Brieve, ( or are 3el.even. ) 'Co be a Belinver and to be a Dii ip e of Chnft,tn ^criprurc fenfe is all onc,and fo is it to be a Difciple and to be a Chriftian : therefore the fenfe of the promise is, that we (hall be juftihed, if we become tru° Cbriftianj or Difcipler of Chrift ; and therefore juftifying faith comprehended all that is effential to our Difcipknfhip or Chriftianity as its conftitucive caufes.

Pzopofition 6> It is, not therefore any one fingle Act of faith alone by which we are juftSfied, but it is many Phyfical acti conjunctly which confticute chat faith which the Gofpel makes the condition of Life. Thofe therefore that call any one Act or two by the name of juftifying faith, and all the reft by the name of workv and fay that it is only the ad of recumbency on Chrift as Prieft, or on Chrift as dying for us, or only the actof apprehending or accepting his imputed Righteoufnefs, by

L 3 which

(78J

which we are juftified, and that our A {Tent, or Acceptance of him as our Veacher and Lord , our dciire of him, our love to him ,our renouncing other Saviours and our own Righteoufnefs, &c. are the works which Paul doth exclude from our Juuifi-cation, and that it is Jewifb to expect to be juftified by thefe though but as Conditions of Juftification; thefe perfons do miftake ?aul % and pervert the Do&rine of Faith and Juftification, and their Doctrine tendeth to corrupt the very nature of Cbriftianity it felf. Though yet I doubt not but any of thefe acts conceited meritorious (. or otherwife as before explained in the Negative ) if men can believe contradictories, may bethe -matter of fuch works as f^/excludeth : And fo may that one actalfo which they appropriate the name of juftifying faith to.

Trtf option 7. Sincere obedience to God in Chrift is a condition of our continuance in a ftate of Juftification, or of our not lofing it. And our perfcverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that ftate before the Lord, at our departure hence.

Tropojition 8. Our Faith, Love, and Works of Love, or fin-cere Obedience, are conditions of our fentential Juftification by Chrift at the particular and general Judgement ( which is the great Juftification. ) And fo as they will prove our Intereft in Chrift our Righteoufnefs, fo will they materially themfelves juftifie us againft the particular faife Accufation of being finally impenitent, Unbelievers, not Loving, not obeying fin-cerely. For to deny a faife accufation is fufficient to our Juftification.

Proportion 9. As Glorification and Deliverance from Hell, is by fome called Executive pardon or Juftification-, fo the fore-faid ads are conditions of that execution, which are conditions of Juftification by the fentence of the Judge.

'Proportion* 10. As to a real inherent Juftice, or Juftification, in this life we have it in part ( in our San&ification and Obedience ) and in the life to come we faall have it in perfection. So much for the explicatory Propositions.

. I come

(7?)

I Come now to prove the fumof the Affirmative Propofici-ons together fo far as they refolve the Queftion in hand,z/^. that works or aasof min havefuchanlntereftinour Juftifica-on, and are fo far conditions as is here afTerted.

My firft proof is from thofe Texts of Scrrpcu're which ex-prefly fpeak of Juftification by fuch acts or works.

If we are jufitfed By our words and works, then are they no lefs then conditions of Juftification. But we are juftified By them. Ergo.&c.

The Confequence of the Major is plain, firft, In that the Prepofition [ 'By'] doth fignifie no lefs then thelncereft of Tome means: but thefe Works can be no means,but either a conditioner acaufe,which ismore;Acaufe,the perfonsthat now I deal with, will not affirm them to be: If they do, then they afcribe much more to them then to be a condition. Secondly,The Inte-reft of faith it felf isexprefTed by no higher terms then [2?/, ] that is, *;, or <^*, or & : and fois the Intereft of thefe other acts.

The Minor is exprefs.i.In Mat, 12. 36^j.[_For by thj words thou [halt be juftified, and by thy words thou /halt be condemned]* ( tv. #f •: *. : ^chac is , at the day of Judgement, in the great Juftification. 2. J^nt, 2.24. ye fee then how that By Works (*%*&"* ) a man is juftified, and not by faith enly ( ngi kjcs'x afct** pww ) This fpeaks of Juftification in this life/

When men argue againft Ju'tification by our Words or work}, I defire i.ro underftand whether it be the words or the fenfe that they argue againft If the ttW/,thcnit is either againft theufcof Ihemfimp/y, as beirgfalfeor unmeetor elfe againft unfeafopa-ble ufe of them.For the former they have no groandjfor you fee it is the exprefs language of Chrift himfclf and hisApoftle.And as to the later, I eafily grant that no Scripture phrafe fhould be un-feafonfbly ufed. But if it be not the words but the fenfe rhn they blame, why then do they harp fo much on the words themfelves, and raife the moft of the odium from thence ? And

what

(So)

»«2

what is the unwarrantable fenfe ? I know not of any lower fenfe that they can put on thefc words, then what importeth the In-tereft of a condition ; As for that of Mat. 12. they fay little to it. And as to that s of fames, they interpret it differently among themfclves Firft,Some of them fay that fames fpeaksof Juftification before men, and others fay he fpeaksof Juftificati-on before God. The former are eafiiy confuted ( as they retrain the text to that atone ) by the exprefs words of the Texr. For, firft, yer, 1$. it exprefly fpeaks of Righteoufnefs by dw vine Imputation, and of Gods accepting Abraham into friend-Chip. Sccondly,The text fpeaks of that Juftification which con-curreth with Salvation, ver. 14. [ can faith fave kim ? 1 Thirdly, It fpeaks of the Death of faith without works, as to Profiting, ver. 16.17. which is different from manifestation. Fourthly, Itinftanceth in the fecrct act of Rahab, and fuch an act of *sl-brabam, as we read of no men that then juftified him for, nay they were likcr to condemn him. Fifthly, Men may juftifiean Hypocrite asfoon as the truly godly, and can but conjecture at the faith by the works. But the fcope of the text (hews that ic is no fuch fVivolous juftification that is here meant.

Secondly, They that fay that it is juftification before God that is here meant, ( as no doubt it is ) have yet divers interpretations of the word Works* Some /ay, that by Works is not meant | Work} tkemfelves ] indeed,but a Working faith. To chera I fay 5 firft, I deny it, and wait for better proof then is yet brought. Secondly, The text nametb £ »0^ J exprefly twelve times in a few verfes : which is not ufual in fpceches fo tropi-call as this is fuppofed to be. Thirdly, In many or moft of the texts, that interpretation would make the words non-fenfe, as the pcrufall will declare. Fourthly, If the word [works ] did emphatically fignifie the £ working nature~\o£ faith ,or faith not qu 4 fides, but qua opewns, it will be all one as to the matter in qucftion, and yield what I defire,

Others faythat by works is indeed meant the works thewfelvet properly ; but then they fay that the text fpeaks not of the Juftification of the perfonlby them,but of faith by thero-for faith, Tay they, alone dotb juft'fie the perfon, and works or ly juftifie faith. Anfwcr, But firft, this contradicts ch the exprefs text: for

verfc

(8i)

vtrfs 14. It is the Salvation of the perfon that ii denyed,; and vir. 21. It it the juftiflcation of Abraham himfelf that is there mentioned ;and ver. 24. it is the man that is faid to be juftified by Workj and not by faith only y and verfe 2 j. it is Rahab her felfthat is faid to be juftified by works. Secondly, The anfwer contradicteth themfelvcs, or granteth what I defire : for if works juftifie the faith, they rauft needs juftifie tke perfon in tan-tum % againft any accufationof grofs Infidelity andHypocrifie. Sometime the perfon is juftified when his Action cannot be juftified ( as in cafe of facisfaction and pardon:) but to juftifie the action it felf,is the higheft fort of juftifying the perfon.

So that all other Interpretations being either overthrown, or refolded into that which we maintain, I need to fay to more for the defending of it.

My next proof is from thofe texts that fay, we (hall be fudg-id according to our workj, and regarded according to our Labour , dec. 2 Cor. 5.9, 10.1 CV.3.8.1 Pet. 1. 16,17. MattheW 16. 27. &c.

If men (hall be juftified according to their works, then thofc works are no lower then a condition of that juftification: But the Antecedent is true, as I prove thus. If men (hall be judged according to their works, therefore they (hall be juftified according to their works: Thereafon of the Confequence is evident; becaufejW^'w^is the Genus, which comprehendeth Juftification and condemnation as its fptcies. The reafon alfo of the confequence of the former Argument is apparent: be-caufe the term £ of judging according to works] doth in the common ufe of men figoific ordinarily that which they call the Meritumcaufa, but never any thing lower then a bare condition : nor can any lower tolerable judiciary fenfe be put upon them, as might eafily be (hewed if it were worth the ftanding on.

My next proof is from thofe texts that cxprefly promife the pardon of fin on condition of Repentance, Confefiion, &c. If Repentance, and other ads are made by the Gofpel, conditions of pardon, (and our firft general Pardon ) then arc they made conditions of our firft admifiion into a ftate of Juftification. But the Antecedent is phin, in Aft. 2. 38. Mat. 14-

M Luke

(8z)

Luke 13. 3S- 7 /<M5^7- and t. 16, 17,18. £4*4.33.? *; 16 end iS. 28,29,30,3 i^z.Prov.iS. 13. ^#. 3.19.with many more. Ihe Conference is plain, in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Justification ; and by others confefTed a chief part ; and by all its confefTed to be made ours on the fame terms as is Juftification it felf.

My fourth Proof is from thofe texts which make thefe kind of Ads to have the place of a condition in order to falvation ; if they arc conditions of falvation, then are theynolefs then conditions of our final Judication : But the Antecedent is ordinarily acknowledged by the Opponents, and its proved, iTiw.4.8. Htb. 5.9. 1 Tim. 6.18,19. Luk. n. 28. and' 1^.44 \ Car. 9. 24,25,26,27. r RjV. 22. 14. fohn 12,26. Rom. 8.13. UWat. 5.20. Af*f. 19.29. iW*f. 6.1,2,4,6. atld j. 12,46. and 10. 41,42., 2 7^rjf. 1.5,6. Col. 3. 23, 24. H*£. €. 10. 2. 7»». 4.7,8. Qal. 6. 4)5^6,7,8,9,10. 2 Or. 9. 6,9. fohn 5. 22, 27, 28, 29, &c. The Confequence is proved good, firft, In that final Juftificatton and Glorification have the fame conditions ^ as is plain, both in many Scriptures (mentioned ) and in the nature of the thing : for that Juftifi-cation is the adjudging us to that Glory • and therefore fo far as any thing is the caufe or condition of the Glory it felf, it muft be the reafon of the fentence which adjudgeth it to us. Secondly, And falvation is as free as Justification, and no more deferved by man: and therefore the Apoftle equally excludeth works from both^Eph. 2.5, 8,9. By Qraceje arefaved, through faith t and that not of your ft/ves, it is the gift of Gody not of Worlej, left any man [bould boaft. ] fo Tit. 3. 5,6,7. more fully. Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works^ exclude not fincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation* then Jufl'fication by grace through faith without worku doth not ( in Scripture fence ) exclude fincere obedience from being the condition of our final fuflifrcation^ nor Repentance from being the condition of our jnftifisation as begun : ( for there is ea-dem ratio, and the Text makes the one as free without works, as the other) But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures, Ergo, &c. Wty fifth Proof is from thofe texts that in terms feem to af*

(83)

figna caufaUty to fuch obediential ads, which can be interpreted of no lefs then a coadit tonality ; fuch arc Lukj 19.17. Mat.if. 2r,23,34,3S,40^ 6 ^.22.16,77,18. 2 Cfc™». 34.^,27. P/n/w 9i*A<4 Mark.j-19. ' M* 3* 22 > 2 3- M« 16.27. /frv. 3.10. and ^.and 7.14,15. ^c. And though fome of thefe cext9 fpeak not of Divine acceptance to life; yet firft, fome do; fecondly* and the reft fpeak of no mercy but what is as freely given as fufiification. A mans own works are excluded other Means and parrs of falvation, as well as that.

I run over thefe briefly and generally, both becaufe leaped that the bare texts without my Commenrs^ould work upon the Considerate, and becaufe I have been fo much upon it formerly in other writings(as Confefs. $. 3. p. 56. eaf.$.& cap 5.$. 2. fag. 117,118. & alibi pajftm) as that I apprehend in this work more tedioufnefs than necefficy.

But the chief thing that I further here intend, istoanfwer fome Objections, that by a Reverend Brother in his fecond pare of his Treatife of Juftification arc brought againft mc.

But before I come to his Arguments, its necefTary that I a little animadvert on his Defcripsion of Juftification, that we may firft agree upon the fenfe of our terms, or at leaft, know how to understand one another.

Treat. Of f unification, p. 126. [_ fufiification is a gratious andjufl A3 of Cjod, whereby through Chrtfi our Mediator and Sttrttj t a [inner , but repenting and believing ,is pronounced j»ft, ana hereby put into a jtate of Reconciliation and favour with Qodfo the p-aife of God* glorious attributes^ and to the believers eternal falvatien. I/ball not examine this Defcrrption by accurate Logical Rulesficc.

Anfft. Firft, Doubtlefs an accurate, rather then populir definition would as foon be expe&ed from you, as from molt; and here as-anywhere in a Treatife purpofely on the Subjed. Secondly, Pronunciation doth not go before Conftitution, nor put us into a (tare of Reconciliation and favour, but find us in ic 5 you fay your felf. pxg. i 20. To juftifie, u to conftitute and to declare cr \ronouxte righteous, And inyoUr firft Treatife of Juftification. fag. "j.lniesd the Apoftle , Rom. 5. faith, many

M 2 are

w

ire made rigbteons by the fecond *Ad*m ; which if not meant of inherent holinels doth imply that rhe righceoufnefs we have by Chrift, is not meerly declarative, but alfo constitutive ; and indeed, one is in order before the other ; for a man muft be righteous, before he can be pronounced or declared fo to be. ]

Treat, p. The Application of ( purification ) is attri-buted to the Hoi) Ghofi. /

Anfve. I know not of any fuch , except firft , where Ju* fttfication is taken for San&ification. Secondly , or as the Holy Ghoft is made the Author of the Proraife, though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith alfo.

Treat. \6. The Socinians fay Chrift jufiifieth only In-flrumentally, r,ot principally ; even fo faith is faidto fave : but this cannot be % becaufe Chrift is God as Vet 11 at LMan t and there* fore cannot be inftrument al> but principal*

vfnffr. As they err on one hand, that fay Chrift juftifi-eth only Inftrumentally ( which flows from their blafphemous deny all of his God-head } fo its an error on the other hand, to fey that Chrift cannot be Inftrumental, but principal ; I prove the contrary 5 firft, If Chrift may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption, and ruling of mankind, then may he be an Inftrument. But, &e. Ergo, &c.

Secondly, If Chrift may be a means, he may be an Inftrument ^ but he may be a means, for he is called by himfelf the way to the Father : and a way is a means.

Thirdly, He is called the Fathers fervant: therefore he may beanlnftrumcnt.

Fourthly, He is faid to come to do his Fathers will, therefore he is his Inftrument.

Fifthly, All Po&eris faid to be given him, even the Power of judging, f hn$. 22. and M^ttheW 28. 18, 19. therefore he is the Fathers Inftrument in judging.

And your rcafon is invalid, ( w*. becaufe Chrift is God ) for he is Man as well as God > and to may be Inftrumental.

Treat.

Treat, p. 129, no. It founds as intolerable Doftrine in my ears, that Chrift our Mediator did only expiate by hu death fins again]} the Law and Covenant of works, but that thoje that an againft the Covenant of Grace-, &C.

^ Anfw.K fin is againft the Law of Grace or Gofpel^hrf^becaufe it is againft fomc objed revealed in rhe Gofpel,which the fin is againft,( as Chrift) Thus fin was ex[ iated by Chrift : 2ly.As it is againft a Precept or the Gofpel and thus it is expiated by Chrift .• 3 ly. As it is a breach of a mans own Promife or Covenant made to Chrift upon the Gofpel invitation. And thus it is expiated by Chrift. 4ly. Or as it hath refpect to the Gofpel commination, fo as to make a man the objed of the a&uall curfe of this New Covenantor the perfon to whom its proper penalty is become actually due; as every fin made the penalty of the flrft Law actually due to us.This is it that I have faid.that Chrift doth not expiate, and none but this.Some Divines fay,the Gofpel hath no proper curfe or commination &penalty.I am paft doubt that it hath,even non-liberation, a privation of all the falvation offered them,and the Remedilefnefs of their ftate, &c . and I have oft opened this, and proved that only final Jmpcnitency and Infidelity , or the finall non-performance of the conditions of life, are thus peremptorily threatned , and make a man the Subject of the proper actual curfe of this Law of Grace. And if after all ex» plications, you will ftill carry it in confufion, or intimate that men hold intolerable Doctrine, omitting their explications* and by generals making that theirs which they difclaim • our next reply Lhall be patience ; or if you think indeed,either that the Law of Grace doth oblige any under the penalty of reme-dilefs non-liberation, befides the finally Impenitent and Unbelievers, or that Chrift dyed to expiate any mans predominant final Impenitency or Unbelief, 1 will not trouble you with any other confutation; then a denyal of it.

Treat./?, ibid* Repentance u not an iigred'ext to our Jufificjf tim as faith 14 ; Repentance qurtifieththe Subjtll) but fai;b tmmi-Hat I] rtctivtth it*

M 3 Anfwtr*

(so

*Anf*er % The Word Ingredient is more ambiguous then to be worthy the labour of difcutfing : But your affigned difference I ever did allow. And yet mud we voluminously differ, when I have told you that I allow it ? But then { add, that this difference is in the nature of the ads, and in their aptitude to their office. But in the general nature of being Con-die ions of pjrdon, which is the neareft reafon of their intereft,they agree, though upon feveral reafons they are made conditions.

Treat. [ PVe are not jnjiified by the Habit of faith • but b) the All. ~\

Anffter, Ifaidfo too in my Aphorifms. But the reafons of a learned man ( Dr. waUU in his friendly animadverfions) have perfwaded me that it is unfound.

Treat, p. 129. It is ajferted, that fuftification called in Titulo, or virtual, is nothing bat the Grant of it in the Gof-pel : ISm I fee not how that can be called our fuftificati-on.

Anfw. Firft, That which is afferted, is, fir ft, That theGof-pcl is the Internment juftifying. Secondly, That the moral act of the Gofpel-Grant ( and Gods Will by ic)is Juftification in fenfu aftivo. Thirdly, That the Relation refulting thcre-frora, is our paflive Juftification.

Secondly, Can you fee how a Princes pardon under his hand-writing can be the Inttrument of a Traitors pardon -, and how the moral or civil Action of that Inttrument, and of the Prince by it, can be active pardon ; and how the Relation effected by it can be paflive pardon ? If you can fee it there, you may fee it here 1 And if yon cannot > many a one can.

Treat. It is the fign or hfirumnt declaring it : notjtifiifi-■fation.it felf, '

^Who.ever faid,and where,that paflive Juiiificatior(vcalor

active)

adive ) is the Gofpel it k\f, or the fign ? The Letter is the fign ; The adual fignification of Gods will thereby is the jufti-fyingad. The Relation thence refultingon us, is ourpafiivc J uftification. Thefe have been oft recited.

Treat, ex/; the grant or promife of our SanUifcation U not our SaKttifie at ion,

Anfa. Good reafon: The difference is not to you unknown: Sandification ( pafsivej being a Phyfical effed, mufthavea Phyfical caufe, and therefore a bare moral caufe cannot produce it. But pardon or juftification being but a Relative effect, may be produced per nudam refultantialh a, fundamento. 2 . But fuppofe God had made a promife of Sandification on condition of faith . would not the Right to Sandification have refulted immediately from this promife, the condition being performed ? And that Right hath the fame Relative nature, as conftitutive Juftification, and pardon it felf hath.

Treat. And 04 on the contrary our condemnation white ft* abide in fin, or Qods anger again/} th? fmntr, u not the threatning promutged , but that which comes jrom God himfetf.

Anfvf, i. Our Condemnation perfentenxitmJudicU , is not the thing in queftion, nor yet the explication of it •, but our conftitunve condemnation. And that it is not indeed the Letter of the Law, ( whoever faid fo ) but a&ive , it is the adion of the Law, & pajpve fumpta, it is the Relative effect of the Law.

2. From your own Argument reverft, Iunrefiftibly make good my Caufe againft you. Condemnation adive is the Laws ad, and condemnation Pafsive is the Laws immediate effed : therefore Juftification is alike produced by the Promife or Gift in the Gofpel. The Antecedent is proved, lolcn 3. 18. he that bileveth onhimjsnot condemned^ ( for the Obligation is diflbl-ved ) but he that bet eveth mt^is condemned already.^ Which muft be by fome Law, it being before Judgement and Execution, 2. Cor. 3 9. "I he Law in its delivery is called [ the miniftra-

tiorv.

C$8)

tion of condemnation]] and that of the Gofpcl £the nrni* ftration of righteoufnefs ] lam. 2. 9. men arc faid to be [_ con-.vincedoftbeLAtoMtranfgreffors.'] Though Taul confute the falle conceits of Juftification by the Law, yet he took them for no unfit phrafes , tofpeakof [the Law Morning wrath'} Rom. 4. 15. [ The curfe of the Law ] Gal. 3.13. And faith, What fa-ever the LaVt faith, it faith to them that are under the Law ] Rom. 3.19. When the LaWcomes , fin reviveth^ndtoedie, Rom. 7. 8,9. therefore we are faid to be [delivered from the LaVo^"] Rom.%, 2. & Gal. 3.13. Rom. 7. 6. hndGal. 3. 21. Jf there bad been a Law given which coti f d have given life , right eoufnefs fhould have been by the Law. Hence then is mention of being lufttfied by the Laftfial. 5,4. and mens being debtors to the Law, Gal. 5. 3. And fomewhacthis way is implyed by Nicodemus , John 7. 51. doth our LaVo judge any man before, &c. ] In a word, what more common among Divines, then to fay, [ the Ltito curfeth or condemneth fanner s~\ And then it is not abhorrent from the nature of a Law of Grace, an ad of Oblivion, to ab-foive and juftifie finners.

Treat. Neither then could we fay, that we arejuftified by Chrift given to us, but by the propofition laid down in the Scripture* whereas all fay that the objeclum quod of our faith is ens incom-plexum , not the promife of thrift , but Chrift himfelf pro-mifed.

v4*fa. Its no impofsible thing to be juftified both by Chrift, and by the Promife. There is no ground to fuppofe co-ordinates to be contraries. Why may not Chrift given us, juftifie us as the meritorious caufe, and a principal efficient; and his Gofpel-grant, as his Inftrument ? And accordingly each of them may be the objed of faith. The principal obje& is an ent incompkxum, Chrift himfelf:but a fubordinat ObjeA is both the Doftnne Revealing what he is and hath done, and the promife whichorferethhimtous, and telleth us what he will do. If a Princes Son redeem a woman from Captivity , or the Gallows, and caufe an Inftrument under his own hand (and the Kings ) to be fent to her, alluring her of pardon, and liberty,

a n 4

(%9-)

and honours with himfelf, if (he will take him Tor her husband, and truft him for the accompliftiment ? Is it not pofsible for this woman to be pardoned and delivered by the K ng by the Princes ranfom„ by the Prince efpoufed , and by her marriage with him, and by the Inftrument of pardon or conveyance You may be enriched by a Deed of G ift and yet it may be an ens in-complexum that is beftowed on you by that Deed, and enricheth you too. Your Money and your Leafe, both may give you title to your houfe. The promife is Gods Deed of Gift, bellowing on us Chrift and pardon, or Justification with him.

Treat. Be fides, Abraham was luflifed, and he it made the fat-tern of all that fijll be Infixed : Tet there was no Scripture-grant, or deedof gi't in writing, declaring this : God then communicating himfdf to "Belivers in an immediate manner.

Anfw. Was there no Gofpel-grant then extant ? no deed of Gift of Chnft and his Righteoufnefs to all that (hould believe } Nothing to aflure men of Jufhfication by faith , but immediate communications to Believers ? M fo, then either there was no Church, and no falvation : or a Church and falvation without faith in Chrift ; and either faith in the Mefliah to come for pardon and life , was a duty , or no duty : If no duty,

then If a duty, then there was a Law enjoyning it, and

that Law muft needs contain or be conjunct with a revelation of Chrift, and pardon and life to be had by him. I fuppofe that whatever was the ftanding way of Life and Juftification then to the Church, had a ftanding precept and promife to engage to the duty and fecure the benerr. I know not of duty without Precept, nor of faith without a word to be believed. Rut this word was not written 1 True i but what of that ? Was iteverthelefs a Law or Promife, the Object of Faith, or Inftru-nienc of Juftification ? The promife of the feed might be con-veg'ied by Tradition,and doubtlefs was fo. Or iftherc had b*en no general conditional grant or offer of pardon through Chrift in thofe times, but only particular communications to fome men, yet would thofe have been neverthelefs inflrumcntal.

N Treat.

(po)

Treat. Therefore to ca ] l this Grant or Condi-ioml Prom'fe w the Scripture, i/Vhofoever (hill believe (hall be juftified, a tran-funt aV of GoA, is very unproper, unlefs in fuch a jer<fe, as We fay, fttch a mam writing U his hand , and that is wholly impertinent to our purpife.

Anfsti. There are two diftind ads of God here that I call Tranfient. The iirft is the Enading of this Law, or giving this pfomife. If this were not Gods ad,then it is not his Law or pro-mifc. If it be his ad, it is either Tranfient, or Immanent. I have not been accuftomed to believe thatLegiflation , Promt-fing, &c. are no ad?, or are Immanent a6is. The fecond is the continued Moral Action of the Word, which is alfo Gods Action by that Word as his Inftrument : As it is the Adion of a written Pardon to Acquit, and of a Leafetogive Title, &c. And fo the Law is fa;d to abfolve, condemn, command, &c* What it faith\ it faith to them that are under the LaW : And to fay, is to Ad. Though phyfically this is no other Adion , then a fign pcrformeth in fignifying, or a fundamenturn in producing the Relation, which is called the neareft efficient of -that Relation. Now either you think that to oblige ( themoftefTential ad of Laws ) to abfolve, condemn, &c. are Gods ads by his Word, or not. If not, the miftake is fuch as I dare not confute, for fear lead by opening the grcatnefs of it, I offend you. If yea; then either it is Gods Immanent ad, or his Tranfient. The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be. That which is done by an Inftrument, is no Immanent ad in God: To oblige to duty, to give right to Impunity and Salvation, &c. are done by Inftruments,**s..the Word of God, as it is the fignifier of his will: therefore they are not Immanent Ads. Moreover, that which is begun in time, and is not from Eternity, is no Immanent Ad. But fuch arc the fore-mentioned : becaufc the word which is the Inftrumenr,was indited in time. Laftly, that which maketh a change on the extrinfick object is no Immanent act, but fuch are tnefe Moral acts of the Word : for they change our Relations, and give us a Righr which we had not before, &c* therefore they are certainly tran-

(9i)

(lent arts^ A thing that I once thought I ftiould never by man have been put to prove.

Treat, pag. i$0. Its true at thed^y of fudgement there w'll be a folemn and more comfleatfufttfjingof ut^as t have el/where fbewed.

*Anfw. You have very well (hewed it: and I take gratefully that Le&ure, and this Concefsion.

Treat, pag. 151. Indeed we cannot then be /aid to be ju/lified by Faith , &c. Hence thi< kind of Tufiification wtU ceafe ** he4~ ven ( as implying imperfcblivn. )

A»f&. And I defirc you to obfcrve, that if it be no dif-honour to Chrift,that we be there ( through his grace ) cvcr-laibngly juftified without hblmpuedrighteoufnefs, or pardon, or faith pro futuro : it canno: be any difhonour to him here, chac we fhould repent, and believe, and be fanctified, nor that thofe fhouid be conditions of further mercy, and fufficient of thera-felvesto jurHfieusagainft any falfe charge that we are Impenitent, unfanctified Infidels. If a perfect cure difgrace not our Phyfitian then fure an imperfect cure and the acknowledgement of it, is no difhonour to our Phyfitian now.

Treat, pag. 137. Thus allthofe Arguments , If rte be fu-flifedbyfdtth^ then by our own Wrorl^, And that this is to give too much to fath, J ea more then feme fay they do to works, which they bold a conduion of our Jujlifica'ion ; AU thefe and the I'ke Objections vanifb ; becavfe we are not juftifiedbyftith, as Juftifi' cation u confidered aflivei'y, but pajfivelj.

Anfft. i. I yet think that I have faid enough in my private Papeisro^ou, to confute the conceit of faith's being Paflive. 2. If i had not, yet vou yield me what I defire : f fattb acl nor, but fuflfrr, to our Jultificatton, then is it no efficient Inftru-mentalcaule. For all true efficiency is by A<3i >n. Andio^ou keep but a Metaphorical Inftrument. But of this, more hereafter.

N 2 Treat.

c*o

Treat, pag. 141. We cannot call Remf ion of fin afkate } tu wt calljuftification.

Anfa. I do not believe you : and 1 can bring many Scriptures againft you. Cut to your felf its enough to ask , How can you conftantly make Remiflion anEfftntial part of Juitification, and yet fay, that we cannot call it a ftace, as we do Juftification, In your firft Treat, of Juft. Lett. ^7>p^g^A5- you fay, Pr<?/\4, Remiflion is not to be confidered meerly as removing of evil, bu: alfo as bellowing good. It is not only ablauvamali % but colUtiva boni, a plentiful vouchfafing of many gracious far vours to us, fuch as a Son-fhip, and a Right to eternal life, as alfo peace with God, and communion with him. "] And why may we not fay, [ K ft ate of Somliiporfalvation] as well as of Juitification >.

Treat, ib. There is a, Jufttfication of the caufe ^ and of the fi*\ [on, afwdes to be diftinguijhed.

Anfw. There is no Judication of his caufe, which doth not fo far juflfie the perfon: Nor any fentential Juftification of the perfon, but by juftifying his caufe. Though his adions may not be juftifiable; yet when the caufe to be tryed is, Whether iinful a&ions be pardoned by Chrift, that caufe muft be juftiri-ed , if that man be juftified. Even as Accufations are not charged upon the perfqn, without fome caufe real or pretended.

Treat, pag. 152. Not only Bucer Vehoukxoton to place Juftification both in Imputed righteoufnefs ant Inherent, thereby endeavouring a, Reconciliation with the Papifts ~ But Calvin /;*. 3.

cap. 17. feci. 8. • lothispnrpofi alfo Zanchy —-.

Anfw. Why then might not I have had as fair meafureas Lud. de Dieti) Bucer, Calvin, Zanchy ? efpecially when I go not fofar. And yet I take my felf beholden to qniL Rivet , for helping me to fome fcraps of Phil. Codmcm^ who drives at this

mark,

(93)

. k, as you fay Sneer doth, though I cannot yet get the Book it felf.

Treat. p3g. i 58. O this is excellent, when a man is awaked a*di>t an holy manner confounded at hx holinefs , as Well as a: efftnees-

Anfw. So you before fay, they muft be afhamed of their Righteoufnefs as well as their fine. I do not well underftand tbefe diftmftions. No:hing in all the world confoundeth me fo much as theimperfection of my Holinefs : But I dire not think that imperfection to be no fin, left I muft think the perfection to be no duty, and fo come to works of fupererroguion and Evangelical Counfels. And Holinefs coniidered in it felf, and not as finful and imperfect, is amiable in my eyes, and I know r.ot how to be afhamed of it, without being a(hamed of God that is its object and exemplar, and heaven that is the ftace of its perfection,

Treat, ib. SctfomefeVc^ even a remnant a fide, comparatively , the whole (fkriftUn rvorla* both T>ottors andpeople t learned and UK-learned, faft en on a Jaftif:cAtion by rvorkj*

Anfw. I hope not fo many as you fe3r, or affirm. Firft , all the Doctors and people of your judgement do not : And if you thought thofe {o exceeding few among Chriftians, you would not take me for fo fingujar as yea do. 2. None of the truly fanctiried are fuch as you here affirm. 3 The multitude of groundlcfs prefumers of Free Grace are not fuch. And truly though I doubt Jufticiaries are too common, I do not think that fuch Prefumptuousor.es are fo fmall a Rcmnan\ 4. The Libertines and Antmomians, and many other Sects of their mind, are none of this great number. 5. I will yet hope for all this, that you cannot prove it of the Doctors and people of half the Christian world. Their hearts Ood knows. And I will not yet believe that in their Doctrine about Juftihcation b/ works, the Greek hu ches,the ^.rmenians, Jacobites ,Copri J s, Abafines, &c. do Men on fuch dangerous fands, or dirfer fo much from

you.

CP4)

you. 6. I heard aseminenr Divines as moft I know ( fomeyet living) in a publick meeting fay , that Btfhop VJher aud Mr, Gataktr affirmed, that the Papifts did not fundamentally differ from us in the Doctrine of Judication.

Treat, pag. 167. Byallthefejubttle Dflinttionsy men^ouli bethought'

Arty. Your fcope in that page feemsto be againft any diftin-guifhingwhatfoever about works, in this propofition , We are yn^ified by faith, and not by wor fa , If fo , that we muft not run to any diftin&ion, bur fay that in every motion or fenfe, Works are excluded* and do juft:fie in none, then I profefs it is paft my uttmoft sk II to juftifie you for accufing Althamtr as you do, for faying, Mentiru facobe in caput tuum : Yea if he had upon the reading of Mat. 12.36. rifen higher, and faid, Memiru Chri-fie in caput tuum. For fure he that faith, [ By thy words thou /halt bejuflified ] Or by war fa a man ujufl fied, and not by faith only "] can no way \ offibly be excufed from that crime, if no di-ftinction may verifie his words 5 but they muft then be taken as absolutely falfe : which I will not be perfwaded of.

Treat, pag. 21Q. Serm. a^.Obferv. That even the moft holy and regenerate man is not Iuflified by the wo- fa of grace which he doth. Thii truth u the more diligently to be *jferted % by how much the error that confronts it it more fpecious and refined , anh main* tained by fuch abettors^ whofe refute is not fo eaftly caft iff as the former We fpake of

Now you come purpofely,I perceive to deal with me. I con-fefs the repute of Abettors doth much to bear up opinions through the world, even with them that fpeak moft againft implicit faith. But you need not defpair of carting off the repute of them you mention. Mr. Robert/on and Mr. Crandon can teach any man that will learn that leffon.

Treat, ib. The gueftionismt , Whether "toe are fuftified by Work/, though flowing from grace , as meritorious or efficient of Ju-

Jlification.

Cp?)

ftiScAt'oft. This the Ofi'.'enifts rve hive to deal with, do rejeB \\>tth in? %n if on. To make Wmk% en her mr i- n efficient c*»fes of otir IiiflificAtion be* re God , thti gr «; it airtflL to ofpo/e the Scr.-ptnres ; yea they feem to be offered w th the O'thod.x, as gi-vingioimucb tofiitb, becauje iis m^de m nflrnment of our Ju-fitficutioYi\ therefore they are to be a:q:-iued at leaji from grofs Popery.

%Anfa. This is one paffcge which I unJen! and by your Preface to you Sermons on John 17. you lookc for thanks for : and I do freely thank you for it: for the world is facti now , as thac I muft take my felf beholden to any man that doth injure me with moderation and modefty. But you might have done thac juftice to us Opinionifts, as to have put [ any caufes at all ~\ in-ftead of [ efficient caufes ] when we had fo often told you (the Orthodox ) that we difclaimed all true caufality ; and then your Reader would have been ready to hope that we are free alfo from the finer Popery as well as the grofs But fince I have heard of late times, what it is that goes under the name of Antichriftianity and Popery , even with many that are able to call themfelves Orthodox, and others that diftent from them , worfe then Opinionifts ^ I confefs I begin to have charitable thoughts of a man that is but freed from the charge of grofs Popery : and if thofe tongues Qiould free him alfo from the imputation of all the finer Popery, I fhould begin to fufpedt thac fomewhat is amifs.

Treat, ib. 2. Although to maintain faith and Obedience to be the conditions, and a caufa fine qua non of our ] unification t be the froftffed and avowed Dotlrine of the Socinians, yet fome of late have afferted the [ami DoElrtne , that yet abhor Scctnian*

ifm .

Anfo. For this alfo I give you the thanks which you expected, on the forefaid grounds. But if we aflcrt the fame Doctrine with the Socinians, either it is the fame/ii/;> Dodrine , or the fame found Do&rine. If the later, you might as well have faid» the Socinians affercthat there is a God, andfodo we : But to

what

what purpofc ? If the former; then either it is faife quoad ter* minor 9 or quoad (enfum. The former cannot be faid without abfuidity: the words can have no other falfnefs, but an unfic-nefs, diiHnfl from thefene: And if the terms be any part of Socimanifm, then Chnft and fames were guilty of Socinn-nifm ; quod abfic. If it be the fenfe ; Firft, I crave no other favour of the impartial Reader, before he judge, then to read the Sncmians explication of themfelve?, and to read my explication here, and in my confeflion. Secondly, And if he will alfo perufe the Allegations in the end of that confeffion,!et him judge whether the Orthodox he not guilty of S ocinimifm. Or if he be tempted to believe Dr.OWens intimation?, as if 1 had deait injurioufly with the Authors there alleadged, I only defire him to turn to the places cited, and perufe them in the Authors, and freely cenfure me,

Treat. 220. Neither is thequeflion about the necefftty cf ho*

linefs, &c. *~" Only the quefiiou is upon what account

thefe are required in juftified perfons ; Whether infome caufality, or concurrence as faith is., only not Wit h fucha degree of excellency? Whether good Works be required as Well as faith, fo that We may fay t justifying Repentance > juftifrivg LaW } ( Love* it jbould be) -as well as jufttfying faith ? This is pofitively and vehmently affirmed by fome : but certainly thofe Arguments and Reasons they bring are too Weak to gainfay the Torrent of the Orthodox Divines.

Anfrv. Upon the reading of this.I complained of hard mea-fure in the Preface to my confefsion: to which you reply fome-what in your Preface to Sermons on John 17. 1 fliall recite the reafons of my complaint. Firft, I did both at large in private writings to your felf, and publiquely to the world, pro-fefs that I took neither faith nor works for any caufes at all of ourjuftification ; was it juft then to make this the (late ef the Queftion, and fay I pofitively and vehemently affirmed it ? ( for you deny not that it is me that you mean, and I know it by paffages here agreeable to your private letters) Secondly, I never once imagined the difference between faith and holy obedience

(97)

dicnce or fanctification, to lie ( in order to Justification ) in the degree of excellency. I never ro my remembrance fo thought, or wrote,qr fpoke. But the difference I laid here, firft, That ( as to actual obedience, yea and Repentance) faith hath a peculiar aptitude to this office, as being a Receptive act, and fit-ed to the object,as that object is fitted to our necefsity. Secondly, That( astoaflent, defire of Chrift. love to (Thrift offered, accepting him as Teacher, and Lord ) they are effential acts of faith ,and fo differ not at all,as they are by many fuppofed to da NayJ rather expected that fome fhould have charged me with preferring Holinefs before faith in excellency,while I made faitb butthefeed,andholynefs as the fruit; faith to be but the covenanting, and Obedience the performance of what we confentcd to i and in a word,while I made perfect holinefs the end of faitb, becaufe the end is better then the means: And I was glad when I found you faying the like, Vindie. Legis^ Lett. 4. pag. 45 • C 1 3 holinefs and Godlinefs inherent, is the etid of Faitb and fnfiification. ] But little did I think to have been charged, and that by you, for making the difference to lie in faiths higher degree of excellency , and only in that. Thirdly, I never owned the phrafe of [ jttfttfying Repentance, juflifjing Love "\ nor ever faid that we may as well ufe thefe as \Jjuftifywg f*ith~\ And when none of thefe things were ever faid or written by rac, ought you to have left on record to* Generations , that [ tku ii foftttvely and vehemently affirmed. "| On the confiderati-on of this dealing, I muft fay again, O what is man , and what a fad cafe were we in>if the beft of men were our Judges 1 when they will not flick deliberately to publifh to the prefect and future Ages, that wepofitively and vehemently affirm thofe things, which we never thought nor wrote, but have by Letters and in printed books both pofitively and vehemently, & very frequently profeffed the contrary. Is here any room for further deputing? yea, when I have told you of this dealing, you own it liill, and defend it in your Preface to your Sermons on fckn 17.1 (hall therefore before 1 proceed, examine that Defence.

Preface, pag, *. £ Now when I had endeavoured to ftate the Queftion in a moft candid and fair way between thofe

Cp8)

that deny a Condition fine q.ua non of our Juftification, and thofc who affirm. A Reverend and Learned Brother, judging himfeif concerned in this opinion likewife, doth complain of the wane of Candor and truth in my ilacingT>f the Queftion , when I

rather expe. cted jthanks for my Ingenuity : — ■ Now let any

judicious Reader, thac is acquainted with controverfie, decide , wherein any Candor or truth may be delired here. For I fay £ caujality ] which is a general word, not efficiency or merit; Again, I fay, fome caufality, Caufalitas qu&dam^ which is terminus diminuens ; yea I added the word Concurrence^ which might fatisfie any how low I brought the Queftion.

csJnfaer. Will you call to any judicious Reader ,to tell you that which I particularly expreft to you ? Again, Then let the judicious Reader judge whether you (hould have faid to the world, any of the forementioncd particulars; Firft, That I give any Caufality to works as to J unification. Secondly, Or that I difference them only in degree of excellency. Thirdly , Or that I affirm, that we may fay, juftifying Repentance, juftify-ing Love,as well as juftifying faith. Fourthly, And this is affirmed pofitively, and vehemently: and all this when I had pofitively and vehemently denyed them. Fifthly, Yea, and that only this is the queftion between us.

And what do your defences do to juftifie fuch dealing ? £ you faid only £aufality in general, and not Efficiency or Merit ]. And did not I openly and privately to you deny Caufality in general, and not only Merit or Efficiency ? and is that pofirye or vehement affirming it? Second ly, [you fa id % Caufalitas quAdam* which is terminm dimmutns^M quoadeffe caufalitatU it be termU nm diminuens y then the meaning is,that I make them no caufes. But do you think any Reader will F-ngWChCaufalitasqaadam, byQ»0 Cau{dity~] But doubt.efs you mean that it is Terminus diminuens as to the quality or nobility of the caufe. But firft, I never heard before that quaJlam was terminm diminuens % and if no Readers mult underftand you, but thofe that know this to be true* I think it will be but few. Secondly, But what if that were fo ? Did you not know that I denyed even all aw [4.ty r how dirainute foever qu&dam can exprefs, if it be but

real It-

Cpp)

real Thirdly, Bat you added [ Concurrence ] But it was in Concurrence with the feveral unjurt paffages before mentioned : and fure the neighbour-hood of that word hath not force enough to make them all true.

Preface. [ CMy Rev trend "Brother faith ? He vehemently difclaimeth all Caufality of Works in fufiipcation : furely his meaning id all proper caufal efficiency , and fo did J in the (fating of if. But to deny Caufalityin a largefenfe^ is to contradict hm-filf.

<sfnftoer. If foj what hope of Juftice ? Muft I in paper after paper difclaim all true Caufality , and will you not only perfwade the world of the contrary , but perfift in it, whether I will or not, and fay I mean a l proper caufal efficiency I ] Reader, I have no other remedy left, but to advife thee, that if yet after this it be affirmed jthc next time that I dif-clairo not all true caufality.or mean not as I fay,thou believe not the affirmation.

Preface. [_ For in his Aphorif.y^.. Thef. They bothyvt. Faith and Works juflifie in the fame kind of caufality\ y or mediate it (Jhould be mediajand improper caufes^or as Dr.TVrifs caufae difpofitivae, but with this difference , Faith as the principal, Obedience as the left princip *l. Here is caufality, though improper ; Here is a caufa difpofitiva ; and yet/hall I be blamed after I hid removed Efficiency and Mcritt

Anfioer. This is but to add injuftice to injuftice. When I have written at large that faith and works are no true caufes of Juftification, and after tell you that a condition is commonly called caufj fine qu<i non^ which is caufa fitua , and no cauie at all,but meerly nominal,having by enftom obtained that name, and that Dr. Tnifs calls this caufa difpofitiva : when I fay that they have only a caufality improperly lo called, which indeed is nocaufahty. Is it juftice for you ftillro perfwade the world that I mean feme caufality, though not efficiency} The thing I renouncciihe name is not it that you only charge me with; if

C i'o<0

you had, I was not the maker of ic. It was calkicattfaftne qua non t before I was born : I muft comply with common language, or be filent: efpecial'y when I tell you, I take it for no Cauic. You give me fuch juftice as the hoaftof the Crown Tavern in Chea?~fiJe had, who ( as Speed faith,) was hanged for faying merrily, that his Son was Heir of the Crown, and his exposition would not fave his life. I pray you hereafter remove more then Efficiency and Merit. I take not works to be either the material or formal caufe of Juftification, no nor the final, though you(in the words before cited ) affirm it fuch. Who then gives more to works, you or I > The final caufe is focal-led, beeaufe itcaufeth us tochoofe the means to it ,• Juftifica-tion is not a means of our ufing, but an ad of God .Therefore works are not properly the end of it.as to us.

And yet let me fay this to you.left you (hould miftake me: As vehemently as I difown all true caufality of works to our Juftifi-cation,I intend not to fall out with all men that call them caufes. As firft, Not with Pifcator nor fuch other that call them caufes of our final abfolution and falvation.Secondly, Nor with thofe that call them meritorious in the fame fenfe as the Fathers did, though they unfitly ufe the word. Thirdly, Nor with thofe that will fay, that beeaufe they pleafe God, and fo are the ob-jeclof his complacency and will, they may ther#fore,fpeaking after the manner of men,be called Procatar&ike caufes of his a& of J unification: and fo that the Amiablencfs and defirablenefs of faith and holinefs, is the caufe why he afligned them to this Noble place and office. Fourthly, Nor with them that fay, faith is a moral or a Metaphorical, pafiive or acVive Inftrument of Justification. Though I fay not as thefe men, I will not quarrel with them.

Preface. But 1 need not run to this ; for my ^Arguments militate again fir Works , At Worlds pfttfjwg under any pretended Notion Whitfoever.

Anfmr. By the help of this, I (hall interpret all your Arguments. And if fo,then they militate againft the ad of faith juftifying under the pretended notion of an Inftrument, unlcfs

you

you will fay thic faith is no A ft, or Inftrumentaliry is no pretended notion.

Preface. And this makjtth me admire hoW my learned Brother could let fall one paffage Wherein he may be fo palpably and ocular If convinced to the contrary by the fir ft looking upon my Arguments ; that Which he faith u £ the ftrength of my Arguments, lies upon a fuppofitton, that conditions have a moral efficiency ] There is no one of thefe ten Arguments brought againft f unification by Works, as a Condition fine qua non, that is built upon thufuppofttion, or hath any dependance on it y only in the fourth Argument after their ftrength is delivered , 1 do ex abundant/, /hew that a Condition in a Covenant ftritllj takjen hath a moral efficiency.

Anfvper. Firft, You confefsit is your Aflertion, thatfuch Conditions have a moral efficiency. Secondly, I never faid that you made that a Medium in ail your Arguments, nor that you intended that as their ftrength; but that their ftrength lyeth on that fuppofition ; and if I have miftaken in that, I will not ftand in it : But I think to (hew you that without that fuppofition your Arguments have no ftrength: which if I do, then judge at what you marvailed.

But'its a farther aft of injuftice in you, in alleadging me Apol. pag. 8. faying that fome conditions are impulfive caufes, when I told you it is not aua conditions, but only as materially there is fomewhat in them that is meritorious. I doubt not but the fame thing may be the matter of a caufe and a condiii-on.

Ifhall now return to your Left, of Juftificatioo, and there fpeak to the other paffage in your preface, about juftifying Repentance and Love, &c.

T«aL pag. 220. [ This thertfore 1 fha'l ( god vilting) undertake to prove, tb*t goo J rvo^kj are not a condition , or a caufa fine qua non of oar J unification.

» Anfwer. But remember that ttisjuftification, eklcrasbc-

Ciol)

gun in conftitution , or continued , or as pronounced by the Judges Sentence, that the Queftion comprchendeth,and not only the putting us into a juftiried ftacc ^ And its works under any notion that you fpeak of, and not only under the reduplication, quk works.

Xreat. p.221. Firft IfoaUirtftance in the great pattern and example of our 1 unification 1 Abraham ; from Whom the Apofile concludeth afujlification of alllZelievers in the like manner he was. Now that Abraham was not Iufiifiedbj Works, or hu work? ing, though a godly man, the Apoftle, &c.

Anfw. 1. I diftinguifh between works in Pauls fenfe, and workj in lames his fenfe. And becaufe you fay fo much againft diftinguiftiing of works , ( before ) as deceitful ^ I will firft prove the necefficy of diftinguiftiing. 1. WorKs in Van's fenfe are fuch as make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debr. Works in lames his fenfe are not fuch : therefore they are not the fame. Works in Pauls fenfe, are «#?<?»* at valuable tfftr-edtoGod, and juftifying by their value But works in tames his fenfe, are none fuch. Proved The works that lames fpeaks of muft necefTarily be done; Works in Pauls fenfe, we may not fo much as imagine that we can do ; v^. fuch as make the Reward of Debt, and not of Grace. Though the macter of fuck works may be done, which Jufticiaries thus conceive of, yet under fuch a notion,no man may once imagine that he hath them. 2. Works in Puuls fenfe are fuch as ftand in competition with Chrift, or at kaft, would be co partners with him in a co-ordination, but works in J Ames his fenfe are none fuch , but fuch as ftand in & due fubordination to Chrift ; fuch undoubtedly there are : And iuch fames fpeaks of.

That Paul fpeaks oi works as Competitors with Chrift, or as co-ordinate, an hundred fexts will prove; and the cafe is fo plain, that I think it not worth the infifting on , feeing thd impartial reading over the Epiftlc may fatisfie.

2.1 dfftinguifh of J*ftifjwgi quoad modum procurandi, or of the diftmd Interefts of mens adions therein, fignified in the prepofition £#/.] Paul fpeaks of Juftification C^/l

works,

works , as bj valuable deferring caufes, or procatar-dike caufes, moving Gcd to juftine ug by their worth , or by fomc true caufokiyprccttriKg'it. But lames fpeaks of Works as fuppofing the perfect Satisfaction and Merit of Chrift, and that ail that is valuable to the caufal procurement of our Juftification is to be found in him alone, *nd therefore he leaves no caufality herein to woiks ; but takes them as a meer condition, which ceafe fufpending when performed. For the efficiency of a condition, is only in fufpending till performed : And fo Rebellion can fufpend • when the ceafing of that Rebellion by obedience, doth not caufe; but only ceafe fufpending.

Now I anfwer to your Minor* that Abraham was not juftifi-ed by works in Pauls fenfe, but he was in James's fenfe, unlefs you will own the fa}ing which you chide Althamtr for. ( Though I muft fay that in his Conciliations Loc. Script. Al-thtmer deals more mannerly with lames. ) Alraham was not juftified by works, as making the Reward of debt, and not of grace : for he had no fuch works : But Abraham was juftified i. By the act of faith, asacondition : therefore by an act under fome notion. I know of few Divines that deny that faith is a condition of Juftification. 2. However you confefs your felf that Abrabam was Juftified by faith as an inftrumenr : and you fay that it was by the act of faith ( and not the habit. ) And though you take this to be but a nominal act, and really a Paf-fion , yet fo do not others: for herein you are more Angular ( achoufand to one, as far as I am able to understand,) then I am in the Doctrine which you charge with Angularity. 3. The faith that Ab^ahtrnvj^ juftified by, was not only a bare appre-henfionof ChriftsRighteoufnefs, but a receiving of Girth as Chrsft, which is called, Works, by your party. 4. It was either Br or Becavfe of his External Obedience, that Abraham was juftified. Proved. 1 By lames 2. 21. Was not Abraham our Father juftified by works , when he had offered ifaast his fon upon the Altar ? 2. From(7f«r. 22. 12, 16, 18. Bj my felf have I[worn faith the Lord, for becaufe thou haft done this things and haft not w'tb-heldthyfon, thine only fon, that in blejfing 1 willbhfs thee, &c. AncL in thy feed /hall all the Nations of the earth be blef-jed y becaufe thou haft obejedr/>] voice.. But then I muft add, that

this

this was none of Abrahams firft Juftification, for he was Juft be* fore this; bin it was a renewed Acceptance and Approbation of God, and a kind of Sentential Declaration thereof, by the voice of the Angel. But a Juftification it was, and fq/<*«*/ calls it.

Now let us hear your Replies.

Treat, pag, 221. This cannot be a [olid Anfrer. 1. 'Becaufe the ^Apoftlefpeaketh generally of works in this defcription of lu-ftificatton, though in other places he fometimes faith Qthe works of the Law] jet A braham could not be Infianced in for fuels Works ,

&c. When We read the Holy Cjhoftfpake generally of all

Works > who are We that We fbsuld limit it to fome ? —«—— 'By their interpretation, the believer (bottld be oppofedcnly to feme kind of work* andfaith^ &c.

Anfw. 1, The ordinary ftrain of the Apoftles fpeecb, being expreflive of the worlds of the Law, is Expofitory of the reft,

1. Becaufe a few paflages muft be ufually expounded by many.

2. And becaufe a few (much more abundance o?) limiting paflages, muft expound thofe where the reftrr&ion is not ex-prefled.

2. Have not I ever yielded to you that all works are excluded from Juftifying as works ? but it follows nor that therefore they are (asyou may fay) excluded under any Notion whatsoever.

3. And why might not Abraham be inftanced in > Your proof is none. 1. Is it not a good Argument 2{egative , ^Abraham was not juftified by works, therefore we are not ? And a good Argument to prove the Antecedent: Becaufe he had no works that could juftifie : No nor thofe which were thentruftedon to Juftification. 2.Doth not TWfhewthathcfpeaksof thefe, when he proves bisaflertion, 1. Becaufe Abraham was then in uncircurncifion, Rom. 4.10. (what's that to Gofpel obedience ? ) 2. Becaufe the Law was long after the promife, and was not then given, £*/. 3.17. 3. Taul maketh it all one to be juftified by works, and to be juftirled by the Law ; as abundance of paflages (hew. A multitude of particular Texts do

cxprcfly

expreQv fhew that it is a£cgal luftifkation only thathefpca*ks of, and that he direftly intendeth only Legal works. I will now initance but in one, viz,. Rom. 4. 15. compared with Gen. 22.18; £ For thtpromife that he fiould be ke:r of the world , was not to Abraham and his feed by the Lax*, bat through the right eoufnefs of faith. ] Now compare with this, the words of the proraife it felf, f tsfnd in thy feed [ball aU the Nations of the earth be blef-fid, becaufethou haft obeyed mj voice. ] So ver. 16, 17. Be-caufe thou ha i done this things &c- ]

4. Its not eafic to conceive how any man can exped a Legal or Pharifaical luftification by Evangelical works without a grofs contradiction : For example • to be juftified Legally by Evangelical faith, defire, love, thanks, joy, felf-denyal, confeflion, ■&:. are all palpable contradictions : And fuch a mans faith rauft be thus expreft ; / expeB to merit lufiification legally, by believing in Chrift as the jolt Aleriter of my lufiification and falvation, or by defiring Chrift,or by loving Chrift as thefole Aleriter of my falvation : Or by thanking him, or rejoycing in him as the Sole~ merit er of my falvation : Or I expett legally to merit Iaftification, by denying that lean merit tt y by any righteaufnejs of my own • or by confeffing that 1 deferve damnation by my fins, or by praying or feeking far falvation by free gift % as merited only by Chr\ft.~\ All thefe arc palpable contradictions -, and no man can hold both that knoweth what he doth.

5. Yet I will fuppofe that though no man can fo truft to his works for legal Juftification, that are apprehended by him-as Formally Evangelical, yet perhaps he may do it by fome works thit are Mat en.illy Evangelical, and fancied by him to be what they are nor. And fo I ftill fay , that though it were Legal works that Pauldid directly difpure againft , yet confequenti-aily and indirectly he difpureth againft works commanded only intheGofpel, if men will do them to Legal ends, and fancy them to be of the value legally to juftirie them.

6. I will therefore fuppofe fome men to be fo unreafonable, as to expect a Legal Juftification , by their believing or confef-ling that Chrift only can Legally juftirie them, and not them-felves ; and fo I will grant you, that P**/doth ( confeqnenti-ally) exclude allworkj^ even Evangelical works from Juftifica-

P tion :

(10*)

tion : But though he exclude all works , yet not in every notk>n> nor doth he exclude All intereft of All works in our juftificati-on. All works as valuable offering* > he excludes, and fo as meritorious, not only in point of C ommutstive Juiiice,but alfo in point of Legal worth and Legal Jufhce, as the Phaiifeesfup-pofed them meritorious : All works he excludes from all proper Caufaltty. But he doth not exclude all works from having any Interclt at all in fubordination to Chrift. Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no intcreft in our Pardon, ia fab-ordination to Chrift ? If you fay, iV0,»0*<*»y, you contradict Cod, and your fclfi and all the Chriftian world. If you fay, Tea, but they jtiftifie not qua work*; you fay nothing to the comroverfie : For I have over and over as loud as you, profefTed that they juftifie not formallter as works. If you fay they have any Intereft: i. Tell us better what it is. 2. And then you confute your general affertion. There's no Chriftian that I know but will confefs that the Gofpel works have the intereft of Declaring figns in our final Iuftification. And few will deny that Repentance hath the intereft of a neceiTary qualification , or condition to our firft j unification. Now would you perfwade us that PWexcludeth this kind of Intereft, or oppo-feth faith to it?If not againft ihtfigttal intcreft of works,then not againft all Intereft ; therefore if Pauls general exclufion will conilft with your fignal Intereft, then I (hall maintain that it will confift with the fore-explained Conditional 'intereft.

* I will not therefore be guilty ©f your charge of limiting the Holy Ghoft. If he fpake of all works, 1 will believe be means All Veorkj. But 1. If he over and over near an hundred times at leaft, explain himfelf as fpcaking of the Law, I will not fliut my ears againft that explication. And 2.1 will grant it is alfo all Evangelical PF^rkj , at leaft by confequence : Put I need not therefore grant that becaufe he excludeth All Wot^ therefore bee xcludeth All kind of Intereft of all works ; but only that fort which he difputeth againft.

Befides ail this, I muft diftinguifh of Juftificatiw , Legal and BvungelicaU refpe&ive to the promifes and threatpings of the Law and G ofpel, which do differ. No works ae all did ju-ftifie i/2brah(irK r from the charge of the Law, TJjom art a [inner,

as.

7)

as being the Righteoufnefs of the Law, and the matter of that Juftification. Nor will any works at all fo juftifie us. But ic doth not follow , that therefore no works will juftifie a man from the falfe accufation of being an Impenitent, Unbeliever, and fo having no part in Chrift , whofe Righceoufnefs muft flop the mouth of the Law : Or that no works are the matter of the righteoufnefs required in this Conftitution , £ He that be-litveth Jhdi befaved: Repent th.it your fins may be blotted out. ] Which are here required as the condition of our freedom from the Law, by the righteoufnefs of Chrift. In a word, Taul be-ftows a large difputc to prove that no works of ours do anfwec the expectation of the Law, and fo cannot juftifie us them-feives from its Accufation. Its an ill confequence, that therefore iWproveth that no works of mans do anfwer the fpecial conftitution or condition of the Gofpel [ Repent and Believe in Chrift\,8cc.~] and fo are not the Condition of ourintereft in that perfect righteoufnefs of Chrift, which is the only valuable caufe of our forefaid Juftification.

Treat. 222. *Again, that worlds of alt forts are excluded, is plain, if jou confer the Objett of Iuftificatien , who it is that is here [aid to be juftifitd, and that it, the ungodly* By the ungodly is one meant that hath not afufficient and adequate holinefs: fo that Abraham though regenerated,yet as to Iuftification is ungodly,hi cannot ft and before God, or endure , if all his impsrfettions be enquired after. Neft certainly he thatfulfilleth the conditions of Iuftification, cannot be called ungodly ; for he doth all that is required.

sAnfto. 1. Again, I grant all works excluded : but not in all their relations; nor are all their Interefts in Juftification excluded. 2. This Argument I fhould not have expe&ed from you. You confefs that by ungodly, is meant fucb, though Regenerate and holy,that have not an adequate holinefs: Adequate >, To what ? to the Law ? or to the conftitution of the condition in the Gofpel ? Marvel not if I deny the Confequence of your Argument, and if I be unable to digeft your reafon for it. You fay , [ Ht th'it fulfilleth the Condition of Iuftification , cannot be called ungodly.] But what Condition f\ confefs he that

P 2 ful-

(io8)

fulfiileth the Lofts condition cannot be called ungodly, nor be unjuftifiabic by chat Law. But he chat pcrformeth chc G*fpel-Condition of liberation, may be called ungodly in the fenfe you now mentioned,that is,unjuftifiable immediatly for his works by the Law : or one that hath not an holinefs adequate to the Law. Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly. I fup^oie you clearly fee fhat your Argument makes as much againft any Condition of Juftification in us, as againft works being the condition. For againft faith it felf, being any Condi-tion,you may equally argue , [ Its the ungodly that are juftified: But he that fulfiileth the conditions of luflification , is not to be called ungodly. Ergo, &c. "] But if you take ungodlinefs (as you do) for unadequate holinefs (to the Law,) I deny your Minor. Can no man but the Perfectly obedient, perform the condition of pardon in the Gofpd ?

Treat, ib. So that this u very con fider able,that allthofe Whom Codjufitfieth, hejuftifitth them mtfor any thing they havt of their ©W#, or any conditions they have performed ; but asfuch who are jinners in afiritl examination, ana* fo deferve condemnation , And therefore no Vvorkj of grace are looked uf on.

*Anfo. I have anfwered this fully in Colvhus. i. Though Proteftantsoftfay, that God favef.h men for their obedience, and Scripture ufe the term [becaufe"] oft, yet I amwillingto yield to you that men be not faved nor juftified for any thing of their own, or for any conditions : But yet he would not jufti-fie them without the performance of fome conditions ; but would condemn them for the non-performance , even with a fperial condemnation, diftind: from that which is for their fins againft the Law.

2. Colvinus was the firft man, and you are the fecond that ever I read ( to my remembrance ) faying that God juftifieth men as Jinners. A quaienus adomne valet eonfequentia- If as Jin" nors, then ally*tf»*rj are juftified. If not as performers of any Condition, then not as Believers i Thefe things want proof.

Treat.

Treat, ib. Laflly^ that all works Are excluded, is evident by the Slpoflles allegation out of David , who ma^es mans bleffedne/s to be in this, that God imputeth righteoufnefs Without Vccr/ej.

Anfw. i. This is fufficiently anfwered in the former. 2. Paul hence immediately concludeth that Rigbteoufnefs comes not only on the Circumcifion ; whence you may fee what works be means. 3. Your felves expound the foregoing term ungodly , of men that have net adequate holinefs, though fincere • therefore you mutt fo take this equipollent term [without no>kj } for [ without that adequate holineJs~\\ but it follows not, that therefore its without any humane ad. 4. Yet ftill 1 grant this al-fo , that its without any humane act, conftdered as the matter of a Legal righteoufnete,orasoppofitetoChnft, orco ordinate with him : but not without any humane ad:, as fubordinate toChrift, and as the matter of that Evangelical righceoufnefs which i« required in this Conftitution [Repent and Believe the Gofpel~\ viz. fincerely.

Treat, pag 223. ^And indeed it is at lafl confeffed , that its faith only that makes the contrail between God and the foul : that good works are not required to this initial confenting unto Chrift , fa as to maks him ours, but in the progrefs. This u that in effetl > Vehich the Papfls affirm in other words, Th.u the fi'ft fa-hfisat:-onu only bj faith 1 but the fecond bj good works.

Anfto. How would you have your Reader underftand thefe rwo ir.finuations?" 1. Have 1 fooft alTerted that which you call my Confeftion, and put it into an Judex of diftinciions, left it fhould be over-lookt. and told you as much fo long ago in private writings, and do you now come out with an \ JtsatUfi confeffed 1 i hope you would not in:imace that ever I denyed it : or that ever I wrote Book of that fubjed, wherein I did notexpreily averre it. But then (that you think not better ( me then 1 deferve) I muft tell you, that when I ttill excluded works from our begun Juftification. it was external Obedience , and not Repentance, nor thofea&sof faith (even theRecei-

P 3 ving

(no)

ving Chrift as Lord and Teacher ) which thofe that oppofe me call works.

a. If you take it but for an argument to convince fuch as I, that [the Papiflsholdit: Ergo, &c.^ I rouft complain that it isuneSedual.- But if you intend it for another efTe& on other perfons, vtz,. to affright them with the found of fo horrid a name, or drive them away by the (link of it, then you may pof-fibly attain your ends. But you fhould have attempted itonly by truth. Is it true, that [_ this is that in effetl, Which the Papifts affirm in other words 1 ] Yea is it not a notorious truth , that it u quite another thing which the Papijis affirm in fomewhtt like words ? i. The world knows that the Papifts by the firft Juftifi-cation, mean the firft infufion of renewing fpecial grace. 2. And that by the fecond Juftification, they mean, the adding of further degrees of Sandifkation, or actuating that which before was given. 3. That they hold, faith juftifieth in the firft Juftification conftitutive. 4. And that works or holinefs juftifie conflitutivi in the fecond Juftification , even as Albedo facit aU bnm % veldotlrina indita facit doElum, On the other fide, I have told you often privately and publikely, that, 1. By Juftificati* on I mean not San&ification, nor any Phyfical, but a Relative change. 2. That by firft and fecond, I mean not two ftates, or works, but the fame ft ate and works as begun, and as continued. 3. That faith juftifieth neither conftitutive er inharenter, nor as any caufe, but as a Receiving Condition. 4. And that works of external obedience are but a difpofitive condition, and an exclufion of that ingratitude that would condemn. And now judge on fecond thoughts, whether you here fpeak the words of Truth or Equity.

Treat, ib. Againft this general exclufion of all Works % is oppo-fed ver. 4. where the Apcflle faith* To him that worketh the Reward is of debt; from whence they gather that Works only which are debts ^are excluded,

Anfw. I never ufed or heard fuch a collection. All good works are debts to God ; but our collection is, that works which are fuppofed by men to make the reward of Debt,and not of Grace, are excluded. Treat*

(no)

Treat. *But if this be ferioufi) thought on , it makes ftrongly again ft them ; for the Apofiles 'Argument is a Generc : if it b$ by Workj y its of Debt : therefore there are not Vforkjof Debt^and Works of no Debt.

tsfnfw.i. If the Apoftle argued Qenere , then he argueth not from an Equivocal term; and therefore of no works but what fall under his Genus. 2. And the Apoftles Genus cannos be any thing meerly Phyfical, becaufe his fubjed and difcourfe is moral v and therefore it is not every ad that he excludctb. 3. Nor can it be every Moral Ad that is his Genus : but only Works in the notion that he ufeth the word ; that is, All fuch Works as Workmen do for hire, who expcd to receive wages for the worth or defert of their works.

I (hall therefore here confute your aiTcrtion , and ftiall prove that All workj do not make the Reward to be of "Debt , and not of Grace : and confequently that Paul meancth not either every Ad, or every Moral Ad, here • but only works fuppofed Re-wardable for their value 1 ( What you mean by Works of Debt, and Works net of Debt., I know not ; they are not Scripture words, nor my words ; For ftill I fay, All Good works arc of Debt to God from man.)

Argument 1. £x naturare* -, There are many Moral Ads that make not the Reward from men to be of Debt, and not of Grace ; Much lefs will fuch Works make the Reward from God to be of Debt, and not of Grace. The Confequence is grounded on thefc two or three Reafons. 1. God is infinitely above us ; and therefore lefs capable of being obliged by our works then man. 5. God is our abfolute Proprietary ,. and we are wholly his •, and therefore we can give him nothing but his own. $, God is our Supreme Redor , and we are bound to a perfed fulfilling of his ^aw .♦ and we are finners that have broak that Law, anddeferve eternal death ; therefore we are lefs capable of obliging him by our works as our Debtor, then of obliging men (and indeed uncapable. ) 4. Gods Reward is Eternal Glory, and mans is but fome tranficory thing .-therefore we are lefs capable of making God our Debtor for Jiftifc

GACtOtt)

cation and Salvation , then m3n for a trifle. This proves the Confluence.

Now the Antecedent 1 prove by Inftances. I. If a man be ready to drown in the water, and you offer to help him out,if he will lay hold of your hand : this a& of his is Alius humanus velmoralis, and yet makes not the deliverance to be of Debt, and not of Grace. 2. If a man be in pr ifon for Debt and you ranfom him , and offer him deliverance on condition he will but confent to come forth on the account of your Ranfom : this moral Adion makes not his Deliverance to be of Debt, and not of Grace. 3. If a man be condemned for Treafon, and up-on Ranfom made, you procure and offer him a pardon, on condition he will take it; or if you fay , If you will give me thank* for it, or tak* it thankfully ; or, If alfo you confefsyour Irea-fon ; or, // alfo yon crave pardon of the Prince ; or, If alfo you confe/s me your benefaBor ; or , If alfo you Vvill profefsyoar purpefe to take up rebellious arms no more ; or, If alfo you mil openly profefs the Trinces Soveraignty % and renounce the Leaders of the Rebeljh) whom you have followed ; Vpon any one , or on all thefe conditions , you Jhall have a free and full pardw y without any coft or fufering of your oftn. Do you think that anyof thefe do make the pardon to be of Debt, and not of Grace ?

4. If you give a man a Lordfhip on condition he take it as a free Gift from you, and pay you yearly a grain of fand , or do fome ad of homage ( as to fay I thank you) which hath in ic no confideration of value, but only of acknowledgement of dependance, doth this make your Gift to be not of Grace?

5. If you give a beggar a piece of gold , on condition he will take it, and put off his hat, and fay, 1 thank you. I will not believe, that any of thefe Ads do make the Reward to be not of Grace. But if you bid them, Q'o and do mefo many ddes work^ for it , importing fomewhat profitable or valuable for yo r felf, then the cale is altered.

Argument 2. Thofe works which a man cannot be juftified without, make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace : But there are fome works that a man cannot be juftified without, Jam. 2. 24. Atatthew 12.37. what evertbey be, fomethey are.

Argument

Argument 3. Thofe works which a man cannot 1>e faved

• withour,make not the Reward to be of Debc and not of Grace.

But there are fome works that we cannot be fayed without.

Therefore there are fome works that make not the Reward ef

Debt and not of Grace.

The Major is proved by the exprefs ciclufion of works in this fenfe, from falvation.-both as begun, and as contaminate, 2 Tim. u 9. ft ho hath faved m % *nd called tu With an holy calling, not according to our works , but hie own purpofe and grace , &cv Ephcf. 2. $,9. For by Gract ye are faved, through faith, and not of your felves, it is the gift of Cfod: not of works , left any m 4m Should haft, Tir. 3. 5,6,7. Not by Work J of RJghttoufnefs Which we have done, but according to his Mercy he faved tu if the wafking of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Gheft,

.that being jultified by his Grace, we fliould be made

Heirs according to the hope of eternal life, Rom. 6. 23. For the Wages of fin is death, hut the Gift of (jod is eternal life through fefus Chrift our Lord,] Acl.4.12. Neither is there falvation in any other, Mat. 25.34* Come je blejfed of my Father , inherit the Kingdom prejwed for yoUf&c. ] whence Expofuors conclude againlt works.

The Minor may be proved by an hundred texts, CMat. 25. 35. Fori wathungryy &c. Rev.21. 12. and 2.23. Mark. 1}. 34. ikv.20.13. fam.2 14. 1 y/M.17. He Will judge every man according to his Works, &C.

Argument 4. Thofe works which Grace commandetb, and caufeth the Godly to perform, do not make the Reward to be not of Grice, but of deb:. Hut there are fome fuch works.iTrgo, «&c.

The Major is evident ^ What Saint dare fay, that be hatha work that makes not the Reward of Grace, efpecially when it is a work of Grace?

The Minor is as true as Scripture is true, 2 Or. 9.8. CoL\. 10.2 Thejf. 2.17. iTim.i.zl.Tit.i.i.Heh. 13.21. Afat,$.i6. Heb. 10. 24. iPet.i.ii. Tit.i. 14. and 3.8, 14. Ephef .2.10*

&c. Dare any fay that God hath not commanded good

works? or yet, that he hath commanded us in the Gofpel, fo to

Q^ work

(114)

fmk that the Reward may not be o/geace, butdebt ? Will any fay that the Saiacs do no good works ? or elfe than they do fuch good works as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt ? I, hope not.

Argument 5, Repentance is a moral Act: Repentance mak-eth not the Reward to be of debt, and not of grace ? therefore there are fame works that make not the Reward to be not of grace, bat of Debt. The fame I % of Faith it .felf and othe* Ads.

But perhapsr fome one elfe will objeft, that though its true that there be fuch works , yet they have no Intereft in efrebufinefsof our Juftificarion, and therefore Paul doth hence exclude them. AnfWer. Hrft, It fufficed to my laft purpofe to prove that there are works which will not bear his clefcription, and therefore are not they that he means. Secondly , But that thofe other works have fome Intereft in thebufinefs of our Juftifkation, I have proved in the beginning. Repentance hath the promife of Pardon : ib hath faith, &c. But Tie not unfeafcnably heredigrefs to this, but refer you to what is fa id before and afcer,and eJfewheremore at large.

Argu.6. In ver.^, the oppofite term £he thatworketh not ] dotfatnotfigmfic him that performeth no moral acT. Therefore inthe fourth verfe,£ be that worketh] doth not fignifie him that doth perform any moral acl:. The eonfequence is undeniable from the evident immediate oppofidon,between him that worketh, and him that worketh not. The Antecedent I prove, Ftrn\ From the words of the Text, which mention one aft, even believing, as oppofite to working, and implyed in, or confident with not working [ To h m that worketh not, but belierah. ] Secondly, Becaufe elfe it would fubvert the Gof-pei What fenfe would you make of it if you fhould interpret this and fuch texts as this of all moral Ads? Such as Chrsftkin ears would abhor. H [ working ] be the Genus, and the Text wilkfaold a* extended to Belteving^Repenting, &c, isthe //>*««, and tfiat even in their due,Evangelical notion: Lee usj$y them .a little in fuchan Expofuion. ver, 4,5, [ to him shatworketh, that is 3 Repenteth, Believetb, &<;. the Reward is ^Qtof Graee,but ofPebt. But to him tbac worketh not, (that

is, that Repentethnot, Loveth not God, Defireth not Cbr ift or Grace, believeth notinChrift, ) but believeth in him that juftifiech the ungodly, his faith ( fuppofing he have it nor) is imputed to him for righteoufnefs. j Is this a fweet and CbriHian fenfe ? If we fhould run oveir an hundred fuch Texts by fuch an Interpreta:ioF),you would hear no fwe^cer Melody.

Lee us hear fome modern Expofitors, ( for I will give you no thanks to grant me the Ancients, without citing them )

i. Calvin, ( that excellent Exp.fitor ) faith thus.£(?/>;-. rtffttim vgca! qui faU meritU aliquid promeretur : non operantem, cut nihil dibetur oyer urn merito. Neque enim fide/es vult ejfe ig-ttavos ^ fi\ tantutn Mercenariosfjft vetat^ qui a Deo qukqiLim cant, quaft jure 'Debitum. ' Is not this one of the Opinionifts, thit fo far joyneth with the Se*?.iu&and Pa-fifis i

2. Ttstfiiigtr ( and 'JMarlonte citing him ) makes the Apoftle to argue thus [ Si qttii fit qui promeretur alijaii oyrefuo^ res promeritji, non impinnur i i gratis ; fed ui d>biui redvitur : Fides reputatur in jvftitiam , non quod aliquo-i late prcmeramur, fed quia Domini b antat em apprehendiwus. Ergo,

5. Bent : Arqui ei qui operatur h t? q q :

Id tfl, et qui ex oftre fit aiifaid promeriuiS. Cui eppor.itttr , 0 p* lf}a£'oijfoos 9 qui non operatur, -id eft, qui opm nudum adfert cujto mercedem fligittt , fed gratuita Dei prtm'if-

fione nititttr fuftiftcatio enim gratia eft in Chrifto, ift a vera

Mtrititftinnobi*.

4. Pifcator in Sehol. Sk argumentaturV&ulus : Ei qui eferibies meretur, tnerces non imputatur. ver. 4. dtquiAbz&-hamo juftitiaftfit imputata ; ver. 3. Ergo Abrahamus j ift it i Am non eft meritwopenbut•.

5. Peter Martyr aifo rs a down right Opinioniftj In loc. psbg. {mtlci) 168. Et cumauiimui a Paulo, Optrar.ti & non cferantijieq\taq'uam fie accipere dibemiUy quafidhqui crsdunt non 0 ertniur. Nam de UU tantum operattone bqwtur , qua mereamMr, autmererivt'imtu Jufiiti-xm* Ethoc toco conft itratti digrium eft , qttod apud Tbeologos fcholafticos jam inveteravit ut diewt merit tm d Paulo appelhtridebitum ; £»*re cum hie

Q^2 Panlta

C"0

Paulusa Juftificatiene dtbitum auferet, neceffario ttiamtollitmt> ritum^ ft proprie ac verede iilo vikmtu loqui.

6. Arctius in loe.TertiumArgumentnm exvi rehtivorum, ope* rxtpofluUnt mercedem fm jure ac debito non exgrattufed Abraham mo fyftitU debit* y nonfito jure, fed ex gratia eft coll at a : Ergo y

&c. vcr. 5. Nam fi opera nouopmfk' r {fetimpHta*ione%

fed tanqvam otfiiteiua. poftulajfet merkorum fuorum debitum wereedem*

7. Anton. F*}m in foe. ^Argumentatnr Apvftollus. ex fo-

zati & condftBi inter hominet recepto jure : qui enim locar

operant {team , pmfcifcitur cum condu&lore , ut congruent oferor-

fret turn ipft numeretur : adeo ut non oh tine at mercedem gpttis,

fid ex opera cumipfamerctde ointhr/* ■- j£*gumentum

ergo eft a- dtfp-aratit : funt enim difpirata mercet & donum%

%t & operant & non of trans. Operant accipst mercedem de-

bitamx won operant acciptt denum. 8ft enim inter Deum &■

Utomintt JyaKsji* ilia qua eft-inter domtntem & donatarium*

)-- ■■ * * guodak nomen mercedu fpetlat -, apparet ill am

luplicem effe : nempe mercedem debit am ex proper tic no opera

sum re*, per proportionem Qtometrkdm ••• ut cum operario pr*

£urn* opera datter quod afuumefl % ex mutuo ftipnlatu. ( Thii

he clanks is here meant) Jfli* merces gft non debit a t fedgratu*

itar gftfo ranquamfrufiut vel emmodumquoddam-— (Thi*

feetfetnk&net here meant.)

Optrantem vocat iHum qui legisoperibm Juftitiam veudtm* 1, mom quod unquam *Bu* extent qui fie operate eft , ut mercer dem debitammerito pofflt poftulart, fed exhjfpot hefi loquitur % bee mod&$ fiquk oper ardour etl dxet^mtfeedem debit am pojfe* exa\ gerr*

8v Ifcfi 'Param m foe Explicat quid fit fidem impu-iari fr* pftjti* ? mmime videlket idem quod tftumv el opu* $d**fxomerfctnpMtaripro-juftitU (j& enm mlo*hcnfeciffi$^fet

ft&tinsijmftitfam exgnuia impHtwtnuttownrito aut debit* -

®per*niem non voeat sum qui bona Optra f acit , fed qui bonk oferir* k*j< sonftdit^ juftitiam- qutrit^ fevquiaperstur MsU mercedu sa*pk. Mtm &&$de»tnbeMeperautnr 7 ngnvgromMercenarih msopmbm JuftUiam&vitxmm&sr* yoitrnt, ^mtmmfic ope^ mfm-&^£^d^r^ t te^ r <fr*> hfifc-n* Met

inter famines ': qui labor at pro mercede, in vinea, militia, ritrf, veldomi, ei merces per afto labor e nonimputatur vet donatur ex gratia, fed redditurex debito ut meritum ; idq*e ex ordine jrtfli-tia qvv)**!!™* qt&fanc'it aqualitAtem Alithmeticam Uborti(*r mercedi*. Tali* enimhbcr eft merit urn, c&is indeb.tum, merce-

dem ex indebita faciens debitam propter ytftitiam. Abrabac

igitttr promt (fa & impHtatiofnit juftitU merces y nullo operum merit; fed mera gratia, • ' Qui vera non operatur , nernpe

pro mcrce.le , b. e. qui non quarit foft tiam opernm meri* ik.

9. Dr.tVtTet in 16c Q^iz; Bj b'm that worketh is under-Rood, him that Worketh with an intent thereby to merit or to be jnftified : For be that believethalfo worketh', but be is faid, not to work fecuruium quid , becaufe be doth it not to the end to merit by*

10. Dav. TTickJon'm fooi Ratio 3'. Mercenarta operant* , feu JuflitUm ex operibus quarenti, merces non poteft ejfegratuita, fed ex debitofeu merito retribuenda eft.

ii, Car freight cont. Rhem. in. loc. For if the Reward fiov-'d be given according to Vrorkj , God [hould be a^Debtor unto mam r c B*t it ti abfurd to make God a Debtor to man. 2* He fpeaketh net of that Reward that ignorant men challenge to themfelves 5 but of the Reward that God /hould in juftici give, if men baidefcervtdit bf their works*

12. Hemivgius ( even a Lutheran )fuppofeth the Argument to be thus, lmpntatio gratuita non eft operands merces : jufti* tia credent is eft imputatio gratuita : orgo juftitia credentis non off operant is merces. Major probatur per contrarium ; Merces operant*, id eft, etqui atiquid operibus promeretur, aatur ex dibit 0. *Vrebatio hac per concefftonem Rhetor ic am inte Hi*

genda eft\ Nequaquam enim Paulus font it * quod quifquam ex

debit 0 fiatjuftus r ever a* fed qua fit naturarerum indie at — :

Imputare eft aliquidgratia conferre , non exdebitotribuere, —■ Merces proprie eft quod debebatur ex merito : hoc eft, Debit i fo-httio.

Yea in his blow at the Majorifb he confeffeth the truth [ 8* Evertitur eorum dogma, qui clamant, opera neceffaria ad falutemy q** f*l*s cum djufttfeationefeparari neqmt> nonba-

Ct* bet

C"8)

bet alias caufas dut merits, quarn if fa fuftificAtid. Hoc lawttts fatendum eft, quod of era mceffario rtqutrantur in fuftificatii, ut iter intermedium, non ut can fa aut merita.

13. Mich. Ragerus ( a Lutheran ) in loc. Imputatlo fidei oppor.i-tur imputations ex merito-, imfut n\o fidei fit fecundum gratiam : B. fides in negotio f^fttficathnU, ?ion c^nfideratur ut oput morale % quidenim per modumcperu iw.utatur, feeundum debiturn cjr me* fttorie iwp'Atatur [ Et qui cperatur~\ five operant

renatus fit, five non, dummodo ea i- tatiore cf»retur,?cq>4e fine, ut mercedem reporttt & opera fua cenforio c Dti judicio oppofi'ta velit,

14. In like manner Georg Calixtus ( a Lutheran ) in loc. pag. a$,28,&c.

To tbefeT might achdmany other Protefhnt Expofitors 3 and the votes of abundance or' Polemical Divines, who teil tfie Pa-pills that in Pauls fenfe its *\\ one £ to be juiMed by works: to be Juftified by the Law : and to be juftified by merits. 1

But this much may fuffice for the vindication of that Text, and to prove that all works do not make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Crace , but only meritorious mercenary works, and not thofe of gratitude, &c. beforenamed.

Treat, ibid. \ Thefecond Argwriert may he from the peculiar and exprefs difference that the Scripture giveHhbetween faith and dther grace? •> tn refpefl of fuftificaiion. So that faith and good works are not to be considered as concurrent in the fame manner, though one primarily, the other fee on frarily : fo that if faith when its fkid to Jaftifie, doth it hot at a Cvnd tion , htrt in fome cthh peculiar notion, which wor^j are not capable of then we are not Juftified by Work* as Bellas f ifh. Now its not fishily to btpzf. fed over that the Scripture ft ill ufeth a picu^izr exprcffion of faith* Which is incommunicable to other graces. Thui Rom. 3.2$. RemifttoH of fins is through faiU tn J6ii blood , Rom. 4. 5. Faith is counted for Righteoufiefs, Rom. 5.1. Galatians iV 16. &v.

Anftter. Firft, This is nothing td the Queftion, and deferves

no

C"p)

fp further anflver. The Qaeftionis not now whether fai:h works juttifie in the fame manner j thats but a cenfequent (rightly explamed ) of another thing in qucftion; vour fftf bath here made it the queftion, whe:h?r WurKsbe Conditions of juftirication ? And that wh ch I affirmed is before explained. I grant, that if faith jurVfie not as a condition, buc prextme m any other refped,then Faith and Repentam e, &c. juMifie not in the fame manrer : (o that thefamenefs of their Inrercft in ;he general notion of a condition, fuppofeth faith to be a condition; but if you can prove that it is not, I&all grant the difference which you prove. Now it is notour quatton here , whether faith be a condition, or an Inftrument; but whether "other works ( asyouchooietocall them) or humane ads be conditions

Secondly, Scripture taketh not faith in the fame fenfe as my Oppokrsdo, when it gives it the peculiar expreffions that you mention. Faith in ? auls fenfe, is a Belief in jefus Chrift ( in all the refpe&s eflfential to his perfon and office ) and fo a hearty Acceptance of him for our Teacher, Lord and Saviour; ( Saviour I fay both from the guilt and power of fin; and as one that will leid us by his word and fpirit into Poffeflion of eternal Glory which be hath purchifed. ] So that it indudeth many aftsof Afletit, and a Love to our Saviour, and defire of him ; and itimplyerh felf-denial, and renouncing our own righreouf-ncfs ; and al other Saviours, and a fenfe o; our fin and mifery, at leaft, as Antecedents or concomitants; and finccre Affiance and Obedience in gratitude to our Redeemer, as nceefftry confequents: And this faith is fet by Pstsl, in oppofifton to :hc bare doing of the works of AU r es La-v ( and confequcntly of any other works with the fame intention ) as feparared from Chrift whowas the end and life of it, oratleaft, co-ornate with him; and fo as the immediate matter of a legal Righteouf-nefet and consequently as mercenary.and valuable in themfelves, or meritorious of rue Reward. This is Pauh faith. Bur the fairn difputed for by my Opponents, is the Ad: of recumbency or Affiance on Chnftat Juftifier or Prieft, which they call the Appnrbenfton of Chrifts righteoufnefs; and this asoppofed to the Acceptance of Chrift as our Teacher and King, our Husband.

band, Head, &e.{ further then the fe contain his Priefthood:} and oppofed to Repentance, to the love of our Saviour, to denying our own rightcoufnefs, confeflingour fins, and confef-fingChrifttobeouronly Saviour, ThanKfulnefsfor free grace; &c. all which are called works by thefe men, and excluded from being fomuch as Conditions attending faith in our Justification or Remiflion of fin.

The cafe maybe opened i>y this fimilitude. A Phyfitian comcthtoa populous City in an Epidemical Plague: There is none can fcape without his help : he is a ftranger to them, and they have received falfe informations and apprehensions of him that he is but a mountebank and deceiver. though indeed he came ■of purpofe in love and companion to fave their lives, having a moft coftly receipt wtiich will certainly curethem. He offereth liimfelf to be their Phyfitian, and freely to give them his Antidote, and to cure and fave them, if they will but confent, that is, if they will take him for their Phyfitian, and thankfully take his medicine; His enemies djffwadethe people from believing in him, and tell them that he is a Deceiver, and that if they will but ftir themfelves,ard work,and ufe fuch dyet and medicines at they tell them of, they ftiall do better without him $ ? nd a third party that feem to be friends.teli them, though you do take him for your Phyfitian, yet muft you work your felf to health, and take thofe other medicines as well as his, if you will be cured. But the Phyfitian faith, its only your trufting in me that can cure you. Now here we are at a lofs in the interpreting of *his conditions. Some fay, that they muft be cured barely by believing or trufting in him* and not by taking his perfon in the full relation of a Phyfitian, or at ieaft> not by taking his medicine, which they abhor, nor by exercifing or fweating upon it, or ob-ferving the dyet and directions which he giveth them. But I rather interpret him thus; in requiring you to take him for your Phyfitian, irisimplyed, that you muft take his medicines, how bitter foever,and that you muft order yoar felves according to his direAions, and muft not take cold, nor eat or drink that which^beforbiddech you; for though it be only his precious medicine that can cure you?yet if you will take thofe things that are deftruftive to you, it may hinder the working of it, and an ill

dyet

dyet or difordered life may kill you. The working therefore that he excluded,was not this implyed obfervance of his dire&i -ons, but your own Receipts and Libourings, as above-faid.

3. I further anfwer to your obfervation, that the fame Scripture that faith , £ Weareyuftified by faith] doth alfo fay, that Except ye Repent^ ye (ballallperifb, Luke 13.3,5. And R^ptnt and be baptized every one of jou in the name of1e ftu Chrift for the Remiffton of fi«s, Acts 2.38. and mentioncth the Baptifm of Repentance for the Remijfionof fin ; and joyneth the preaching of Repentance and Remffion , Luke 24. 47. Repent and be Converted, that your fins may be blotted out, &c. Lnke 6. 37. Forgive and it fball be forgiven you, fam, 5.15. The prayer of faith

fhallfave the fick, and if he have committed fivs they/hall

be forgiven him, Matt 6. 14, 15. If you forgive men their tref-paffes, your heavenly Father will forgive you ; but if you forgive not, &c. Marl^ 11. 11,25. Forgive* that jour Father may for' give you. 1 lohn 1.9. If Vve confefs cur fins, he is faithful and )ufi to forgive us our fins , &c- I fa* 55. 6, 7,&c. And he that faith, We are Juftifisd by faith , faith alfo, that [by workja man u juftified 9 and not by faith only •] and that [by our words weftjaltbei'4ftified.~]

4. Laftly, to your argument from the peculiar attributions to faith, I fay, that we do accordingly give it its prerogative, as far as thofe attributions do direct us, and would do more , if ic were not for fear of contradicting the Scripture.

Treat, pag. 224. Fromthefeexpreffions it is that our Or ho-dox Diviner fay y tbat faith juftifieth as it is an Inftrument, laying hold on Chrift ,&c; ad pag. 226.

zAnfa. Though I could willingly difpatch with one man at once , yet becaufe it is the matter more then the perfon, that muft be confidered, 1 muft crave your Patience as to the An-fwering of this Paragraph, till I come to theDifputeabout faiths Inftrumentality, to which it doth belong, that fo I may not trouble the prefent Difpute by the Intcrpofition of another.

R Treat.

(ai)

Tie t. pig ~ 16 The third Argument is, If in the continuance ar:a pr(g> efs >f our ? unification we are justified after t{ (fame manner ire Were at fir ft , then its not by faith and Works, but by fj'.h only *i diflinci to Works, Rom. I. 17. GalaC. p. II. ~ s

is4nfw. i. I grant the whole, underftanding faith and works as 7^/do.h, but not as you do.

2. By Q the fame manner ] either you mean, [ the famefpe-cifically ( asfpecifiedfromthe Covenant and Objed ) as di-ftindfromJewiftiRighteoufnefs, or from all falfe waies, or all Mercenary meritorious works ( fo intended ), or any manner that is not fubordinate to Chrift, and implyed in Believing ~\ And thus your Antecedent is true, and your Confcquence ( in your fenfe of faith and works) is falfe • Or elfe you mean [*fo fame manner ] in oppoikion to any additional ad implyed in our flrft believing as its neceffary Confequent."] And thus your Minor or Antecedent is falfe. If you will not believe mc, believe your felf, who as flatly fpake the contrary Doclrine, as ever I did , being not as it feemsih every Ledure of the fame thoughts; f*g. 118. you write it for obfervation in a different Cbarader , thus {_ For though holy works do netjufifie , yet by them a man is continued in a ftate of ]uftifi,C6t : on : fo that did not the Covenant of grace interpofe, grofs and wicked Waies would cut off our Jufiideation , and put us in a ft ate of Condemnation. ] Butbecaufeyoumay avoid your own authority at pleafue many waies, I fhili give you a better authority that cannot be avoided.

E. In our flrft Juftifkation , we were n<5t fufi.fied by our -words : but in our laft Justification at Judgement we fhall, CMat. 12. 36,37. therefore they fo far differ in th^ manner,

2. In our hfft Juftiflcarion we were not juftifled by our Works r but afterwards we sre, in fome fenfe, or elie fames fpoke not by the Spirit of God, fzm. 2 24. The Major is plain , in that the woiksof Abraham, Rabtb and fuch like , that lames fpeaks of, were not exiftent at their firft Jultifkation.

C"-3)

3.'In our firftjuftincation we are not Judged, ( and fo Ju-ftifted ) ccccrllng to our wmrhr. But in the laft we are : therefore they dtffer in the manner.

4. In oar fr ft Juftirication we s^e no: juftified by the mouth of theludge, in prefence pafTir. lirrcTcrfiWc (entente on us: but in the laft we arc .- therefore they differ in the manner.

5. Our firft pardon is not given us on condition of our fir ft forgiving others : but the continuance is , *JM.utb. 18. : 5» & 6 14. 15.

6. Our firft pardon is not given us if Ke ctmfefi cur fins : ( For we may be pardoned without that ] : but the renewed or continued pardon is, if we be cafled to it t 1 Ma 1.9.

7. Reconciliation and final Juftincation is given to us in title, If we continue in the faith grounded muA fgt tied, Ana be not moved Mwayfrom the lj9pe of the Go/pet, &c. Col. 1.23.

8. In our firft Believing we take Chrift in the Relation of a Saviour, and Teacher, and Lord, to fave us frcm all fin , and to Tead us to glory. This therefore importeth that we accordingly fubmit unto him, in thofe his Relations, as a neceflary means to the obtaining of the benefits of the Relations. Our

v firft faith is our Contract with Chrift, or Acceptance of him as our Saviour : And a'lccntra&sof luch nature , do impofe a neceflky of performing what we content to and promife, in order to the benefits. To take Cbrift for my Saviour, is to take him to fave me , viz. from the power and guilt of fin ; there-fo;e if I will not be faved by him when I have done, but had rather keep my fin, then I did but nominally and hypocritically

i: h : m for my Saviour. To take him for my Teacher and become his Difciple, impoiteth ray Learning of him, as neceflary to the be;

And in humane contracts it is fo. Barely to take a Prince for her husband m-y entitle a woman to his honours and fane' But conjugal fidelity is a To neceiTary for the continuance of them: for Adultery would caufe a divorce. Confen: and i ing may make a man your Soul jier : but obedience and kr is a> neceflary to the Continuance, and the Reward. Con fen: kea rr ; an\ou 'houtan

R 2 him

him entertainment in your family, But if he do not adualfy ferve you , tbefe (hall not be continued , nor the wages obtained. Content may enter a Scholar into your School: but if he will not Lea? n of you, he fhall not be continued there. For all thefe after-violations crofs the ends of the Relations. Confers may mak^ you the fubjed of a Prince, but obedience is neceffary to the continuance of your Priviledges. All Covenants ufuaily tyc men to fomewhat which is to be performed to the full attainment of their ends. The Covenant-making may admit you, but its the Covenant-keeping that muft continue you in your priviledges, and perfect them. See more in my Confejf. pag.47.

3. But I further anfwer you, that according to the fenfe of your part>>of the terms [faith and words'] I deny your confe-quence ; For with them [Faith'] is [Works'] ; And though in Pauls fenfe we are not at all juftified by works < and in lames his fenfe we are not at firft juftified by works.- Yet in the fenfe of your party, we are juftified by works even at firft. For the Accepting of Chrift for our King and Prophet, is Works with them: and this is Tauh faith, by which he and all are juftified. Repentance is works with them : And this is one of Gods Conditions of our pardon. The Love and Defire of Chrift our Saviour is works with them:but thisis part of the faith that Paul was juftified by. The like I may fay of many ads of Affent, and other ads.

Treat. Led. 24. p. 227. Argu. 4. He that is juftified by fuU filling a £ondiiUn x though he be thereunto enabled by gracej. jet he is juft and righteous in himfelf ' But all jaftified perjons , as to. luflifiCAtion , are not righteous in themfelves i but in Chrift their. Surety and Mediator.

An fa. 1. If this were true in your unlirnired latitude, Inherent Righteoufnefs were the certaincft evidence of damnation. For no man that had inherent Righteoufnefs,Y. e. Sanclificatiou, could be juftified or faved. Hut 1 am loth to believe that..

z, This Argument doth make as much, againft them that take

Faith

T.nth to be the Condition of Juftirication, and To look to be justified by it ss a Condition, as againft them that make Repentance or Obedience the Condition : Andit concludeth them all excluders of the true and only Justification. J am lech to differs from you : but I am Ioather to believe that allthofcare unjuftiried, that take faith for the Condition of Juftification. They are hard Conclufions that your Arguments infer.

3. Righteoufnefs iq a mans felf is either Qudit&uve^ or Relative, galled imputed. As to the later , I maintain that all the juftified are Righteous in themfelves by an Imputed Relative Righteoufnefs,merited for thembyCnri i , and given to trem. And this belief I will live and die in by the grace of God. Qualitative ( and Active ) Righteoufnefs is threefold. 1.1 hat which anfwers the Law of works, ; Obey per fell 1/ and live. ~\ 2. That which anfwers the bare letter of Mofei Law, (without Chrift the fenfeandend) which required an operous task of duty, with a multitude of feer rices for pardon of failing*, ( which were to be effectual only through Chnft y*kpm the unbelieving Jews underfrood not. ) 3. That righteoufnefs which anfwers the Gofpel impofition Rfpsat *ndBelieve. As to the rlrftofthefe, A righteoufnefs fully anfwering the Law of nature. I yield your Minor, and deny your Major. A man may be juftified by fulfilling the condition oftheGofcel which giveth us Chrift to be our Righteoufnefs to anfw^r the Law, andyer not have any fuch righteoufnefs qualitative inhimfelf, as fhall anAver that law. Nay it neceflanly implyeth that he hath none: Tor what need he to perform a Condition, for obtaining futh a RigVeoufnefs by free gift from another, if he had it in himfelf. And as to th: fccond fort of Righteoufnefs, I fay, that it is but a nominal righteoufnefs, confining in a conformity to the Letter without the fenfe and end, and therefore can juftif-'e none : hi fides that none fully have it. So that the Afofnietl Righteoufnefs, fo far as is necelf ary to men, is to be had in Chrift, and not in themfelves. But the performance by themfelves of the Gofpel Condition, ii fo far from hindring us from that gift, that without it none can have it. But then as to the third fort of righteoufnefs qnalitativey I anfwer, He that performeth the-

R 3 Gofpel

Gofpel Condition of Repenting and Believing himfelf, is not therefore Righteous in himfelf with that righteoufnefs qualitative which anfwereth the Law of works. But he that performed the faid Gofpel Conditions^ Righteous in himfelf. i. Qualitatively and atlively , with that righteoufnefs which anfrvers the GoJpel Conftitution, £ He thit bdievcth p:*Hbef*ved&c.'\ which is but a particular Righteoufnefs, by a Law of Grace, fubordinattd to the other as the Condition of a free gift. 2 And Relatively, by the Righteoufnefs anfwering the Law of Works, as freely given byChrifton that Condition* This is evident-, obvious, neceffary, irrefragable truth , and will be fo after all oppofition.

Treat, pag. 228. Tea I think if it be well weighed, it will be found to beacontradtttion^ to fay the} are Conditions, and yet a Caufa fine qua non of our Juftification ; for a caufa fine qua non , is no Caufe at all : but a Condition in a Covenant ftr.tlh ta^en,hath a Moral efficiency and is a Caufa cum qua, not a fine qua non.

Anfw. 1. You do but think fo; and that's no cogent Argument. I think otherwife, and foyouareanfwered. 2. And Lawyers think otherwife, ( as is before (hewed, and more might be ) and fo you are over-anfwered. A Condition qua talis ("which is the firitlefl accept ion ) is no Caufe at all ; though the matter of it may be meritorious, among men, and fo caufa!. If you will not believe me, nor Lawyers, nor cuftom of fpeech, then remember at leaft what it is thatl mean by a Condition ,-and make not the difference to lie where it doth not. Think not your felf founder in matter of Do&rine , but only in the fenfe of the Word [[ Condition ]; but yet do fomewhat firft to prove that too • viz. that a Condition as fuch,hath a moral efficiency. Prove that if you are able.

Treat, ib. If Adam had flood in his integrity, though that confirmation Vcould have been of grace, yet his worhj would have been a caufall Condition of the ble\\ehnefs promifed. In the Covenant of Grace, though What man doth u by the gift of God, jet look, upon

the

the fame gift as our duty , and as a Condition , which i#our performs u perjormed , This tnferrethfome Moral Efficiency.

Anfw. i. See then all you chat are accounted Orthodox, the multitude of Proreftant Divines that have made either Faith or Repentance Conditions, what a cafe you have brought your felves into- And rejoyce then all you that have agiintt them maintained that the Covenant of Grace hath on our part no Conditions; for your Caufe is better then fome have made you believe : and in particular, this Reverend Author. Yea fee what a cafe he hath argued himfelf imo, while he hath argued you out of the danger that you were fuppofed in : For he himfelf writethagainft thofe that make Rtptntanceto be but a fign> and deny it to be a Condition to aual'.fie the fubjetlfor lufl fixation. Treat, of lufi-f. pzrt. i. Lett. 20. And he faith zhu in fomg grofs fins thtre are many Conditions requifite ( be fides humiliation ) without which pardon of fin cannot be obtained : and inftan-ceth in reflitution. pag. 210. with many the like paf-fages.

2. Either you mean that Adams frorks would have been Caufall quatenus a Condition performed,or elfe quatenus meritorious ex natura materia , or fome Other caufe : The firft I flill deny, and is it that you fhould prove, and not go on with naked affirmations: The fecond I will not yiefd you, as to the notion of meritoriou-,though it be nothing to our que'ftion. The fame I fay of your later inftance of Gofyel Conditions. Prove them morally efficient, qua tails, if ycu can.

Treat, ib. Andfo, though In words they deny,} ei in deed they do ix*h works to fome fytdof tjufalitj.

Ar.f$s I am perfwaded you fpeak not this out of malice t but is it not as unkind and unjuft, as :f I (hould perfw?de men that you make God the Author of fin ; ndted 9 though you deny it in words > i • What be the Deeds that you know my mind by to be contrary to my WW/ ? Speak ou fc , and cell the worlJ.ar.d fpare me not. But if it be words that you fet agatnft words „ x. Why (hould you not believe ray Negations, a* wellas my

f fup-

(fuppofed) affirmations. Am I credible only whenlfpeak amifs, and not ac all when I fpeak right ? A charitable judgement! 2. And which fhouM you take to be indeed my fenfe? A naked term [Conditio*'] expounded by you that never faw my heart ? and therefore know not how I underftandit, further then I tell you ; Or rather my exprefs explication of that term in a fenfe contrary to your fuppofuion. Hear all you that are impartial,and judge ; I fay £ At Condition U no fattfe] and £ Faith and Repentance are Conditions. ] My Reverend Brother tells you now, that in vrordl deny them to be efficient Caufes, buti« deedl make them fuch, viz. 1 make them to be what I deny them to be. Judge between us,as you fee caufe. Suppofe I fay that [ Scripture u Sacred~\ and withall I add that by Sacred^ I mean that which is related to God,as proceeding from him, and feparated to him : and I plead Etymologie, and the Authority of Authors, and Cuftom for my fpecch. If my Reverend Brother now will contradict me only as to the fitnefs of the word, and fay xhzx. facer figntficth only execrabilis^ will not be offended with him, though I will not believe him : but fhoiild fo good and wife a man proclaim in print, that facer lignifieth only execrabilis , and therefore that though in wordl call Scripture Sacrtd,yei in deed I make \t execrable, I (hould fay this were unkind dealing. What ! plainly to fay that a Verbal con-troverfie is a Real one •, and that contrary to my frequent pub-lifted profeflions / What is this but to fay, Whatever he faith J fyoV° his heart to be contrary. Should a man deal fo with your felf now, he hath fomewhat to fay for it : For you firft pro-fefs Repentance and Reflitutto* to be a Condition ( as I do ) and when you have done,profefs Conditions to have a Moral Efficiency ( which I deny ) : But what's this to me, that am not of your mind ?

Treat, pag. 229. A fifth Argument u that which fo much founds in all *Book$ m If good works be the effetl and fruit of cur fteftification % then they cannot be Conditions % or Caufa fine qua non of our luft. fixation. But, &c.

eAnJrv. i. I deny the Minor in the fenfe of your party) Our

firff

(

12-9)

firft Repentance , our firft defire of Chrift as our Saviour, and Love to him as a Saviour, and our firft disclaiming of all other Saviours,and our firft accepting him as Lord and Teacher, and as a Saviour from the Power of un, as well as the guilt"; all thefe are works with you • and yet all thefe are not the effects of our Relative Juftification; nor any of them.

2. As to External ads and Confequent internal ads, I deny your Confequence,taking it of continued or final Juftification; though I eafily yield it as to our Juftification at the fiift. i, AH the ads of juftifying faith , befides the firft ad, are as truly effects of our firft Juftification as our other graces or gracious acts are. And doth it therefore follow that they can be no Conditions of our continued Juftification ? Why not Conditions as well as Jnftruments or Caufes ? Do you think that only the firft inftantaneous ad of faith doth juitifie, and no other after through the courfe of our lives ? 1 prove the contrary froratheinftanceof Abraham : It was not the fiift ad of his faith that /\i«/mentioneth when he proveth from him Juftification by faith. As its no good Confequence [ Fait)} afterward is the tffcEl of Juftification before \ therefore it cannot afftrtvard juftifie, or be a Condition. ] So its no good Confequence as to Repentance, Hope, or Obedience. 2. It only follows that they cannot be the Condition of that Juftification whereof they are the erTed, and which Went before them (which ?s granted you.) But it follows not that they may not be the Condition of continued or final Juftification. Sucking the breft, did cot caufe life in the beginning: therefore it is not a means to continue it: It folfoweth no,t. You well teach that the Juftification at thclaft Judgement is the chief and moft eminent Juftification. This hath more Conditions then your firft pardon of fin had, yea as many as your falvation hath, as hath been formerly proved, and may be proved more at large.

Treat, pag. 230. Bjf this we may fee that more things art re-quired to our Salvation 9 then to our Juftification ; to be pojfejfors of heaven , and -( than it fhould be ) to entitle us there* to.

S Anfto

cn°)

Anfw. i. I tstrae, as to our firft Justifying.* and its true at to our prefcnt continued ftate : becaufe pcrfeverance is ftill re* quifite to falvation. But its not true as to our final fentential Juftification: 1 here is as much on our part required to that, as to falvation it felf. I. The promife makes no difference. 2.The nature of the thing doth put it p aft doubt. For what is our final Juftification, but a Determination of the Queftion by pub-lick fentence, on our fide, Whether wt have Bight to falvatien or not . ? The 25. of Matthew fhews the whole*

2. I argue againft you from your own Dodrine here, thus; If Juftification be it that gives us Right or Title to falvation , then that which is the Condition of our Right to falvation, is the Condition of our Juftification : the Antecedent here is your own Do&rine, and is pattly true : And the Confequence is undcnyable; whereto I add, QBut the Doing of Chrifts Commandments is the Condition of our Right to falvation : therefore alfo of our Right to Juftification, viz. as Confum-mate. The Minor I prove, from Rev. 22. 14. Blejfed are they that do his Commandtmtnts, that they may have Right to the tree of lift , and may enter in t tec. ] Whofoever fhallcallon the name of the Lordfha!lbefaved r Rom. 10.13. Ads 2, 21. Wtarefa-ved by hope, Rom. 8. 24. Whofo Vralketh uprightly fhall befaved % Prov. 28.18. Saptifm doth fave us y 1 Pet. 3.21. [ In doing this thou Jhall both favt thy felf and them that hear thee. ] I Tim. 4.16, If he [ have not Works % can faith fave him ? J lames 2. 14*

Treat, ib. Its true, that Juftification cannot be continued 1 in a man y unlefs he continue in good workj : Tetforall that , they art not Conditions of his lufiifcation : they art Qualifications and 'Determinations of thtfubjttl who is jufttfiid • but no Conditions of his Iufltfication. As in the generation of man t &c* Light is neceffarily required* and drynefs^ as quahies in fire f yet } &c.

Anfw. 1. Its well you once more confefs that the thing is ne-ceffary 1 Our queftion then is only of the nature, and reafon of tbat neceffity I Whethecit bznecejfttaswediiadfinem^s to

the

C'3»)

the continuance or confummation of our Juftification? Th» I hop: you will never deny. If mtiV % then what mt&umWKl not a caufe. If not a condition, then tell us what, if you can.

: econdly, You fay nothing to the purpofc, when you give us Inftances of Natural properties and qualifications. For bc-fides that fome of them are not media ( as Light to burning ) the reft that arc media, arc ThyficaSy neceflary adfinem: But Firft, We arenotdifcourfingof Phyficks, and Phyfical necef-ficies ; but of Morals, and moral necefiity. Secondly, You cannot here pretend ( or at leaft prove ) that there is an abfolutc Phyfical neceflicy adfinem to every one of the things in qucftion to their end. Thirdly, Much lefs that this is the neareft reafon of their Incereft, and that God hath not morally fu-peradded the necefsicy of a Condition by his Confticuti-on.

I prove that the neccflity is moral. Firft, It is impofed by way of Precept, which caufeth a moral neccflity. Secondly, Tbe Precept hath varied at the plcafure of God , there being more Duties now, then formerly were, and fome ceafed that were then impofed.

Yea, That its a condition having neceflicy adfinem, is evident". Firft, Bccau c it is the modus promffionis impofed on us by God as Promifer in a conditional form of words, as neceffary to our attaining of the benefit promifed. [ // thou confefs Veith thy mouth the Lord Jefns^ and b lievt in thy heart th*t God raif-ed him from the dead % thoufha't be fived , Rom. 10.9. // jcu forgive men their trefpajfef, jour heavenly Father will forgive jou^ &c. ] Mat. 64. 15. Secondly, And it is not of Phyfical necelsi y; for then God could not five us without it, but by a Miracle. Whereas he faved men before Chnft by believing in a MtQith in general,without beliveing char this Jefus is he, and without believing that he was a&ually conceived by the Holy Gboft, born of the Virgin W*r/, was crucified, buried , rofe again, afcended, ifljv. And he faveth Infants, that themfclves believe not at all ; fo that when you fay it is a quahficatt >n of the fubjitt, you mean either [ the Jubjett oj jvftified~] and that is nothing to the bufinefs: for then the queftion is ncu what Rc-

S 2 lation

e***)

latipn our actions have to that which is paft, but to that which is future. Or elfe you mean the fubjeff at to be Juftifitd at Judgement, or here to be fo continued. And then the queftion (till remained, whether thofe qualifications are means or no means } An&-if means > of What fort, if not condition ?

Treat, pag. 251. The fxth *Argum,er.t\ If Jxft fiction be by Vvcrkj as a conditio? , then one mzn is mere or left fufitfied then another ; and thofe woy\s are required.to one mans fnftificati-on Tth'Ch are not to amther t fo that there fballnot be two godl) men in the World fttftifiedaljke. For if faith Jufltfied as a worky then he that had aflrongerfaith^ would be more fxftffied then he that hath a weaker.

Anfwer. Firft., I grant the conclufion, if you had taken Works in Pauls fenfe, for the works of ahirling, or any that are fuppqfed ro juftifieby their value.

Secondly, I deny your rlrft confequence : And I give you the reafonof my denyal(I hope a little better then yours for the proof of ic) Firft, It is not the degree of Repentance or Obedience that is made the Condition of our continued and final Justification: but the Sincerity. Now the fincerity is the fame thing in one as in another ; therefore one is no. more juftified hereby then another. Secondly, You might as well fay, that different degrees offaithj make different degrees of Juftifica-tion. But that is not juft, becaufe it lies all on the fincerity; therefore it is as unjuft here for the fame reafon.

Your Reafon isfuch as I expected not from you. [ For if Faith ( fay you ) jttftify as a svorl^ ~\ But who faith it do:h ;«-flifeas awork.? Your Header that fufpe&eth nothing ^but fair in your words, may think I do ; when I have again and again in *f?mw«(iifavowed it. And do you think it is a cogent reason indeed, £ If works ,or faith juftifie as a condition^ then Veill be various degrees of 'f unification : Becaufe if it juflifie as a work, there will be various degrees. ~] The reafon of the Confequence is as ftrange to me, as a bacu/o adangulum. Once more .- Firft, Faith doth not juftifie as aPhyfical ad : Secondly, Nor as a Moral aft, or virtue in general, Thirdly, Nor a* a mercenary

C r £)

ry meritorious aft. Fourthly, Cut as an act adapted to the object, and fpecially fitted to this gratious defign 5 it is ehofen to be the condition, and repentance and felf-denyal accordingly to attend it. Fifthly, And as the appointed condition, we are juftified by it. Sure therefore it doth not juftifie as a work. But how they will avoid your confequence that fay it juftifieth as an Inftrument, let them fee.

As toyonrConfequer.ee,! anfver.Firft, That which is ab-folutely neceflary,;s fincere Repentance and-fincere Obedience; and this is the fame in-all. Secondly, But the matter of both thefe, tt'%. the fins repented of, and the duties of Obedience may cirTsr in many particulars in fever a I perfons. One may not have the fame fins-to Repent of as another, and one miy have fome particular duties more then another: though in the main, all have the fame fin and duty. But this difference is no abfurdity, nor ftrange thing. When Chrift mentioneth the final Justification of fome, Mat. 25. and gives the reafon from their works £ for I Was hungry and ye fed me\ &c. ] I read of none that took it for an abfurdity, becaufe, Fird, The poor. Secondly, Infants. Thtrdlv, Thoie. that dye before they have opportunity, do no fuch work*.

Treat, fag. 231. The feventb- Argument. This Affertion according to the ftnfe of the Ute Writers ( that a-e otkerViife Orthodox, far I mca? not the Socinians ) Will bitgin afufti-ficathntWo Wa'es, cr make a twofold fufiification, whereof one •trill be needlefs m Tor thy grant an Imputation of Chrifls Right e-oufntfs in refftcl of the Law ; he fulfilled that^ and fat it fed Gods fa^ice, that the I**W cannot accu f-e us. And be fides this ^ they ■ make an Evangelical perfonal Rtghteoufneft by our ovrn Evangelical workj. Now cert inly this later is wholly fuferfinom ; for if Chri/h Rtghteoufneft be abundantly able to fatisfie for all that righteoufnefs Which the LaW reejuireth of us; What is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings , aid flip-fly that righteoufnefs al/o? furelytbit it to mike the (tars fiine, When the Sun is in itsfu'llujlre. Thutitmay be obferved, Whi/e men for fome feeming difficulty avoid the grod known way cf truth, the] do commonly bring in i/tffertions of far more difficulty

S3 to

to he received. Iu thU cafe its far more eafie to m tint tin one fingh Right eonJnefs i viz. the Obedience of our Lord Chrift t then to m,ikjs tWo> &c.

Anfrv. Firft, This twofold Righteoufnefs is fo far from being needlefs, chat all (hall perilh in everlafting torment that have not both. I doubt not but you have both your felf; and therefore do but argue with all this confidence againft that which you muft be faved by, and which you carry within you. As if youfhould argue that both a heart and a brain are needlefs, and therefore certainly you have but one. But the beft is> concluding you have but one, doth not really prove that you have but one ; for if it did, it would prove you had neither; and then you were but a dead man in one cafe, and a loft man in the other. Firft, Did ever any man deny the neceflky of inherent Righteoufnefs, that was called aProteftant? Objett. But thats nothing to its neceflky to Juftification. csfnfto. Firft, its the very being of it that you plead againft as needlefs, if your words are intelligible. 2iy. Its as grofs a contradiction to talk of a Righteoufnefs that makes not righteous, or will not juftifie'i* tantunty according to its proportion, as to talk of whitnefs that makes not white, or Paternity that makes not a father, or any form that doth not inform,or is a form, and is not a form. Secondly,If there be two diftinft Laws or CoVcnanrs^hen there is a necefsity of two dftinft Righteoufnefics jtb our Juftification* But the Antecedent is certain. I fuppofe it will be granted that Chrifts righteoufnefs is nccelTary to anfwer the Law of works. And I fhall further prove that a perfonal righteoufnefs given from ChriftisnecefTary to fulfill the condition of the new Covenant or Law of Grace, bileve and be faved ,&c.

Thirdly, Chrift did nothimfelf fulfill the condition of the Gofpel foranv man, nor (atisfiefor his final non-performance ; therefore he that will be faved, muft perform it himfclf or pe-rifti. That Chrift performed it not in perfon, is paft doubt. It was not confident with his ftate and perfection to repent of fin, who had none to repent of; roraurnf om fin to God , who never fell from him; to beleve in Chrift Jkfus, that is, to accept himfelf as an offered Saviour, and to uke himfeif as a Saviour"

C'3T)

oar Co himfelf, that is,as one that redeemed himfelf from fin,to deny his own righteoufnefs, to confefs his fin, to pray for pardon of it, &c. Do you ferioufly believe that Chrift hath done this for any man ? For my part, I do not believe it. Secondly, That he that hath not fatisfied for any mans final predominant Infidelity and Impenitency, 1 know you will grant, becaufe you will deny that he dyed for any fin of that perfon ( or at lead, your party will deny it. ) Thirdly, All that fbail be faved,do actually perform thefe conditions themfclves. I know you will confefs it, that none ( adult) but the Penitent, Believers, Holy, fhall be faved.This fort of Righteoufnefs therefore is of neceflityi. Fourthly, The Benefits of Chnfts obedience and death are made over to men by a conditional Promife, Deed of gift, or ad of oblivion. Thereto e the condition of that Grant or Ad mu(t be found before any man can be iuftified by the righteoufnefs of Chrift. It is none of yours till you repent and believe: therefore you muft have the perfonal Righteoufnefs of faith and repentance, in fubordination to the imputed righteoufnefs, that it may be yours. And will yeu again conclude, that [ Certainly thislater is wholly Superfluous V]Hath not God faid }~\Hethat believeth, /hall bejaved ; and he that believetb not, Shall be damntd.~\ And Repent and be converted, that your fins may be bhttedout. &c. ] I* it not nccefTary that thefe be done then, both as duty commanded, and as a condition or fome means of the end propounded and promifed ? And is this wholly fuperfluous ? In Judgement, if you be accufed to have been finally impenitent, or an Infidel, will you not plead your perfonal faith and repentance, to juftifie you againft that accusation ? or (hall any be faved that faith, [ I did not repent or believe, but Cbrifl did for met ] If it be faid that £ C hrifts fa-tisfn&ion id fufficient ; but whats that to thee that performs dft not the conditions of his Covenant, and therefore haft no part in it ?] Will you not produce your faith and repentance for your Jufti-fication againft this charge, and fo to prove your fntereft in Chrift? Nay is it like to be the great bufinefsof thit day to enquire whether Chrift have done his part or no I oryec to enquire, whether the world were finncrs ? or rather to Judge them according to the terms of grace which were revealed

to.

to them, and to try whether they have part in Chrift or nor-and to that end, whether they believed, repented, loved him in his members, improved his Talents of Graccor not > Or can any thing but the want of this perforral righteoufnefs then hazard a mans foul ?

But you ask [ Jf Chrifts righteoufnefs be able tofathfe, what u the matter that it removeth not all cur Evangelical failings ? t &c.J/4tf/K%Either you ask this queftion as of a penitent lldiever, or the finally impenitent "Unbeliever. If of the former, 1 fay, Firft, All his fins Chrifts righteoufnefs pardoneth and covereth; and confequently all the failings in Gofpel dutie?. Secondly, But his predominant final Impenitency and Infidelity Chrift pardoneth not, becaufe he is not guilty of it; he hath none ibch to pardon ; but hath the perfonal righteoufnefs of a performer of the conditions of the Gofpel; And for the finally impenitent Infidels, theanfweris, becaufe they rejected that Righteoufnefs which was able to fatisfie, and would not return to God by him jandfo not performing the condition of pardon, have neither the pardon of that fin, nor of any other which were conditionally pardoned to them.

If this Do&rine be the avoiding the good known way,there is a good known way befides that which is revealed in the Gofpel : And if this be fo hard a point for you to receive, IblefsGod, it is not fo to me. And if it be far more eafie to maintain orie fingle righteoufnefs, viz. imputed only h it will not prove fo fafe as ejfie* If one righteoufnefs may ferve, may not Pilate an&Simon CMagus be juftified,if no man be put to prove his part in it?and if he be 5 how fhail he prove it,but by his performance of the conditions of the Gift.

Treat, pag. 232. Argu. 8. That cannot be a condition of fufttfication , Which it felf nee Jet h fuftifica'ion : 'But good Work* being imperfetl^and having much drofscleaving^needa Jufti-fication to take that guilt aWay.

Anfto. Firft Again, hearken all you that have fo long de-nyed the Covenant to have any conditions at all : Here is an Argument to maintain your caufc: for it makes as much againft

faith

frith as any other ads( which they call works) for faith is imperfedalfo, and needs juftification,( a pardon I fuppofeycu mean; I had rather talk of pardoning my fins, then pfiifjmg them,or any imperfedions what ever J

Secondly, But indeed its too grofs a (hift to help your caufe. The Major is falfe, and hath nothing to tempt a man to believe it that I can fee. Faith and Repentance are considerable.Firft, Asfincere. Secondly, As imperfed-* They are not the conditions of pardon as imperfeft y but as fincere. God doth not fay [ / Yfr/7/ pardon you f you wilb not perfttlly believe, ] but " // 'you will believe. ] Imperfection is fin : and God makes noc fin a condition of pardon and life. I am not able to conceive what it was that in your mind could feem a fufficiennt reafon for this Propofition, that nothing can be a condition that needs a pardon. Its true, that in the fame refped as it needs a pardon ; that is, as it is a fin, it can be no condition. 3ntfaith as faith, Repentance as Repentance is no fin.

Treac. ibid. Its true, purification is properly of perfons^and of ettlions indirectly and obliquely.

Anfto. The clean contrary is true, as of Justification in general, and as among men, ordinarily. The adion is firft accufa-fable, or juftifiable, and fo the perfon as the caufe of that Adion. But in our JuftiHcation by Chrifts fatisfadion, our Adions are not juftifiable at all, fave only that we have performed the condition of the Gift that makes bis righteoufnefs ours.

Treat, pug* 233. This qneflion therefore is again and figain to be propounded : If good works be the condition of our fuftification, how comer the guilt in them that defer veth condemnation to be done away f Is there a further condition re quired to this condition f and fo another to that with a procefTus in infinitum ?

Anfft. Once may ferveturn, for any thing regardable that I can perceive in it.But if fo,again and again you (hall be anfwer-ed- The GofpelgivethChrift and life upon the fame condition

T t 0

to all , This condition is firft a duty, and then a condition. As a duty we perform it imperfectly and fo finfully ; for the perfection of it is a dii*v r but the perfection is not the condition, but the fincerity. Sincere Repentance and faith is the condition of the pardon of all our fins; therefore of their own Imperfections, which are fins. Will you ask now [ Jf faith be imftrfec~l y ho\t> comes the guilt of that Imperfettion to be pardoned ? is it by a further condition, andfo in infinitum ? ] No : it is on tht fame condition : fincere repentance and faith are the conditions of a pardon for their bwn Imperfections. Is there any difficulty in this, or is there any doubt of it ? Why may not faith be a condicion,as well as an Inftrument of receiving the pardon of its own Imperfection ? I hope ftill you perceive that you put thefe queftions to others as well as me, and argue againft the common Judgement of Proteitants, who make that which is imperfect, to be the condition of pardon. £ Repent and be baptized ( faith Peter ) for the remijfion of fin ; Of what fin ? is any excepted to the Penitent Believer ? certainly no : It is of all fins. And is not the imperfection of fakh and repentance a fin ? The fame we fay of fincere obedience as to the continuance of our Juftification,or the not lofing it,and as to our final Juftification. If we {incereJy obey, God will adjudge us to falvation, and fo juftifie us by his final fentence, through the blood of Chrift from all the imperfections of that obedience • what need tkerefore of running any further towards an infinitum*

Treat, ibid. T he 7> opifh party and the Cafiellians a*e fo f*r convinced ofthis , that therefore they fay ottr good wirkj are per-feB. And Caftellio makes that prayer for pardon not to belong to all the godly,

Anfa. h feems they are partly Quakers. But they are unhappy fouls, if fiich an Argument could drive them to fuch an abominable opinion. And yet if this that you affirm, be the c.iufe, thatPapllte have taken up the doctrine of perfection, I have more hi pes of their recovery then I had before; nay, becaufe they are fomeof them men of ordinary capacities, I sake it as if it were done already. For the Remedy is moft obvious ;

vious- Understand, Papifis., that it is Faith and Repentance and Obedience co Chrift in Truth, and not in Perfection chat is the Condition of your hn3l Juftification at Judgement , and you need not plead for perfection any more. But I hardJy believe you, that this is the caufe of their error in this point.

And you may fee that if Proteftants had no more Wit ahen Papifts , they muft all be driven by the violence of your Argument, to hold that Faith and Repentance are perfect

And feeing you tell us of Caflellws abfurdity, I would intreat you to tell us, why i t is that you pray for pardon your felvesjei-ther you take Grayer to be Means to obtain pardon, or you do not: If nori then i. Pardon is none of your end in praying for pardon. 2. And then if once it be taken for no means, men cannot be blamed if they ufe it but accordingly. But if you do ufe it as a means, then what means is it? Is Prayer any caufeof Pardon ? fay fo, and you fay more then we that you condemn, and fall under all thofe cenfures that per fas ant nefas are caft upon us. If it be no caufe of pardon ; Is it a condition fim qui non^ as to that manner of pardoning that your prayer doth intend ? If you fay yea, you confequentially recant your difputation ( or Leclure ) and turn into the tents of the Opmiontfts. But if it be no condition of pardon, then tell us what means it is if you can. If you fay, it is a duty. I anfwer, Duty and Means are commonly diftinguifhed, and fo is ntctffltM pracepti & med>i, Duty as fucb, is no means to an end, but the bare remit of a command. Though all Duty that God commandech is alfo fome means, yet that is not^#<* Duty. And fo far as that Duty is a means, it is either a Caufe, ( near or remote ) or a Condition , either of the obtaincnent of the beoefit, fimply, or of the more certain, or fpeedy, or eafie attainment of it, or of obtaining foine inferiour good, that conduced} to the main. So that ft ill it is a Caufe or a Condition, if a means. If you fay, It is an Ar.tecede>t. I fay. qua ta'e, thac is no means, but if a Nectary antecedent, that which isthereafon of ins neceftity may make it ame*n?.Ifyougoto Phyficalprerequifites(as voutalkt of a mans fiaouider* bear-

T 2 ing

C *4°

<>

tog the Lead that he may fee, e£r.J yftu gom^ <?/fv# .j Try

a moral means chat we treat of, and I think you will not affirm

Prayer to be a means of phyfical necefiity to pardon. If it were,

it muftbe a Phyfical caufe, near or remote, or a 'Difpofiih

materia of natural neeeflity, &c. If you fay, that prayer

for pardon, is difpofnio(ubjeblt % I anfwer, thats \z that we

Opinionifts do affirm : But it is a difpofitto moral is, and necefla.

ry ut medium ad finem : and that neeeflity muft be conflicted by*

the Prornifer or Donor : and that can be only by his modus pro*

mijfionis , whiclvmakes it in fome meafure or other a condition

of the thing promifed. Sothat there is no lower moral medium

then a meer condition fine qua non, that my understanding can

hitherto find out> or apprehend.

Treat, ibid. Paul fudgeth them dung tni drofs in rf-ference to fuftification y yea all things\ &c

j4r>fa. i. But what are thofe ^// things t 2. And what Reference to Juflification is it ? If All things (imply in all relation tojuftifkation, then he muft judge the Gofpel dung and drofs as to the Inftrumental collation of Juftirlcation; and the Sacraments dung and drofs as to thefealing of it;and theMiniftry dung and drofs, as to the preaching and offering it, and beseeching men to be reconciled to God : and Faith to be dung and drofs, as to the receiving of it; as well as Repentance and Faith to be dung and drofs as conditions of it ; or Prayer , Obedience, as conditions of continuing it.

2. Its evident in the text that Pauls fpeaks of All things that Rand in oppofition to Chrift, and thatftandin competition with him, as fuch ; and not of any thing that ftands in a neceffary fubordination to him as fuch.

3 . He exprefly addeth in the text, [for the excellency of the knowledge of Chtift fefus my Lord ] this therefore is none of the [_alJ things that are dung'] for the All things areoppofed to this. And it containeth that faith, which is works with the Opponents: for this is more then a recumbency on Chrift as Prieft.- It is the Knowledge of him as LordaKo. I am confident I fliall never learn to expound y**/thus Q 1'extern All

things,

tii*p, even the knowledge of'Cbrifi Jefut as Lord and Trophet, as dang for the Knowledge of him M TV.<*/?. ] Alfo Paul here* c&ccriicihWisfkpringtbelofjof thxt All. I am confident that the \*All j that />*«/fuffrred the lofsof, comprehended not his Self-denyal, Repentance, Prayer, Charity, Hope, &c

4. It is not only in reference to ftflification that />««/ defpl-feth Allthings ; but it is to the Winning of Chrift (wfrodoubt-lefs ischc Principle of Sanflificaciori as well as j unification) and to be found in him , which contained the fum of his felicity. If a mm mould be fuch a felf-contradi&er as to fet Repentance, or Faith in Chrift, or Prayer in his Name, or Hope in him , &c. againft winning Chrift, and againft being found in him , or againft the knowledge of him , let that man fofar efteem his fakh, hope, prayer, &c. as dung. If you mould fay, £ / account all things dung for the Vcinn'-ng of God himfelf as my felicity. ] Would you have me interpret you thus, £ I account the love of God dung, andprajer to him, andftudiotts obeying him, and the word that revealeth him, &c. even as they {landfubordi-nate to him. ~\ This fame Paul rcjoyced in the teftiraony of his confcience,that in fimplicity and godly fincerity he had bad his converfationamongibem : and he beator fubdued his body t and brought it into fubjeftion, left he mould be Reprobated* after he was juftified, and he prayed for pardon of fin, and tells Timetkj, \_lndoingthuthoHfh*ltfaveth}felf % &c. ] therefore thefe things thus ufcd> were none of the All things, that he op-pofed to the knowledge of Chrift, as dung,

Treat, pag.234, 235. Others would avoid this Objettion] by faying , that Qo (pel graces, which are the Conditions of the Cove-' rtant, are reducible to the Lav, and fo Chrift in fatisfyingthe L*w, doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them : And they judge it abfurdtofajt that Chrifl hath fatisfied for the (ins of the fecond Covenant , or breaches, which is Jaid to be only find unbelief.

Anfw. As this is brought in by head and moulders, (o is ic recited lamely, without the neceffary diftinftions and explicati-

T 3 DBS

oris ad joy ned, yea without part of the Sentence it felf : and therefore unfaithfully.

Treat. But this anfwer may be called Legion ; for many trrours and contradictions are in it. i. How can jujhfying faith qua talis in the all of fxftifpng, and Repsntance , be reducible duties to the L*w taken ftr icily ? Indeed as it wot in a large ftnfe difcoveredto the feWs^ being the Covenant of grace , as I have elfeVvhere proved ( Vindic. Legis J Jo it required*} unifying Faith and Repentance. "But take it in the fenfe as the Abettor of this opinion muft do, juflifying faith andrepentance mttft becalledtheworkjofthe Lam.

Anfr. Its eafilier called Legion then faithfully reported, or folidly confuted, i. Let the Reader obferve how much I in-curr'd the difpleafure of Mr. Blake, for denying the Moral Law to be the fufficient or fole Rule of all duty, and how much he hath faid againft me therein • and then judge how hard a task it is to pleafe all men ; when thefe two neighbours and friends, do publikely thus draw me fuch contrary waies , and I muft be guilty of more then ordinary errour whether I fay tea or Nay. And yet ( which is the wonder ) they differ not among them-felves.

2. But feeing your ends dired you to fetch in this contro-verfie, fo impertinent to the reft , its requifite that the Abettor do better open his opinion, then you have done, that the Reader may not have a Defence of he knows not what.

My opinion fo oft already explained in other writings, is this.

i. That the Law of Nature as continued by the Mediator, is to be diftinguidied from the Remedying Law of Grace , called the New Teftament, the Promife, &c. ( Whether you will call them two Laws, or two parts of one Law, is little to the purpofe, feeing in fome refped they are two, and in fome but one. )

.2. That this continued Law of Nature hath its Precept and San&iqn, or doth conftitute the Duenefs, i. Of Obedience in general to all that God hath commanded or fliall command.

2. And

2. And of many duties in particular. 3. And of everlafting death as the penalty of all fin. So that it faith , The ftages of fin is deuth.

3. That to this is affixed the Remedying Law of Grace, like an ad of Oblivion, which doth 1. Reveal certain points to be believed. 2. And command the belief of them, with other particular duties in order to its ends. 3. Anddotl>offer Chrift, and Pardon, and Life, by a Conditional Donation enacting that whofoever will Repent and Believe (lull be Juftified, and perfevering therein with true obedience, (hall be finally adjudged to everlafting life, and pofLfTed thereof. Its tenor is, He that Repentcth andBelieveth (hall be faved , and he that doth not (hall be damned.

1 4. That the fenfe of this Promife and Threatningis, Ht that Repenteth and'Believethat allin this life , though but at the /aft hoHY,fhall be f*ved ; and he thtt doth it not at all/ball be damned. Or he that is founda penitent Believer at death , &c. And not, he that believeth not to day or tomorrow (hall be damned, though afterward he do.

5. That the threatning of the Law of Nature was no* at firtt Peremptory and Remedilefs ; and that now it is fo far Re-medycer; as that there is a Remedy at hand for the difTolving of the Obligation which Will be e'Ve&ual as foon as the Condi. ion is performed.

6. That the Remedying Law of Grace , hath a peculiar penalty , that is, 1. Non-liberation, A privation of Pardon and life which was offered (For that's now a penal privation, which if there had been no Saviour, or Promife , or Offer, would have been but a Negation. ) 2. The certain Remcdilef-nefs of their mifery for the future , that there (hall be no more facriftce for fin. 3. And whether alfo a greater degree of pu-nifhment, I leave to confideration.

7. I ftill dilV.nguifhed between the Precepts and the Sanction of the Law of Grace or New Covenant, and between fin as itrefpe&ethboth : And fo I faid, that Repentance and Faith in Chrift (even as a means to Juftificacion,) are commanded infpe-cie in the Gofpei,which conftituteth them duties,but commanded 'confequcmly in gtntre iatheLaw of nature under the general

neral of Obedience to all particular precepts : and whether iU (o the Law of Nature require the duty in Jpccie, fuppofing God to have made his fupernatura! preparations in providing and propounding the obje&s, I left to enquiry. Accordingly * affirmed that Impenitency and Infidelity , tnongh afterward Repented of, as alfo thelmperfc&ionsof true faith and repentance, arc fins againft the General precept of the Law of Nature, and the fpecial precept of the Law of Grace, and thae Chrift dyed for them, and they are pardoned through his blood, ; upop condition of fincere Repentance and Faith.

8. Accordingly diftinguifhing between the refped that fin hath to the precept and prohibition on one fide, and to the promife and threatning on the other, I affirmed, that the forefaid Impe-nitency and Infidelity that are afterwards repented of, and the Imperfections of true Faith and Repentance a&e condemned by the Remediable threatning of the Law of Nature only , and that the perfon is not under the A&ual obligation of the peculiar Threatning of the Law of Grace ; that is, that though as to the Gofpel Treceptfhzfe fins may be againft the Gofpel as well as the Law, yet as to the Threatning , they are not fuch violations of the New Covenant, as bring men under its adual curfe; for then they were remedilefr. A nd therefore I faid, that its only final lmpenitency and Unbelief, as final, that fo fubjecls men to that Curfe or Rcmedilefs pereraptory frntence. The reafon is, becaufe the Gofpel maketh Repenting and Believing at any time before death, the Condition ofpromifed pardon: and therefore if God by death make not the contrary impeni-tency and unbelief final, it is not that which brings a man under the Reraedilefs Curfe ; (except only in cafe of the Blaf-phemy againft the Holy Ghoft, which Is ever final. )

9. Accordingly 1 affirm that Chrift never bore, or intended to bear the peculiar Curfe of his own Law of Grace. 1. As not furTering for any mans final impenitency and unbelief,wbich is proved in his Gofpel conftitution , which giveth out pardon only on Condition of Faith and Repentance ; and therefore the non- performance of his Condition is exprefly excepted from all pardon, and con-fequently from the intended fatisfadion, and price of pardon. 2. In thathe did not bear th&t fpeciej of

punifhmenr,

Cm-?)

punifhment, as peculiarly appointed by the Gofpel, viz* To be denyed Pardon, Juftification and Adoption, and to be Rcmedi-lefs in mifery, &c.

10. Alfo I faid, cbac all o;her fins are pardonable on the Gofpel Conditions; but the non- performance ( that is, final) of thofe Conditions is everlaftingly unpardonable ( and con-fequently no fin pardoned for want of them.)

Reader,this is the face of that Do&rine which Reverend Brethren vail over with the darknefs and confufion of thefe Gene-ral words ; that 1 fay , [ Ckrift hath not fatisHed f$r fins againft the fecond Covenant. 2 And all thefe explications I am rain to trouble the world with,asoftas they are pleafed to charge me in that confufion. But what remedy ? This is the Legion of er-rours and contradiclions •, which I leave to thy impartial judgement, to abhor them as far as the Word and Spirit (hall convince thee that they are erroneous, and to blcfs thofe Congregations and Countries that are taught to abhor them,and to re-joyce in their felicity that believe the contrary.

Treat, pjg. 255. *• Vfi • (hen the Works of the Law are

Conditions of our Juftificttion, and thus he runneth into the ex-tream he Would avoid.

Anf*. 1. The works which the Law requireth to Justification, that is, perfect obedience, are not the Conditions of Jufti-fication. 2. Nor the fulfilling of the Mo[*i:*l Law of Sacrifices, &c* 3. But from among duties in general required by the Moral Law , after the fpecial Conftitution of the Gofpel, God hath chofenfome to be the Conditions of life. And if you believe not this, I refer you to Mr. BUkt % who will undertake to prove more.

2. ButyourafTertionisgroundlefs. I faid not that they are works of the Law. What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Gofpel duty ? Do I call the duty, a work of the Law, be-caufel fiy the Law condemncth the negle&ers of it ?

?. £ut are you indeed of the contrary opinion , and tgainft that which you difpute againft ? Do }outhin'* that the Law doib not threaten .unbelievers, when the Gofpel hath com-

U manded

(14-d)

landed faittv^ Have I fo mucb^ ado to perfwade the men of your party, that the Gofpel hath any peculiar thrcatning or penalty, and that it is truly a Law ( which the Lutherans have taught too many ) and now do^ou think that its only the Go* fpel that Curfeth impenitent uneliever$,and thatmaketh punifh-mentduefor the remnant of thefe Tins in penitent Believers? Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and fel£con« tradition.

Treat, ib. But above ally that u mt to be endured , that Chrifi hath notfuffered for the breaches of the New Covenant , andthrt thereis no juch breach but finalmpenitency % For art the defers cf our Repentance^ faith and love in Chrifi^ other then the partial breach** of the Covenant of Grace f our nnthankfulnefs % unfrnit" fulnefs^ yeafometimes With Peter, our grievous revolts andapofta* ties ; What are thefe but the fad Jbakjngs of our slovenanfintmfi 9 though they do notdiffolve it f But it is not my purpofe to fail on thU % becaufe of its impertinencj to my matter in hand.

Anfa. I rather thought it your purpofe to fall upon it, though you confefs it impertinent to your matter in hand* For I thought you had purpofed before you had Printed or Preachy id.

Reader , I fuppofe thee one that hatb no pleafure in dark' nefs, and therefore wouldft fee this intolerable errour barefaced. To which end, befides what is faid before,underftand , I. That I ufe todiftinguifh betweena threefold breach of the Covenant, i. A fin againft a meer precept of the Gofpel,whicb precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant. 2. A fin againft our own Promife to God when we Covenant with him. |. A violation of Gods conft tuition , [[ Believe and be faved* and he that believethnot Jhatlbe damned ! j making us the proper fubjc&s of its A&ual Curfe of Obligation to its peculiar punishment. 2. On thefe diftin&ions I ufe to fay as followech ; j. ThatChrift fuf&rcd for our breaches of Gofpel precepts. 2» And for our breaches of many promifes of our own to God. 3, And for our temporary non-performance ©f the Gofpel Ciwidition^ which left us under a non-liberation for that time,

(and

( and therefore we had no freedom from Co much as was executed. ) 4. But not for fuch violation of the New Covenant, or Law of Grace, as makes us the actual fubjects of its Curfe or Obligation to Remedflefs puniftimenr. Thefeare ray ufual limitations and explications. A nd do I need to fay any more now in defence of this opinion, which my Reverend Brother faith is not to be endured ? t. Is it a clear and profitable way of teach-ing to confound all thefe,under the general name of Covenant-breaking ? 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine, and like to make Congregations bleffed, that our defects of repentance, un-fruttfulnefs, and unthankfulnefs, &c. arc fuch violations of the Law of Grace , or the Conditions of the Gofpel, as bring us under its actual obligation to Remedilefs punifliment ? That is t in plain Englifh, to fay, We (hall all be damned.

Treat, ib. Argument 9. if Work* be a condition of our Jufti-fication, then mnft thegodly foul be filled With perpetual doubts , and troubles, Whether it be aperfon juftifiedor no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perverjnefs from the fore-named 'Do&rine : but tht very Genius of it tends thereunto. For if a Condition be not performed, then the mercy Covenanted cannot bt claimed : At in faith ; if a man do not believe , he cannot fay, Chri/l with bis benefits are hit. Thus if he have not -works 5 the Condition it not performed, but ft ill he continueth without this benefit. But for Works •, How [hall I know when I have the full number of them f Whether is the Condition of the fpecies or indi-viduums of workj ? r snot onekindof work^ omitted When its try duty, enough to invalidate my Jufttfifation ? iVill it not be a* dangerous to omit that one as all, feeing that one u required as a Condition ?

4

Anfw. Your Argument is an unproved AfTertion, not having any thing to make it probable. 1. Belief in Cbrift as Lord and Teacher, is Works with the Opponents. Why may not a man know when he bclieveth in Chrift as King and Prophet, and is bis Difciple, as well as when he believeth in him as Prieft >

1. Repentance is tVorkj alfo with the Opponents. Why may not a man know when he Repemeth, as well as when be belie-veth. U 2 3. Do

3- Do you not give up the Proteftant caufe here to the Pa-pifts in the point of certainty of falvation ? We tell chera that we may be certain that our faith is fincere. And how t why by its fruits and concomitants, and that we take Chrift for Lord as well as Saviour, or to fave us from the power of fin as well as the guile ? And is it now come to that pafs that thefe cannot be known ? What not thefignsby which faith it felf fhouid V be known, and therefore fhouid bznotiora f This it is to eye man, and to be fet upon the making good of an opinion.

4. Let all Proteftants anfwer you, and I have anfwered you. How Vrill they know when they Repent and Relieve jtehen they have performed the {ftll of thefe i believed aU xecejfary Truths ? Re* pented of all fins that muft be Repented of ? Whether it be the fpe-cies or individual atis of thefe that are necejfary ! fVtll not the etmiffton of Repentance for one fin invalidate it I Or the omijfion of many individual aCls of faith 2 are not thofe aUs conditions ? &c. Anfwer thefe, and you are anfwered.

5. But I (hall anfwer you briefly for them and me. Its no impoflible thing to know when a man fincerely believeth, re-penteth and obeyeth f though many Articles are Effential to the Affenting part of faith, and many fins muft be Repented of, and many duties muft be done. God hath made known to us the Effentlals of each. It is not the Degree of any of them , but the Truth that is the Condition. A man that hath imperfect Repentance, Faith and Obedience , may know when they $re fincere, notwithftanding the imperfections. Do you not believe this } Will you not maintajn it againft a Papift wbenyouare Returned to your former*teraper ? what need auy more then to be faid of it ?

6. Your Argument makes as jmich againft the making ufyf thefe by way of bare figns, 'a/ by way of Conditions. For an unknown fign is no fign to^is.

7. /\nd ho^xonldkyou over-look it, that your Argument flyeth too boldly in the face of Chrift, and many a plain Text of Scripture ? Chrift faith , John 15. 10. If ye kftp my-Commandments* yepjall abide in my love , even as 1 have kept , &c 14. Te are my friends > if ye do whatfoever I command you , Mat.

7. 21»

cm*)

7. 11. Not every one that fatth Lord^ Lord 9 fball enter into thi Kingdom of heaven, hut he that doth the will of my father which id in heaven. 23,24. tf%ofoever heareth thefe /ayings of mine, an* doth them, &c. Mat. 5. throughout, verfe 20. Except y ur righteoufnefs exceed the righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Phartfees, ye Jhall in no cafe enter into the Kingdom of heaven. 1 John 3.10. in this the children of God are manifefi, and the children of the Devil : whofoever doth not righteoufnefs is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.'] An hundred fuch paflagcs might be cited. And will you meet all thefe with your objections, and fay, [ How /hall I k*ow Vehen I have the full number f Sec. ] Know that you hwtfnccre Faith, Repentance and Obedience, and you may know you perform that Condition of the Gofpel: elfe not.

Treat, pag. 236. That if good Vcorkt be a Condition of Jxfli-fication, then none are jnftifi;d till their death; beeanfe in every good worku required perfeverance, info much that per fever ance is that to which the fromife is made , Mat. 24. 6. Heb. 10. g8 r Rev. 2. 7,23. So that it is not goodVporkjfim ply , but pe*fevered in that is required : and therefore no fuftifi:ation to the end of our dates, fo that we cannot have any peace with Cj od till then. Neither doth it avail to fay, Justification is not compleat till then ; for it cannot be at all till then, becaufe the Condition that gives life to nil it not till then.

*s4nfa. i. And is not perfeverance in faith as neceffary as perfeverance in obedience ? Read fit. 1.23. John 15. 2,3, e?v. and many the like, and judge. Will you thence infer that none are juftified till death ?

2% But a little ftep out of the darknefs of your Confufion , will bring the fallacy of your Argument to the light, and there will need no more to it. The Gofpel conveyetb to us feverai benefirs: fome without any Condition, and feveral benefits on fc eral Conditions. 1. Our hrft A&ual pardon and Juftirkati-on, and right to life, is given on Condition of our firft Faith and Repentance : and not on Condition of External works of Obedience, nor ye: of pcrkvering in faith it fclf, roach lefs in that

U $ Obedience*

Obedience 2. Our ftate of Juftification is continued on condition of the continuance of Faith and Repentance, with fin. cere Obedience. 3. Our particular following fins have a particular pardon, on Condition of the Continuance of the habits and renewing of the a&t of that faith and repentance, for known obferved fins. 4. Our full Juftification by Sentence at Judgement, is on the fame condition as Glorification, viz*. On perfeverance in Faith, Repentance, Hope, Love and iincere Obedience.

Prove now if you can that perfeverance is the Condition of our firft pardon. Prove if you can that final perfeverance i* the Condition of our continuance in a juftified ftate till now. You fay, j unification and peace cannot be ours till the condition be performed. But what condition ? of that gift ? or of another gift? If of that, its granted: but its ftill denyed that perfeverance is any of the Condition of our firft pardon ? If of another gift; its no reafon of your Confequence. If you fpeak o£ final Junification and Salvation, I grant you all thus far, that you have no full Right of poflefiing them but on perfeverance; nor no Right at all, or certainty of Salvation, but on fuppo-fition of perfeverance as necefTary to the pofTeffion. And therefore if you can prove that we have no certainty of perfeverance, t 1 will yield that we have no certainty of falvatigp.

Treat. Thus Vee have averted this truth by many Argu-mints ; and though any one fingly by it fclf may not convince , r? yet altogether mayfathfie . ■■ l NoVq to the great Objettt-

-jfiaJ- *»* —

, An fa. I heartily wifh that wifer Readers may find more truth

^ and facisfaftion in them then I can do, if it be there to be found ; and to that end that they make their beft of them all.

v Treat. James faith > Abraham was juftified by w^^/—-^ fo that in outward appearances thefe (wo great Ape ft let [peak, contradictions ; which hath made fame deny the Canonical authority of James j Epiftle. Tea one faidblafphemoujly, Althameirius, Men-ctris Jacobc in caput tmxm.But this is to cut t not untie the hot.-—

1. The

C»»0

I. Tht fcofe of tht Apofllt Paul is to treat upon our fnftificatlon before God , and what u tht Inftrumtnt and me*ns of obtaining «,*— . Tint the ApoftleJenDti takes fnftificationferthtDtclar** tin and Mmftflathn of it before men.-—~*

Anfii. This is not the only fenfe of fames ( as! have proved before, to which I refer you ; no nor any part of the fenfe of the word fttfiificatton with him, though he mention fitting faith by works to men, ai an argument for his main condufion, yet he nowhere e£poundeth the word J unification by it. J+mtt cxprefly fpeaks of Imputation of Righteoufnefs by God, and of that Juftiftcation which is meant in the words of gen, concerning Abraham, even the famf words that Paul expoundeth; and of that Justification which inferreth falvation.

Treat. VmMnformtth m that faith only jttftifietk, andjitatt, what kind of faith it id, even a lively wording faith,

An[w> I haveanfwcredthisinthcbegmrringof this Difpu-tation,

Treat. ItsfJJ, They Stare not go againfi the plain words of the Apoftle. But its not the™ fa™* but Mm*, not the words , btttthtftnfe

<sAnfir> Our QueAion is, How the fenfe of James (hall be known ? Will you fay, not by the words, but by the fenfe ? The words are to exprefs the fenfe -, and we muft take heed of forcing them as muth as we can. A9 to your faying of the Anthropo-morphites, and Hoc eft corpus me am ^ I anfwer ^ the Tropica! fenfe is oft the plaineft j and in particular in thefe inftances. If any man point to feveral pictures, and fay, This is CafarjxA this is Pompey, &c. I fhall by ufe of fpeech (the interpreter of words ) take the tropical fenfe to be the plained, and not the literal; viz. That this is Cafars Image, and not that it is hi* perfon. And fo here,

2. Give me any cogent Evidence that I muft leave the plain fenfe, and I am fatisfkd*

^Reracmbeff

3. Remember I pray you, that its not the words, but the fenfe that you except againft. Do not you except hereafter againft the faying that ( we are Juftified by works, and not by faith only ] as fames doth; but againft the ill fenfe that you can prove to be put upon the words.

Treat, p*g* 238. Lafily , They art forced to add to tht Apo$lt\ for they fay y Works juftifit as the Condition of tht Gofpel } which tht Apojtle doth notfpta^ a Word of.

Anfw. 1 . We fay not that Jams calls them a condition;there-fore we add not to him as hi?.

2. Every Expofition and application is an addition of another fort, but not as of the fame.

3. lufenotthe a&ive phrafe th&t Worlds jft/tifie, agreeing fo far with you? who note a difference between thele fayings, Faith juftifieth, and»* art jttfttficd by faith: for all that Mr.: Blakjt defpifcth the obfervation, which perhaps he would fcarce have done, if he had known that you bad being guilty of italfo.

4. Scripture fuppofeth Grammer, Logick, Phyficks, &c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part. If fames tell you that we are juftified by works, he doth not fay that Aw*-*** is a verb, and s*py»F is a noun, andfoof the reft; bat be warranted you to fay fo without any unjuft addition fuppofing that Grammer fo call them; If the Scripture fay, that God ert-atedtht Htavtnsand the tarthjx. doth not fay here in terms, that God was the efficient caufe : but it warranteth you to fay fo ; If it fay, that Chrift dyed for us, and was a Sacrifice for our (ins, and hath obtained eternal redemption for us 5 yet it faith not that he is the meritorious caufe, or the material caufe of our Juftification; But it will warrant you to fay fo, without the guilt of unjuft additions. If you may fay as a Grammarian and a Logician, when you meet with fuch words in Scripture, £ Thefe are Paronyma, and tbefe Synonyma, and thefe Homonyma, and this is an univerfal, that a lingular, that a particular, and that an indefinite 5 this is an efficient caufe,that a material, formal or final ; this is a noun, that a verb,theother a

participle

participle or an adverb ; I pray you then why may not I fay, when I read in R$m. io.9.that£//a&0« eonfefs Vvahtby mouthed believe in thy heart , &c. ] that [ // ] is a conjunction conditional? Is this adding Co the Scripture unjuftly > If j did, when ever I read that we are juftifled £/ faith, coiled thence* that faith is an Inftrumental caufe, as if by were only the note of an Inftrument, then you might have accufed me of unwarrantable addition, or colleclion5,indeed.

Laftiy, If you have a mind to it, I am content that you lay by the unfcriptural names (or additions as you fpeak ) of nouns, pronoun?, verbs, antecedents, confequents, efficient, or material caufes (£•.:. and I will lay by the name of a condition, as you do of an Instrument: and we will only ufc the Scripture pbrafe, which is, If yon forgive men , your Father Vvill forgive you i if we eonfefs onr fens^ he i< faithful/ andjtifl to forgive : we are j'4fit(ied by faith Without tbi rvor^s vf the Lav : A man is j«Cifit><b* work* and not by faith only \ By tkjVvcrdi thou Jbalt be j-iiifieL Every mm fh*ll be judged according to his worfa,] &c.Let Us keep to Scripture phrafe i( you defire it,and you (hall find me as backward as any w o lay muchltrefs upon terras of Art.

Having gone thus far, I fhall in brief g've you a truer reconciliation of 'P.iul and fimes then you here offer us. i. They debace different, queitions. 2. And that with different forts of perjbns. 3. And fpeak diredly of different forts of works. 4. And fomewhac differ in the fenfe of the word Faith. 5. And fomwhat about the word Juftification. 6. And they fpeak of works iu Several Relations to Juftification.

1. TheQuefticn that Pant difputed was principally Whether Juftification be by the works of the Mofa cat Law, and confequently by any mercenary works, without Chrift, or in Co-ordination with Chrift, or anyway at all conjunct with Chrift ? The queftion that Jimes difputed, was, Whether men are juftified by meer believing without Gofpcl-Obedi-ence ?

2. The perfons that Paul difputed againft, were, 1 The unbelieving fetos 9 that thought the (Jtfofaical Law was of

X fcch

fuch perfe&ion to the making of men righteous, that there needed no other, much lefs fhould it be abrogate. Where fpecialiy note, that the righteoufnefs which the Jftos expected by that Law,was not fas is commonly imagined) a righteoufnefs of finlefs obedience, fuch as was required of Adam ; but a mixt Righteoufnefs, confiding of accurate Obedience to the Mofawal Law in the main courfe of their lives, and exacl facri-ficing according to that Law for the pardon of their fins com-minted, ( wherein they made exprefsconfefton of fin ) fo than thefe two they thought fufficient to juftifie, and lookt for the Meffias but to free them from captivity, and repair their Temple, Law, &c. And 2. Paul difputed againft falfe Teachers, that would have joyned thefe two together (the Righteoufnefs of Mofes Law,and Faith in Chrift ) as necefTary to life.

But fames difputed againft falfe Chriftians, that thought it enough to falvation barely to believe inChrift, (or lived as if they fo thought) its like mifunderftanding Pauls Do&rinc of J unification as many now do.

3. The works that Paul fpeaks of directly, are the fervices appointed by Mofes Law fuppofed to be fufficient, becaufe of the fuppofed fufficiency of that Law. So that its all one with him to be juftified by the Law, and to be juftified by works ; . and therefore he ofter fpeaks againft Justification by the Law cxprefly, and ufually ftileth the works he fpeaks of, the works of the Law;yet by confequence, and a parity of Reafon,he may well be faid to fpeak againft any works imaginable that are fee in oppofition to Chrift, or competition with him, and that, are fuppofed meritorious , and intended as Mercenary.

But fames fpeaks of no works , but Obedience to Cod in Chrift, and that as (landing in due fubordination to Chrift.

4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Juftification, Paul means our AiTent to all the effential Articles of the Gofpel, together witt? our Acceptance of Jefus Chrift the Lord, as fuch, and affiance in him-, that is, To be a Believer; and fo to have faith, is with Paul, to be a Difciple of Chrift, or a Chrift ian: Though fometkne he fpecialiy denominates that faith from one part of

the

the objecl: ( the promifc ) fbraetime from another ( the Wood ef Chrift ) fometime from a third ( his obedience. ) And in other cafes he diftinguiftieth Faith from Hope and Charity :but not in the bufinefsof Juftification, confidering them asrefpe-cling Chrift and the ends of his blood.

But fames by faith means a bare ineffectual Affent to the Truth of the Chriftian Religion, fnch as the Devils them-felves had.

5. PuhI fpeaks of Juftification in its whole ftate, as begun and continued. But James doth principally, if not only fpeak of Juftification as continued. Though if by works any underftand a difpofition to work in faith, or conjunct with ic ( as Dr. Uckton doth ) fo his words are true of initial Juftification alfo.

6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned. Paul fpeaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal perfonal Righteoufnefs, in part or whole. But James fpoak of Works, not as anfwering the Law, but as fulfilling the condition of the Gofpel, and implyed ( as promi-fed or refolved on) in our firft believing, and fo as fubfervienc to the Sacrifice, Merit and Righteoufnefs of Chrift , as the avoiding of poifon or dangerous meats ( that may kill,though the conrtary cannot cure ) is fubfervient to the curing medicine of a Phyfician, and implyed in our taking him for our Phyfician at firft.

And fo much briefly to fatisfic you and the world, of the Reafons of my DifTent from you, that I may not differ from fo Dear and Reverend a Brother, without making it appear, that necefiity did compel me.

That which I have paffedover, being about the Inftrumcn-tality of Faith, 1 (hall fpeak to, ( if fciod will) together with Mr. Blak.es Reafonings on tha* Subject, in another Difputation.

X2 Of.

Cppotf. Works arc not a Condition, much lcfs a Caufe of our Juftification, under any Notion whatsoever they are taken: *. e. Neither Faith in Chrift as Lord and Teacher, becoming his Difciples, Repentance* Love , Hope, Prayer for Pardon, Confe/Tion, Selt-denyal, fincere Obedience, &c are Caufcs or Conditions of Juftification, as begun, continued, or as it is moft eminent in the fentcncc at Judgement. Conf£r£/rbisFaith,Repentance,Prayer,Obedience % e^.arenot truly means of our Juftification now or at Judgement, I Srgo. Not means to the pardon of fin, and freedom from punishment.

Ergo. Not means of Salvation from Heil, or of that Glory to which the final juftification will adjudge us.

Ergo. i. They are notnecefTary niceflitatt medii, and 2. No Man muft ufe them as means to his prefent pardon, or Juftification, or final Juftification or falvation.

Ergo. No means muft be ufed for prefer! or final Juftification or Salvation, but only the Jr.fti umenul receiving or apprehending of Chrifts Righteoufnefs* crof Chriftas Prieft Ergo:

Objeft. There are means befides Caufes and Conditions. Anty. Befides Ccmfas & Condwnts p nximas, there arc; bat befides Caufas & Condttiows & prtxwas & remote , in this cafe there are none that I know of: it there be, name them*

Letters

LETTERS

That paft between

This

REVEREND,

Much

HONOURED

BROT HER,

And my Self. i 64.9, and 1 6% o,

LONDON,

Printed by Robert trhitt, for Ntvil 47^w,]Book-fetlcr in Ktdirminfttr*

Jving heard that Mr,

diflikgd fome things inmyA~ phortfms^andhy the perfwa/i" ons offome intended a Confutation of them : I wrote to him an ear* ntjl Ttyuejl, that he mould acquaintme with what he dijlikgd , annexing his Ifeafbns to convince me of my Errors, pro-fefsing my earncjl T>efire of Information, efpecially from him : To which he re* plyed, as followeth;

Deai'

Tear Sir,

Have indeed declared to fome, who happily may have informed you of it, as I defired, that there were feveral Do&rinal points aflerted in your Book, to which I could not pedtbtts ire, much lefs corde ; fuch are many pofitions about Chrifts Righteoufnefs, about faiths Juftifkation in your fenfe, and the Efficacy of new Obedience in this work as well as faith. Yea Love made fome kind of the actings of Faith : The good old found definition of Faith waved, and a new one fubftituted. Not the ™*credere, but the ™ operxri alfo called into Evangelical Righceoufnefs, and this made our pcrfonal Righteoufnefs. Th-fe things and divers others do make me vehemently diffent from you in the maters aflerted. Yet I do really honour you, for your great Abilities and zealous Piety,earneftly defiring of God that he would prolong your life, and have mercy upon hss Church by fyaring this Epaphroditur.

But whereas you have been told, that I had animadverfions on your Book, this was a miftake : for the truth is. though I have caft my thoughts upon fome part of ic, yet I have not anydi-geftcd or prepared confiderations about it: but do defer fuch a work, till Khali have opportunity to difcharge that part I have publiquely promifed about imputed Righteoufnefs ; which Subjedr I cannot yet profecute, being hindred by other avocations .- It is true, I have had advertifement from fome honoured friends of mine at London, that it is expected, I (hould do fomethir.gin thofe points, becaufe by your Infcriprion of my name ( which I take as an A& of your real Love and refped to me, though I am unworthy of any fuch Teftimony ) they

think

(itfi;

think I am inrerefted. Had I known the Contents of the book before publifhed, I would have moft importunately urged you at leaft to have taken more time of deliberation about the divulgation of them , which you know have much novelty in them. I know things are not to be embraced or rejected, becaufe either old or new; yet Taul doth diflikc KmvofuvU; f if we may fo read it, and not x*vo<pwUf. I jfhali conclude wich this ; Let not any difference from you in Judgement be any obftmi&ion to improve your utmoft Abilities ( which are many and lovely ) to the finding out, and propagating of Truth. If God prolong your life, I hope this next Summer we may rfave mutual oral Conference together, which is the moft conducive way to clear both Truth and our Opinions.

Your ftithfull Friend and Brother

Decemb. 3:

To the Reverend , and hi* much Honoured Friend , cft/r. Baxter, Preacher of the Word of Qod at Kederrainftcr, theft

^Deliver*

Sir,

1 Received yours, which I acknowledge a Favour : but not fo great as I expedt. Your diflent is fo generally known, that I cannot bur. hope to know foroe of the Urounds of it. I hope you cannot fo vehemently difTcnt in points of fuch Moment, and vet deny me adifcoYcryof mine Error. The defer-ing of fuch a work till you have wrote another Book, Joth intimate what will be injurious to the Church , your felf

Y and

(Itfl)

and me : If you intend to publifh a Confutation, when I am dead, and deny me any help for convidion while I live. i.The Church will lofe the fruit of my own Recantation.2.And your felf, one part of the fruit of your Labor. 3. And I may dye in error unrecanted, and you ( being now importuned for s your help ) be guilty of it. If you did but know how gladly I would publiqueiy recant, you would not deny your help. You that would havefo importuned me to deliberate^ you had known before, I hope will not deny your affiftance for ray recovery, I did not haftily that! did. But though I wanted the opportunity of confuting you before, yetl hope it is not too late. I am confident if you know rae,you are not fo uncharitable as to think me uncurable. It is therefore your flat duty not to fuffer fin upon me. Let me therefore intreat you to fend me one or two of your ftrongeft Arguments againft fpme of the weightyeft points in difference; and to anfwermine. I know it is not an hours work with you to do that much; and I would beftow twenty for you; If you fufped that I will any way mif-imploy your papers, you (hall prcfcribe me the Law therein your felf. Whether you will read wo<pavUt or vj&ofavU^ I am indifferent, being no friend to either. I thought it a greater novelty to fay, Faith juftifieth only or primarily as an Inflrumtnti then to fay, it juftifieth as the Condition % which the free Lawgiver hath promifed? unification upon. I knew it was no novelty to fay, wemufthave a perfonal Righteoufnefs besides that imputed : And I took it to be as old as the Gofpel, to fay, that this confifteth in Faith and fincere Obedience. I called it Evangelical, becaufe I trembled to think of having aa inherent Righteoufnefs which the Law of works will fo denominate. What you fay of the £ Efficacy of Obedience and Faith ] I difclaim both, as never coming into my thoughts? Iacknowledge no efficiency as to fufiification in either,but a bare conditiona/ity. I aver confidently that I give no more to works, then our Divines ordinarily do, viz. to be a fecondary part of the Condition of the new Covenant, and (0 of Juftifica-tion y 4s continued and corifummate, and of Qiorification : only if I err, it is in giving lefs to Faith, denying it to be the hftrumen-tal Caufi of fttftificatwt, but only.a condition. My Definition

(ion of Faith is the fame ( in fcn(c) with Dr. Prefiont % Mr. Cutverwelt, Mr. Throgmorton , Mr. Norton of new England in his Catechifm, &c. O how it grieveth me to diflent from my Reverend Brethren! Some report it to be a pernitious Book: others overvalue \t, and fo may receive the more hurt if it be unfound. Truly Sir I am little prejudiced againft your Arguments; But had rather return into the common road then not, if I could fee the Light of truih to guide me. I abhor affected Angularity in Doctrine: therefore I intreat you again to defer no longer to vouchfafe me the fruit of one hours labour, which I think I may claim from your Charicy and the Intercft God hath given one member in another, and you (hall hereby very much oblige to thankfulnefs

fan. 22. 1649.

Tour nnftorth) fellow >[ervant

Richard Baxter.

To my %jvtrend and very much valued friend* Mr. *, 'Preacher of Gods Word at •

Thefe prtfent.

Dear Sir,

I Received your Letter, and 1 returned fome AnfwerbyMr. Bryan, viz.. that now the daies growing longer and warmer, I (hall be glad to take occafion to confer with you mouth to mouth about thofe things wherein we differ ; for I conceive that to be a far more compendious way, then by letters,whercin any miftake is not fo eafily rectified .• I (hall therefore be ready to give you the meeting at Bremicham any Thurfday you (hall appoint that may be convenient with your health y that fo by an amicable collation, we may find out the truth. In the mean

Y 2 while

while I fliall not wholly negled your requeft in your letter, but give you an hint at one of thofe feveral Arguments that move me to diflent from you; which although it be obvious, yet fuch Arguments as moft men pitch upon, have the greateft ftrength : and that is the peculiar and proper cxpreflions the Scripture giveth to faith in the matter of Juftification, and that when the Do&rine is purpofely handled, as Paul m hisEpiftle to the Romans , attributing it fo to faith, as it excludes not the presence, but the co-operation of any other, He doth fo include faith, as that he doth exclude all works under any notion; for Abraham was then godly, and abounded in other Graces, yet the Apoftle fattens his Justification upon this .- in fo much that if a man would have defired the Apoftle to make a difference between faith and other Graces, it could not have been done more evidently. As for the Apoftle James, your fence cannot be admitted to reconcile them , but rather makes that breach wider: the one faith,a Juftification without works ; you make Faith as well as works,though one primarily : whereas the Orthodox both againft P*fi/?/ and Arminians, and Soci-»!*»/, do fwectly reconcile them. By the hint of this, I fee a Letter cannot reprefent the vigor of an Argument. I (hall only add one thing: we may hold Opinions, anddifputc them Speculatively in Books; but practically, and when we come to dye, we dare not make ufe of them. I know not how a godly man at his death can look upon his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him; though the Grace of God and the Merits of Chrift be acknowledged the procuring caufe. The Papifts alfo verbally come to that refuge : For how come the Imperfections in the Conditions to be pardoned, and conditions have a moral Efficiency > Raptim. But of the'fe things more fnllywhcnlfee you.

The Lord preferve you an Inftrument in his Church, and di-reel; and faxi&ifie all your parts and abilities for his Glory.

Feb. 13. Tour living brother in the Lord

To his very laving and much refpeEled Friend Air. Baxter, Minifitr of gods Word at Kederminfter, theft be delivered.

Sir $

Sir,

FOr the exprcffions of your love in your two Utters, and your offer to meet me for conference ; I return you hearty thanks. But I told you of my weaknefs, which is fo great,thac I am not able to travel.nor to difcourfe to any purpofe if I were with you ; a few words do fo fpend me ( except when I have a little eafe, whicti fals out perhaps once in amoncthfora few hours unexpected ) therefore I am refolved to importune you once again, and if you now deny me, toceafe my fuit. Icis expedtcd at London^ Cambridge % &c. that you write a confotati-on,and you intimate your purpofe to do fo hereafter, which I will not diffwade you from, fo I might but fee your Argumcnts,tbat beforeldye, I might know whether Ihave erred, and not dye without repenting or recanting: and if I err not, that I migbc (hew you my grounds more fully ^ And if you deny this rcqucft to one that hath fo even unmannerly importuned you, and yet purpofe to do it, when I can neither be the better for it, nor defend my felf, you walk not by that Rule as I thought you did, nor do as you would be done by. But for my part, I have done my endeavour for information, and fo have fatisfied my own confeience. For what (hould I do ? There is none in this Country that will attempt a convincing of rae, by word or writing, nor for ought I hear, gainfay : and you are the neareft from whom I may hope for it. Ih your laft you

overpafs all the particulars almoft touched in your former, and pitch on Juftification by works. Where you mention Pauls attributing it to Faith, to which Ihave anfwered, and have no Reply, i. Where you fay Paul excludes the Co-operation of any other ; I anfwer, So do I. And of Faith too I deny the operations as erTeaive. 2. When you fay, he excludes works under any notion, I anfwer. 1. Would I could fee thatSroved. 2. Then how can James fay true r^.Thcn he excludes faith under the notion of an Inftrument. 4. And Repentance under

Y 3 the

C i«)

the notion of a preparative, or condition. 5. But if you mean only that he excludes the co-operation, or efficiency of works, I yield as before. 6. Paul exprefly excludes only the works of the Law, that is, fiich as are conlidered in opposition to Chrift, or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works, and not fuch as Chrift hirafelt enjoyneth in fubordination to himfeif, fo they keep that place of fubordination. 7. Pauls Queftion is^What is the Righteoufnefs which muft denominate a (Inner juft at the Bar of the Law ? And this he faith is no Works(under any notion Jno not Faith,but only Chrifts Righteoufnefs, and fo faith muft be taken relatively : for certainly it is Chrift, and not Faith chat is that Righteoufnefs. Isnoc this all that our Divines fay, or require ? and fo fay I, over and over. But Paul doth not refolve there £ what is the Condition on which Chrift makes over this Righteoufnefs of his ] fodiredly, but collaterally. 8. Or if you fay he do: yet if Paul fpeak of our firft pofleffion of Juftification, I fay it is without, not only the operation, but the prefence of works, which is more then you fay. 9, Or whether he fpeak of begun, or continued Juftification, I fay we arejuftified without works m "Pauls fenfe: yea that they are not fo much as a condition of the continuance of Juftification. For works in Pauls fenfe relate to the reward as of debt, and not of Grace. As a man that works to yearn wages, as Paul plainly faith, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt Thefe works I difclaim as finfull in their ends. But obeying the Gofpel, or being willing that Chrift who hath redeemed us, fhould rule over us, and running that we obtain, and righting she good fight of faith, and furfering with Chrift that we may be glorified with him, and improving our Talent, and enduring to the cnd^ andfo doing good works, and laying up a good foundation againft the time to come .■ I think Paul excludes not any of thefe from being bare conditions, or caufit fine aulbus mn of our Juftification at Judgement, or the continuance of in hers* • Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls fenfe, as before, but not works in this fenfe, or in fames his fenfe. When you fay my fenfe for reconciling Paul and fames cannot be admitted, t . I would you had told me what way to do it better:

and

Ci«7)

andanfweredwhatlhavefaid intbat. 2. Your rcafon appears to me of no feeming fo*ce. For firft you fay [ the one faith a Juftification by faith without works, you make Faith as well as works, &c. ] Anfxter. 1. "Paul faith not barely without works, but without the works of the Law. And J have (hew-ed you whathe means by works, Rem.^. 2. I fay no more then f*mef,tb*t a man is juftified by works,and not by faith only : i believe both thefe Scriptures are true, and need no reconciling, as having no contradi&ion in the terms. And yet I fpeak not fo broad ufually, as fames doth. Where you fay that ~ the Orthodox do fweetly reconcile them ]] I know not who you mean by the Orthodox. For I doubt not but you know the variety of interpretations to reconcile them. Pifcator and Pemble have one Interpretation, and way of Reconciliation; Cahiv, Par am and moft Divines another. Camero confuteth the beft efteemed,and hath another. Brochmond with moft of the Lutherans have another. Jac. Lanrentiu* , Althemer % and many more tell U3 of divers: which of thefe yoa mean by the Orthodox, I know nor. But if you exclude all thofe from the Orthodox, that fay as-1 fay in this, you will exclude as Learned Divines, and well reputed of, as moft Euro}* hath bred, w*..excellent CW-a^. Bergitts^Ludov* Crocius,fohan.Cro-***** ftba.v. Bergius.Sec.Who though they all difpute for Juftifi? cation by faith without works,underftandingit of the firft Juftification ( for moft Divines have taken Juftification to be rigidly fimsil & fewel, till Dr. Zfctt^w evineed that it is a continued A& ) yet they both take works for meriting works,that refped ' the reward as of Debt, and they fay that otherwife Obedience is a Condition Oor caufe as they make it ) of continuing, or not lofing Jultifteacion once attained. And is not that to fay as much as I? And many more I can name you that fay as much. And you approve of Mr. 5Wr book^which faith that work* ( or *pt*rpofirin.\X>j/k^ with God ) do ye fit fit as a pajfive qualification of the Sxbjetl capable offrflifijatie-n. You add that [_ Vt>t may difpute^ &C. but you knorv not ho\\> a godly wan at his death can 4ook^ on h-s Graces cu Conations cf the Covenant fulfilled by him, &c. ] Which fptah feems ftrange to me. Iconfefs if it be fo ; I am u-g^dlv. Fori have beeaas oft, and as long in

the '

Ci<$8)

the expectation of death as mod men, and ftill am; and yet I am fo far from being afraid of this^that I fhould live and dye in horror and cVperation , if ] cotild not look upon the conditions of i he Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my felf through goes workings. If by our Graces you mean Habits, I think it more improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant. Forwhatyoufay of thePapills, you know how fundamentally almeft they differ from me in this, confounding the Covenants Righteoufnefs, &c. If it were not to one that knows it better then my felf, I wculd (hew wherein. For yourqueftion, How come the imperfections in our conditions to be pardoned ? You know I have fully anfwered it, both in the Aphorifmsj and Appendix. And I would rather you had given me one difcovery of the inefficiency of that anfwer, then asked the Qpeftion again. Briefly thus. Guilt is an obligation to punifhment ( as it is here to be underftood ) Pardon is a freeing from that Obligation, or Guilt and Punifhmenr: All Punifhment is due by fomc Law. According to the Law or Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith, Love, Obedience , &c< defervc punifhment, and Chrift hath fatifficd that Law, and procured forgivenefs of thefe imperfections, and fo acquit us from Guilt and punifhment. The new Law, or Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final Unbelievers, and fo not to the imperfe&ion of our Faith, Love, Obedience, where they are finccre. And where the Law threatneth not Punifhment, there if no obligation to Punifh-m ent ( or Guilt) on the party from that Law, and fo no work for Pardon. Jmperfcd believers perform the conditions of the new Covenant truly: and it condemneth none for imperfection of degree, where there is fincerity .-No man is ever pardoned, whom the new Law condemneth, that is, final Unbelievers, or Rejecters of Chrift. So that Chrift removech, or forgiveth that obligation to punifhment, which by the Law of Works doth fall on us for our imperfe&ions. And for the Law of Grace where ic obligeth not to punifhment, that obligation which is nor, cannot be taken off : nor that man pardoned, that was ntver guilty. Your Queftion cceafionethmetobe unmannerly in opening tjiefe^afie things to you, that 1 doubt *i not

not knew thetn fare twenty years ago and more. Though I coafefs I had not the clear apprebenfions of thetn feven ycars ago. \ybiz ever I was then thought by others, I confefs I was ignorant, and amglai that CJod hath in any meafure healed my ignorance, though with the lofs cf ray reputation of b.-i^g Orthodox- Where you add that ccnJitions have a moral efficiency, either you mean all or fome ; if all, or if this whereof weareinfpecch, though lam loth toconreft with you in Phi-lofophy, yet I rr.uft confefs I never read fo much in any Author, nor can force my felf to believe it, dafu fine ?«* » », eft c fax*. Jc is as ScWibler and others, a mcer Antecedent. The word floral \i arr.biguou^but if you mean it as I conjecture you do.for an efficiency, interpretative in fenfe of Law> as if the Law would afenbe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition : 1 utterly deny it in the prefent cafe • or if you mean that our fulfilling the conditions hath an^fficiency on God to move him to juftilie us, as an impulfive procatarctick caufe ; I not only deny it, but deny that any fuch caufe is properly with God, or hath efficiency on him ; nor can it have the operation of the final caufe, which fome call moral, feeing it is none of Gods end, nor can any thing move God but God, nor be his end but himfelf. If you mean by moral efficiency any thing clfe which is indeed no efficiency, I (lick not on meer words.

Sir, I fliould not have prefumed to exped fo much labour from you as to write a fheet for my fatisfadion, had I not perceived that others exped much more to lefspurpo'e, and that your letters exprefs that hereafter you intend more. If you deny meyourznfwer to this,I will trouble you no more. And becaufel would have your labour as (hort as may be, I (hall only defire your anfwer to thefe few Queftions, which I ground on both your letters, becaufe the clear refolving of thefe, will be the readieft way to fatisfie me.

Qgeft- i. Hath the Covenant of Grace ( which promifcth Juftifkation and Glorification ) any condition on our parts, or none? If it have

^utft. 2. What are the ConditionsPIs not Love and Obedience part of the Condition ? Sjftfi. 3 -Muft not thofe Conditions be fulfilled by our felvcs ?

pt hathChrift fulfilled them by himfelf for any man.

JVaeft. 4. If we muft fulfill them, why may not a dying mm look on them ? Or what means Paul to re Joyce in the teftimony of his Confcience,that in iimpliciey and godly fincerity he had his converfadon? e^.And that he had fought a good fight, and finifhed his courfe, e£-,\and that in all good conference,e^\and Hezekjab , Remember Lord that I have walked before thee,

Queft. 5. €an a man have any aflurance ordinarily that death (hall not let him into Hell, who hath no aflurance that he hath performed thefe conditions, and how fhould he have it ? Can he know that all (hall work to him for good, though he know not whether he love God?or that there is no condemnation to him, though he know not that he is in Chrift, and walk not after the flefh, but after the Spirit ?

Queft. 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to falvacion , but as meer figures, then is not the Antinoml-an Doftrine true, that we may not Ad for Salvation ? 4L. 7.What do you mean your felf,when you write againft thofe that deny Repentance to be a Condition to quxltfie the SubjeEl to obtain for givenefs^ but a fign Led. 2Q.of J unification ? And when you fay that Scripture limits fuftification,and Pardon only to tbofe Subjects that are fo andfo qualified, p. 171. where you inftance in Repentance^ C on f € (f l0ft t Turnings Forgiving others? &c, and make faith an Instrumental caufe, but foy t there are many qualifications in the Subjett. p. 172. And what mean you when you fay, p.210. In fome grofs fins there are many conditions requisite ( be fides humiliation ) without "tohich Tardon of fin cannot be obtained : where you inftance in Rfiitution. Be-fides thofe.j?. 148,149^50. Is it not fafe when a man hath prerformed thefe conditions, to lookjm them either living or dying} Or what do you fay lefs then I do here? I know you are none of the men of contention, and therefore will not recant your own Dodrine in oppofitson to me. And if you did not mean that thefe are conditions of ?ardon,and Juttification,when you fay fk/^, whocanunderftand you ? If thofe grofs fins beintheunjuftified,youwillnotfay that the conditions of his Pardon are no conditions of his Juftification. I know that you

give

give more tof*ith( and fo to roan )then I do, viz* to be the Ivjlrument of his own Jstftincation, ( which I will not contend againft with any that by an improper fenfeofthe wordlnftru-ment, do differ only in a term ; but what do you give lef$ to Re-fontanct^zA the reft then I do ? you fay they are conditioned 1 fay no more.

Qh& And what do thcgenerality of our Div'ne5 mean, when they fay that Faith and new Obedience are our cond;t ; ons of the Covenant? As I have cited out of 7>jLres» % Scharpias, jvilht, Pi ester, Junius , Areiitis, Alfttdius, who faith, the con-on of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith, and partly Evangel cal Obedience, or Holinefs of life, proceeding from faith in Chrift. Dift'mtt. far- l 7- f-71- An ^ Wendtitx the like, &c. If it be faid that they mean they are cond tionsof Salvation but not of Juftirication; Then

Queft. 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final Juftification at Judgement (which you have truly (hewed is more compleat then this f aft tfcati 9 vi 4,'and our Glorification have different conditions on our part, and fo of our perfevering Juftification here.

Que ft. 10. And whether it be any lefs difparagement to Chrift to have mans works to be the conditions of bis balvation, then to be the tare conditions of his ultimate and continued Juftirication ? Seeing Chnft is a Saviour as properly as a Jufti-iier, and Salvation comprizeth all.

Queft. 11. What tokarafte fenfe can be given of that multitude of plain Scrip:ure? which I have cited > Thff.6o. For my part, when I have oft ftudyed how to forfake my prefent Judgement, the bare reading of the 25 of UWuttheft hath ftill utterly filenced me,if there were no more. Much more when the whole Gofpel runs in the 1 Ke fir 4

Queft. 12. Is not the fulnlling of the conditions of the new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righ r e-ous,that is, not guilty of non-fulfilling, or not obliged to pu-mfhment, or guilty as from that fame L j w or Covenant ? And doth not every man tha r is dved fo fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant ? and fo is Evangelically righ'eous ? The condition is not Believe, s.ndobey firfett'y^ b'dtfencerety.

Z 2 Que]?.

Qktft. 13. If there be no fuch thing as a perfonal Righce-oufnefs neceffary to falvation, befides imputed Righteoufnefs : 1. What is the meaning of all thofe Scriptures cited T kef 22. that fay there is ? 2. And of our Divines that fay there is inherent Righteoufnefs ? And 3. What real difference between the godly and the wicked, the faved and damned ? Queft.iA* Have you found out any lower place for Love and Obedience, then to be bare conditions, if you acknowledge them any way. conducible to final Juftification, or Salvation ? Ifycu have, what place is it ? and how called ? and why hath it not been difcovered unco the world ? To fay they are qualifications of the Subjettjs too general,and comprised! qualifications of different Natures- and it (hews not how they are conducible to the faid ends ; and why a man may not be faved without qualifications, as well as with them, if God have not made them fo much as conditions ?

Queft. 15. Seeing I afcribe not to Evangelical Obedience the leaft part of Chrifts Office or Honbr, nor make it any jot of our legal Righteoufnefs, where then lies the error or danger of my Doctrine ?

Qtteft. 16. Do not thofe men that affirm we have an inherent Righteoufnefs, which is fo pronounced properly by the Law of works, accufe the Law of God for bleffing and curfing the the fame man and aclion } And how can that Law pronounce a man.orhisafSion righteous, which curfeth him, and condemn-eth him to Hell for that fame A&ion ? It makes me amazed to think what fhouldbe thereafon that Divinesconteftfo much, that it is the Law of Works that pronounceth them inherently righteous, which they know condemns them ; rather then the Law of Grace or new Covenant, which they know abfolveth them that fmcerely perform it. When all D.vines acknowledge an inherent Righteoufnefs, and jhat the Law of Works is fulfilled by none, and that it pronnunceth none righteous, but the fulfillers; and when the condition of the new Covenant muft be performed by all that will be faved : and when the Holy Ghoft faith that it was by faith ( and fo pronounced, and measured by the Law of faith ) that Abel ( the fecond Righteous man in the world } offered the excellent Sacrifice, and by it obtained

rained witnefs that he was righteou%God teftif ying of his gift, drc.Heb.n.^.

•Que(t. 17. Do not thofe Divines that will affirm that£ our inherent Righceoufnefs is fo called from its imperft ft conformity to the Law of works ] and that £ ic is the Law that pronoun-ceth them righteous ] lay a clear grouud for Juftification by works in the worft fenie ? for if the Law pronounce their works, and them properly righteous, then it juftifieth them : and then what need have they(at ieaft fo far ) of drift, or Pardon ? yet and what Law fliall condemn them, if the Law of Works jufti-fiethem ? At Ieaft do they not compound their Rtghteoufnefs (as to the law of Works; partly of Chrifts fatisfa&ion, and partly of their own Works ?

£t$tjt. 18. Whether you ftiouldnot blame Dr. ?rtfton\ Mr. Norton, N*r. Culverwel, Mr. Throgmorton, &c. for laying by the good found definition of Faith fas you call it) as well as me? And is it not great partiality to let the famepafs as currant from them,which from me muft be condemned ? And why would you agree to fuch a corrupt definition, being one of the AiTembly, when theirs in the leiTer Catechifm ( and indeed both ) is in fence the very fame with mine ? And why may noE .1 be judged Orthodox in that point, when I heartily fubferibe to the National AfTemblies Definition? viz. that Faith -is a facing Grace, whereby rve receive, and reft ok Chrift alone for Salvation, as he is offered to us in iheGo'ptl, ] 4>w. 19-Do I fiy any more then the A (Terribly faith in the preceding Queftion?[ff4^ doth Godrequirtefus, that we may efcafe hn wrath and curfe due to us for fin ? Anfw. Cjodrequintk of us (to efiape the J aid wrath and curfe, &c.) FaithinJefttsChrift, repentance unto life, Vetththt diligent ufe of all the cut* aril means, thereby Chrij} commtjnjcateth to us the benefits of Redemption, J And is not Juftification one benefit ? And is no; final Juftificatt-on a freeing us from that Curfe ?

Q(teft. 20. Which call you the good, found definition of Faith ? When our famous Reformers placed ic in A durance ; Cumero, and others in perflation f fuch as i< in the underftand-ing) others in A(Ten:,as Dr. Downam^ &c .Others in a Belief of Gods fpecialLove, and that fin is pardoned. Others in Arfi-

Z 3 ance

anceor Recumbency. Others in divers of thefe. Some, as Mr. B //, calling it a fiducial Affent. Others an obediential Affiancce- Did not each of thefe forfake that which by the fo rner was accounted the good found Definition ? And why may not I with Dr. Prefton, Mr. Walin % &c. fay it is an Ac-ceptance^orconfent.jojned With Affent? or with the Aflembly,and the reft, fay it is a rtceiving s which is the fame in a more Metaphorical term.

Quefe. 21. If you fudge as Melancbton^ John Croc if*;, Da-venant, t,4mejiw 9 &c. that Faith is in both faculties ; how can you then over- leap the Elicite Ads of the will ( which have re-fped to means; Eligere^conjentire^ uti ?

Que/i- 22. If the formal rcafon of juftifying faith lie in a Belief or Perfwafion that Chnft will pardon and fave us: or in an Affiance or refting on him, or Trufting to him only for Salvation: or in an Acceptance of him as a Saviour, meerly to juftifie and fave from Hell : Why then are not almoit all among us juftifted and faved? when I fcarce meet with one of an hundred,that is not unfeignedly willing,thatChrift fhotsld pardon, and juftifie, and fave them, and do verily trult, that Cbrift will do it • and the freer it is, the better they like it. If they may whore and drink,and be covetous,and let alone all the. pradifc of Godlinefs,and \ et be faved,they will confent. If it be laid that they reft not on Chnft for junification fincercly;! Anfi They doit really.and unfeignedly, and not diiTembiingly, which as we may know in all probability by others, fowemay know it certainly by our own hearts, while unregenerate. So that it is not the natural, but the moral Truth, that is wanting : And what is that? And wherein istheElTen ial, formal difference between a wicked mans refting on Chrnt for Juftirication, and a tru s Bchevers ? To lay it is feen in the fruits, is not to ftiew the EiTennal difference.

£>j?eft. 23. If refting onChrift for Juftification be the only condition of final Juftification, What is the reafon that Perfyns, Hobott, Hooker t Pr eft-m,Taylor Elto/i ,Whatel]^T\&2.\\ rhe godly Divines alfo yet liv ng do fpend moft of their labour to bring men to obey Chrift as their i ord, and not the hundreth line or word to prefs them to Truft that he will pardon and fave them? All the

po werfull

powerfull Prrachers that ever I heard, however they difpute, ye: when they are preaching to the generality of people, they zealouflycry down lazinefsjukewarmneft, negiigence,unho' nefs, prophanefs, &:. As chat which would be the liklycft ciufe of the damnation of the people. But if only the forefaid faith be the condition, and all other Graces or Duties be but meer fignal effects of th s, and Cignal qualifications of the fub-ject, and not fo much a< conditions, wnat neei a ! l this? Were it not then.better to perfwade all people, even when they are whoring, or drunk , to truft on Chnft to pardon and juttirle them? And then when they have the tree and caufe, the fruits and iignal effects will follow.

•Queft. 24. Yea, Why do the beft Divines preach fo much againft Prefump:ion ? And what is Prefumprion , if it be not this very faith which Divines call juftifying? viz.. the Trufting to Chrilt for Pardon and Salvation only, without takng frim for their King and Prophet ? If it be faid that this laft mutt be pre-fent, though not juftifie : How can the bare prefence of an idle Accident fo ma*e,or marr the efficacy of the canfe ?

Quejt.25.tf to be unwilling that Chriffc fhouldraignoverus, be part of the dire&ly condemning fin,Z,»£e 19. 27. why is not the willingnels he fhould raign, part of Caving, juftifying faith?

Queft. 7 6. Seeing refting in Chrift is no Phyfical apprehen-fionof him ( who is bodily in Heaven ) nor of his Righteouf-nefs ( which is not a being capable of fuch an apprehension ) How can that Refting juftifL more then any other Ad bu: only asicischcc \ to which the Promifc is made? Refting

on a friend for a Benefit, makes it not your*, but bis [ that. A; Firkins ( cited by me ; Tg bfhevt tb: wof

France fj dlbe mine-, ma^ it not mire : 'But: and the Kingdom . ( vid.

much as I J vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not faid £ He tbat btlitzeth fball be ju^iped and favtd , ] would Z>< >ave

done it ? And if he had faid, [ He that repenteth^ or , callitbon the name of the Lird, ftuii b: jzftified or not thefe have done it ? if fo ; then doth not faith ju diredly, as the condition of the Gift, Promife, or new Covenant?

nant? AnA\tsapprtbe*/io*\sbutksaptitftdfto be fct apart for this Office : And if it juftifie as a condition of the Promife: rouft not others do it fo far as they are parts of the Condition ?

Sir, If you fhculd deny me the favour I hope for in revolving thefe doubts, yecletme hear whether I may expect it or not. And in the interim I (hall fearch in jealoufie, and pray for direction : But till your Arguments (hall change my judgement, I remain confident that I can maintain moft of the iAnti-nomim Dotages againft any man that denyeth the principles of my Book : and that which is accounted novelty in it, is but a more explicate ,, diftind , necefTary delivery of common Truths.

Richard Baxter

tslpril 5.

Sir,

IAm forry that you are not in capacity for the motion I pro-fered .• I thought difcourfe would not fo much infeeble you, efpecially when it would have been in fo loving a way .* And I judged it the more feafable, becaufe I had been informed of a late folemn conference you had about Padobaptifm, which could not but much fpend you. I (hall prefs no more for it, although this very letter doth abundantly confirm me, that letters are but a lofs of time : for one word might have prevented many large digreffions. Is not that endeavour of yours in your feventh queftion to prove out of my book,that Repentance is a necefiary condition, or qualification in the Subject to be pardoned, &c. a mcer impertinency } You earneftly defire iatUfaftion of your confeience, therefore I cannot think you

do

C'77)

do wilfully miftake. For is that the ftate of the queftion wick us ? Is it not this, whether the Gofpel Righteoufnefs be made ours, otherwife then by believing ? You lay by believing, and Obedience, 1 fay only believing. I fay faith is only the condition juftifying , or inftrument receiving, you make a juftifying Repentance, a juftifying Patience: you make other ads of grace juftifying as well: fo that whereas heretofore, we only had juftifying faith, now there are as many other qualities, and all juftifying, as there are Graces. So that I do firmly hold ( and it needs no recantation ) that repentance and other exercifes of Grace are antecedent qualifications, and are media ordinata y in the ufe whereof only pardon can be had. But what is this to you ? Who exprefly maintain the righteoufnefs of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours, upon our godly working , as well as believing. If therefore you had fpenc your felfto fhewthat faith had no peculiar Inftrumentality in our Juftification, but what other Graces have, then you had hit the mark. What is more obvious, then that there are trfo-ny conditions in juftificato, which are not in a&u jttffificationu ? The fattening of the head to the body is a neceflfary condition in famine vidente, but it is not in atla videntu. You grant indeed fome precedency to faith, but you make Faith and Works aqne , though not &qn*liter, the conditions of Judication. I ftiould fay much more to the ftate of the queftion.but I forbear; In other things you feem to come off; and though I do not fay you recede from your AfTertions, yet you much mollifiethem, that I need not therein contend with you. Bat here is the flick. Let it be dcmonftrated,tbat whereas the Scripture in the current of it attributes Juftification to believing only : ts through fa'th , and by Faith , and through faith in his bloody that you can as truly fay, its received by love, and its through love of his blood (bed for our fakes, &c. This is a little of that much which might be faid to the ftate of the queftion. This I judge new Doflrine, juftifying Repentance, juftifying Charity. And in my Letter I laid down an Argument, K°m. 4. Concerning *s4brah*ms Juftificatian, the Pattern of all others. To this you reckon up many Anfwers, but I fee noc the Argument (haken by it. Firft you fay, you exclude a co-oft-

A a ratio*

c>7s;

iaiUn effeftive, but why do we ftrive about words ? You do not exclude works jufttfying, as well as faith, let theexpreflions be what they will. Whereas Paul faith, he would be found .having the Right eoufnefs Vih'ch U by faith ^OW will add, and Which ii by love, by z,eal. 2. You defire it to be proved^ that Paul excludes all rporkj under any mtion ; I think its very eafily done : Firft, becaufe of the immediate oppojition between Faith and Works j now you Will contradict Pauls Argument, and give a tertium, works that are of Grace. But the Apoftles oppofition is fo immediate here and in other places, between faith and any thing of ours, that he admits of no medium. 2. He inftances in Abrahams works, and excludes them; now were Abrahams works, wo*k? done by the meer ftrcngth of the Law ? Did noc Abrahams Obedience, and other works flow from Grace ? Were Abrahams works in oppofkion to Chrift ? Yet even thefe are excluded. 3. He excludes all works under any notion by the oppofition, juftifying, covering, all is wholly attributed unto God. 4. The Aflertion is univcrfal ; The Apoftle faith, without works in general, ver. 6. And he works not, ver. f. Laftly, By the teftimony he brings from the Pfatmift, that bleflednefs is where fin is not imputed, whrere it is forgiven ; Thefe rea-fons do evidence that he excludes works under all notions in the a& of Juftification, though not from the perfon juftified. 3. You fay, koW then faith James true > But I ask, if there be juftifying worbj how faith Paul true ? But again, James faith true; for this faith which in refped of its ad ad intra, doth onlyjuftifie, ^yet it works ad extra. The old Aflertion is fides qu& viva^ not qua ziva. You fpeak of a feeming Amilogie among the orthodox in this reconciliation, but though all go not eademfemi* ta, yet they do eafom via againft works under any notion whatfoever in the ad of Juftification. 4. You argue that faith as an Inflrument is excluded. Thus Bellarmine alfo, apprehen-dere eft opus, therefore faith is excluded : But non fequitur : Faith ispaffive in its Inftrumentality • and although to believe, be & Grammatical <*#*W, ksverbum atlivnm, yet its phyficn^ or vm?®vj>y.n fajftve. A man by believing, doth not open.ri , but rtcipere :; As videre,audire&re Grammatical attions, but Phyfical or natural pajjions: now you cannot fay thus of the exercifes of

Other Graces: this is thefeeming ftrcngth of your Exception?. For Repentance is not excluded as qualifying^ but as recipient, which is a fifth Exception.

As for your difcourfe,whether TWdifputes what is our Righ-teoufnefs? or upon what terms it is made over to u=, itdoch not much matter; for indeed Puul fpeaks to both thole only inclufively or collaterally^ yt)u fay.- but that which he chiefly intends, is to fhew in what manner we are juflified, whether by believing or working, and thefe he makes two immediate oppo-iites, not granting any tertium. You fpeak of Faith taken relatively for Chriiis Rig'iteoufoefs ^ but how can you find out fuch a figure for faith in your fence^unlefsyou will acknowledge Love or Obedience relatively for Chrifts Righteoufnefs ? Indeed thofe that hold Fai h inftrumentally,receiving the whole rightc* oufnefs of Chrift, and no other Grace,they often fpeak of faith taken relatively,but fo cannot you,who hold that not only feeing this brazen Serpent, but any other actions of fence will as well heal the wounded Chriftian. You fay you acknowledge the Affemblies definition of refling or receiving, you cannot take in that fence, as they declare it, as the Scripture words which are Metaphorical, do imply : for its the retting of a burdened foul upon Chrift only for Righfeoufnefs, and by this Chrifts Righteoufnefs is made over to us • and its a receiving of Chrift, as the hand embraceth any ObjeS: now you make the Righteoufnefs of Chrift made over to us in any other cxercife of Grace ts well as this. So that although you would willingly feem not to recede from others, yet you plainly do.-and although you think your Aflercions are but more diftinft explications, yet they are indeed deftru&ive Affertions to what our Divines do deli-yenneither may you, while you intend to difpute, exactly build upon fome homilctieai or popular exprefsion in any mans book. You reply toafecond part in my Letter: whether a godly man dying, may be affe&ed according to your pofition, and thereupon you inftance in Hezekjah ,P**/,and that no man cari dye with comfort without the evidence of thefe works. But is this the ftate of the queftion with us ? Do you think that I deny a godly life to be a comfortable teftimony, and a neceflary qualification of a man for pardon ? You cannot think that yoa

A a 2 fpeak

(iSo-)

fpeak to the point in this. But here is the queftion, Gan a godly man dying, think the Righteoufnefs of Chrift is made his by working or believing ? Is ic repent, and Chrifts Righteoul-nefs is by chis made yours, and reft in Chrift } Certainly the dying Chrift ian is in agonies dircded to this refting on Chrift, to the eying of this brazen Serpent, not to be found in any thing but the Righceoufnefs by faith. Its an ad of Dependance, not of Obedience that interefts us in Chrifts Righteoufnefs. Us that puts on the robes of Chrift, that our nakednefs may not appear. And that is very harfh ftill, which you exprefs, to expect the Righteoufnefs of the Covenant of Grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your felf, through Gods working?. lam unwilling to parallel this with fome paffages that might be quoted out of unfoand Authors ; but that I am confident, how-foever your Pen- writes, you have a tutijfimum eft to reft only upon Chrifts Righteoufnefs.and that by bare refting, and beleiv-ingyou look for a Righteoufnefs. As Philofophers fay, we fee or hear intus recipiendo, not extra mittendo : otherwise r BeIUr-rnine argues confonantly enough, that Love would juftifie as well as faith; but we fay that Faith doth pati, Love doth agere. Not but that faith is an aftive grace, only in thu aft it ia meer recipient.

Sir y I have not time, nor paper to anfwer thofe many quefti-ons, the moft of which I conceive impertinent to this bufinefc: and your Explication of your felf, how imperfedions in our Graces.are done away,and yet the conditions of righteoufnefs,is to me m r *.<PcZ;<T*TQv : but I cannot go any further. What I have written with much love and refped to you, I (hould account it a great mercy to be inftrumental to bring you to the right way again: If there be fo much Joy for reducing a wandring fheep,be not offended if I fay there will be much more for an erring fhepheard: though I hope at laft your error may prove in words rather then in fence: with heartfy brotherly love I have written this, and fo let it be received from your fellow-labou* rer, who honours Gods gifts in you, andisalfo fenfibleof his »wn infirmities, and pronenefs to err.

(181)

Vear Sir,

IF you doubt of the truth of my bodily infirmity, it is be-caufe you neither know my body nor mind. The difputc at BtwdUy,n% ic was almoft at home, fo I had the choice of the time, and fuchftrengthvouchfafed from God, which I cannot again expecfc, much lefs promife my felf. I told you I have fome lucid* wtervalla^ perhaps a few hours in a moneth : but if upon fuch uncertainty I fliould draw you to a journey, and then ten to one fail you, I (houldbe injurious. But feeing you fo far and freely condifcend, if God wil (hew me fo much Merc/, as to enable this reftlefs unceflfanrly-pained Sceleton to fuctya work, I (hall heboid to fend you word, and claim the favour you offer. In the mean time it is my duty to let you know, I have received your Letter, and to return you hearty thanks for it, though it be not that which I hoped for, and fhall now ceafe to expect. I am convinced now as well as you that Letters arc but a lofsof time: but your Arguments or dired anfwers to my Qucftions, would have been for my advantage, a precious improvement of it : butfeeinglmay not be fo happy, I muft reft content. Itfhllfeemeth to my weak underftanding to be no impertinency to prove that your felf affirm Repentance, Confefsion, Turning, Forgiveing others, &c, to be more then figns, i.e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgivenefs; and to tell you that I fay no more, and to tell you ftill, that you give more to faith ( and fo to man ) then I; but I give no more to works for ought I defcern then you •, I am fure then our ordinary Divines do : And if I do miftake herein, you have little reafon to fufpect me of willfulnefs; though of weak-nefs as much as you pleafe. As for the ftate of the Queftion between us, which you fpeak of, I am a ftranger to it, and know not what you mean.I never came to the ftacing of a Queftion with you • nor did you ftite any to me in your letters, but mentioned your vehement difTcnt from feveral paflagesinray book} and therefore I had reafon to think that you fell upon the Queftiom as there they were ft a ted ; fo that it is titimt & me-dHliitH/, pertinent to my queftion,wbich is impertinent to yours.

Aa 3 You

You fay the queftion is, \whe\ber the Goffel righteoufnefs be made ourj otherwife then by believing ? ] and tell rae that I fay \_by believing and obedience ] when I never ftated fuch a queftion, nor ever gave fuch an anfwer. I fuppofe by £ G of pel Righteoufnefs ]] you mean Chrifts Righteoufnefs given to Believers: Now I have affirmed that [ thofe only /ball have part in Cbrifts fttisfattion* andfo in him be legally righteous , who do believe and obey the Qofpel, andfo are in themfelves Evangelically righteous. ] But your phrafe [ made ours] doth intimate that our firft poflef-fion of Chrifts Righteoufnefs fhould be upon Obedience as well as Faith ; which I never affirmed : But Chrifts Righteoufnefs is continued ours on condition of obeying him, though not made ours fo : and we (hall be juftifiedac j udgement alfo on that condition. As it is not marriage duty, but Contract which is the condition of a woraans firft J ntereft in her Husband and bis riches- but marriage duty and the performance of that Covenant, is the condition of her Intereft as continued. And indeed it is much of my care in that Book to fhun and avoid that queftion which you fay is ftated between us: for I knew how much ambiguity is in the Word [ By ~\ which I was loth to play with. I know we arejuftified By God the Father, By Chrifts fatisfa&ion, By Cbrifts abfolution, By the Gofpel Covenant or Promife, By the Sacraments, By Faith, By Works j ( for 1 will never be aftiamed to fpeak the words of the Holy Ghoft) By our words ( forfo faith Chrift ) Therefore if you will needs maintain in general, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs is made ours, no otherwife then by beleiving, nor otherwife continued ours; you fee how much you muft exclude. But to remove fuch Ambiguity, I diftinguifh between juftifying £ By 3 as an efficient inftrumental Caufc, and [ By ]as by a condition -. and I ftill affirm that Works or Obedience do never juftifieasany caufc, much lefs fuch a caufe; but that by them as by a condition appointed by the free Lawgiver and Juftifier we are finally jufti-fied. And truly Sir, it is paft my reach at prefent to underftand what you fay lefs in this then I,except you differ only about the word [ By 3, and not the fence; and think that it is improper to fay that Pardon or Juftification is 'By that which is but a condition: You feem here to drive all at this, and yet me thinks

you

C»80

you fhould not. i. Becaufe you affirm your felf, that conditions have a moral efficiency : and then it ieems when you fay Repentance, Confcffion, &c. are conditions, you mean they are morally efficient; which is a giving more to works then ever 1 did. a. Beciufe you know it is the phrafe of Chriftand his Spirit, that we are jul\ iRed Bj our words and works ; and ic is fafe fpeaking in Scripture phrafe. 3. Becaufe you fay after that my AfTertions arc ddlrudfcive of what Divines deliver; but the word By, if we are agreed in the fence, cannot be deftru-dive ; and except the phrafe only 2ty, &c. be the difference, where is it? WhcnyoufayRepentar.ee, o-c. are condinons, and I fay they are no more : and I have nothing from you of any difagreement about the fence of the word condition.Ltft you ihould doubt of my meaning in that, lundcrftand it as in our ufual fpetch it is taken, and as Lawyers and Divines generally do, viz. Eft Lex addtta ntgotio, qua donee pr*f}etnr,evex;um fttf-findit. Veleft modus , vel can] a qua [nfpendit id quod agitnr % quoad ex poftfatlo cor,fi r meiur % Ht Cujacius. And whereas Conditions are ufually diftingufht into [ottJ}ativas } cattJalef & nAxtAf, feu communes J mean conditions pcteft>tivar. Where you add that you fay only faith is the condition juftifying. etc. but I make a juftifying Repentance, tire. And whereas heretofore we had only Juftifying faith, now, &c. ] I anhver, 1. If by juftifying Repentance, &c. you mean that which is ( as you fay Faith is ) an inftrument or efficient Caufe, I never dreamed of any fucb: If as a Condition •, you confefs it your feif. 2. If you fpeak againft the fence, we are agreed in that for ought I knows If againft the phrafe, then jaltifying Faith or Repentance is no Scripture phrafe : but to be juftified By faith, and By works, and By words,are ail Scripture phrafes. You fay, jot* firmly hold that Repentance and other Exerctfesof Grace are antecedentqualifications •, and media ordinata,^; the ufe whereof only Pardon can be had : but What is thU to me ? &c. I anfwer. I. Add conditions as you do in your Book, and you fay as much as I. X If by the other exercifesof Grace you mean the particulars in your book enumerated, or the like ; and if by Pardon, you mean even cbe firft pardon ( as the word Only (hews you do ) then you go quite beyond me, and give far moK to thofe ex r-

cifes

cifes of grace then I dare do. For I fay that Chrift and ail his imputed Rtghteoufnefs, is made ours, and we pardoned and jufli-fied at firft without any works or obedience more then bare faith, ("and what is precedent in its place or concomitant) and that bona opera jeauuntur jufiificatum non pracedunt jufttfican-dum% in regard of our firft jufhfication. I dare not fay, they are Antecedents or media ordinata. Where you a&d t Vt>hat is that to you that make the righteoufnefs of the Covenant of grace to be mafo ours upon our godly wording, dec. I anfwer, i. I have (hewed it is as much as I fay,if not more J[*pon] intending but a condition or medium ordinatum. 2.1 never faid what you lay I maintain in phrafe or fenfef if the word [made] intend either efficiency or any caufality, or the firft poffeffion of R ghteoufnefs. 3. You much ufe the harfh phrafe of [Working] as here [God/j -working ] as mine; which I doubt whether ever I uttered or ufed ; And the term £works~] I little ufe, but in the explication of fames* For I told you that I difciaim works in Pauls fenfe, Rom. 4.4. which make the reward not ot grace, but of debt. You add [_lf therefore you had [pent your felf to [hew that faith hath no pt~ culiar\instrumentality in our junification but What ether graces have, the* you had hit the mar^] dnfft. I confefs Sir you now come to the point in difference- But do you not hereby confefs that I give no more to works then you, but only lefs to faith? Why then do you ftill harp upon the word [works'^ as if I did give more to them ? the task you now fet me is to prove chat faith doth no more, and not that works do fo much : Tbac faith is not an inft rument, and not that love or obedience are conditions. A nd to this I anfwer you : 1. I have in my book faid fomewhat to prove faith no inftrument of juftifying, and you faid nothing againft it. Why then fhould I aim at this mark ? 2. I think I have proved there that faith juftifieth primarily and properly as the condition of the Covenant, and but remotely as A receiving jafHficttion, this which you call the in-ftrumentality, being but the very formal nature of the ad, and fa the quafi materia or \t% aptitude to the office of Juftifying. And becaufe I build much on this fuppofition, I put it in the 4J»fn>j,which you judge impertinent. 3. Yet if you will un-derftard the word injlrtiwent laxely, I have not any where < , denyed

(18?)

dcnycd faith to have fuch an wftrumentality ('that is, receiving orapprchenfivenefs) above other graces: Only 1 deny and tnoft ctnfdmtlj deny that that is the formal, proper or ncereft caufe of faith's juftifying: But the formal reaion is, becaufc God hath made it the condition of the Covenant, promifiog juftificationto fuch receiving, which elfe would have no more luflifled then any other ad : And therefore fo far as others ire made conditions, and the promife to us on them, they muft reeds have forae fuch ufe as well as faith : And that they are conditions, youconfefs as much as I. 4. But what if I be miflaken in this point? what is the danger? If faith fliould deferve the name of an inftrument, when 1 think it is but a condition ? 1. Is it any danger to give lefs to faith then others, while I give no lefs to Chrift ? (For if you ftiould think I gave lefs to Chrift then others, I fhould provoke you again and acain to (hew wherein.) 2.1 deny nothing that Scripture faith : It faith not that faith is an inftrument: (perhaps you will tell me Vtronins argues thus „• But I mean it is neither in the letter nor plain fenfe j and then I care not who fpeaks it, if true.) 3. You make man an efficient caufe of juftifying himfelf. ( For the inftrument is an efficient caufe) : And what if I dire not give fo much to man ? is there any danger in it ? or fhould I befpoke againft for the Doctrine of obedience, as if I gave wore to man then you, when I give fo much lefs? 4. Thofe that diflent from me do make the very natural aft of faith ? which isrooft effentialtoit, and infcparable from it, as it from it felf, viz* Itsappnhenficnof Ckrfts Right eoufnefs, to be the proper primary reafonofits juftifying. What if I dare not dofo, but .give that glory to God, and not to the nature of our own aft ? and fay, that Fides qua rec'tpit juftificat, fed nonqua recipit primarily, but as it is the condition which tic free juftifier hath conferred this honour upon? isthereany danger in this? and will there be joy in heaven for reducing a man from fuch an opinion ? You i^yJ^fVbat more ebvious then that there art many conditions in juftificato, which are not in a&u juftificationis: The fanning the bead to the boar, &c ] Anfw. 1. You faid before that they are Antecedents &tjriediaerdinata y and then tbey are

B b fare

lure conditions injuftificando as w^ell as in\ufiificato. t. Your mention of the condition in hominevidintt is be fides our bufi-nefs, and is only of a natural condition, or qualification in genere nAtttr&; When we are fpeaking only of an a&ive condition in genere moris : The former is improperly, the later properly called a condition. 3. If this be your meaning, I confefs there are many natural or paftive qualifications ne-ceflary, which are no adive or proper moral conditions in a Law-fenfe ; But this is nothing to the matter. 4. The phra-fes of [Conditions injuftificato, & in aSitt jufttficationii] are ambiguous, and in the Moral fenfe improper. Our queftion is whether they are conditions ad juftificationem recipiendam : Which yet in regard of time are in alln ju/fificdtionu y but notc<?«-ditiones vel qualifications ipfim aElus. And if you did not think that repentance is a condition adjuftifica f ionem recipiendam, and fo watiujttftificatkmsi how can you fay it is medium ordinate** I A mediums fucb,eflentially hath fome tendency or con-duciblcnefstoitsend. ?. As obvious therefore as you think this is, it is paft the reach of my dull apprehenfion to conceive of your conditions in a judiciary fenfe, which are in jstfiificato for the obtaining of juftification,and not be both adatlnw &inattu jttftifieationis: for I fuppofe you are more accurate and ferious then by the word condition Co mean modum vel afeEiionem entU MetAptyficam , vel fabjeEli alienjfit ad}unttt*m vel qualifica*i~ onem infenfo Ph)fico t when we are fpeaking only Of conditions inftnfuforenfi. And there are many thoufand hdneft Chilians as dull as I,and therefore I do not think it can be any weighty., point of faith which rauft be fupported by fuch fubtilties which are paft our reacryhough obvious to yours: God u r eth not to hang mens falvation on fuch School diftinftions which fewmencanunderftand. 6. And every fuch Tyro in Philofo-phy as I,cannot reach your Phylofophical fubtilty neither; to E3n J erftand chat the faftning of the head to the body is not conditio in attu videntis ; (though it be nothing to our purpofe )• Indeed we may think it of more remote ufe then fome other, and but propur a Hud, & quafi conditio cenditionis ; and if you lay fo of Repentance, &c we fliould not difagree

You fay \Jn other things I come ^andfo mollifie mjf aftirti-

ont

onsjh*t you need not contend] Anfi?. I. I would you had told me wherein I To come off : For I know not of a word. If you mean in that I now fay .obedience isno condition of our firft attaining juftification, but only of the continuance of it, &c. I faid the fame over and over in my book, and left it (hould be over-lookc, I put it in the Index ofdiftinftions. If you mean not this, I know not what you mean., 2. But if explication of my felf will fo mollifie and prevent contending, I (hall be glad to explain my felf yet further: Yea, and heartily to recant where I fee my error. For that which you defire , / demon-(Irate that its By love , andTkrough love % &c. I have an-fwered before by diftinguifhing cf the fenfe of By and Through: and in my fenfe I have brought you forty plain Texts in my book for proof of it, which (hew it is no new Do-drine.

To your argument from Rom. 4. Where you fay that Abrahams juftification is the pattern of all others, I conceive that an uncouth -fpeech , firange to Scripture for phrafe and proper fenfe, though in a large knk tolerable and true : Certain I am that Paul brings Abrahams example to prove that we arc juftifled by faith without the works of the Law4 but as certain that our faith muft differ from Abrahams, even in the cflenti-als of it: We muft believe that this fefus is he, or we fhall dye in our fins ^ which Abraham was not required to believe. Our faithisanexplicite Affentand Confent to the Mediators Offices, Wt, that he be our Lord and Saviour, and a Covenanting with him, and giving up our felves to him accordingly : But whether Abrahams ( and all recited in Heb. 11. J were fuch, is queftionable. Too much looking on Abraham as a pattern, feems to be it that occafioned Cpr otitis to give that wretched definition of fair h, ( dnnet. in /oc.)thzt Q it is bnt a high eflimation ofGods power and wifJom, and fait hfu/nefs in keeping his promt-ft*, &c. ~| (yet I know he came (hort alfo of defcribing that faith which he lookt on as the pattern.)

My firft anfiver was that / exclude alfo anyeffeEHvi eo opera' tion ; to which you fay, JVhy doiveftrive about words ,&c] I fee that mens concevinps are fo various, that there is no hopes that we thould be in all things of one mind. Bccaufe; I was loth

13 b 2 to

('i88)

to ftrive about words, therefore I diftinguidied between cauf*-

lity, and condU%ohality y knowing rhar. the Word 'Bf wp .imbigu-

ous(when we are faid to be juftified By faith &c. no v you take

this diftinguifhing to be ftriving about words, co avoid' wbteb,

you would bring we Jback co tht ambiguous term agun>

Whereas I cannot but be moftcooficlent thaoasgmle ismoit in

Generals , lb there would b: no nog elle between 'us but

ftriving about word? if a/; difput« on. an unexplained

tern, ani'wich^uf: d ft.i \& oh'. D » >u indeed think , than

to bean efficient caufe of our Juft ;i ti m, and to be a bare

condition, is all one > or do you chink the difference to;, be of

no moment? You fiv, J tiinot tx Lids tiir^f jvftifyiyg at well

af faith, let theexprejji >it h wh it th-y mil* \ %y4nfw. I. You

ihould have faid, [Let the fenfe^ or \\> ty of jtftifying bewhatk

will, ] for fure the difference between an efficient caufe and a

condition is more then in the expreflion, or clfe I have been long

miftaken. 2. I do not exclude God jaftifjing, Chrift*jnftifyivg 9

thetVjrdjuftifjmgi &t.*ad yet to diftmguifti between the way

that thefe juftifie in, and the way in which faith juftifcs, I take

to be no ftriving about words, but of as high concernment as

jmy falvation is worth. 3. Either you mifl.ke my/>&n*/f, or my

fenfei tf the phrafe, then you miflike the word of Qod y which

faith, a mm is jtiflifiedby work* and not by faith enly ; If the

fen fa then you (hould not fall upon the phrafe: and then to

diftinguifh and explain, is not to ftrive about words. 4. If

I do bring faith and obedience neerer in juftirlcation then others,

it is not by giving mvretoworkjtfren others, but by giving left

to faith; And if in that I err, youfbould have fallen on that and

ihewed it, and not fpeak ftill as if I gave more co works then

you. I am fure I give left to mtn, and therefore no lefs thenym

to Chrifb. I perceive not the leaft difadvantage herein that I

lyeopento? butonl/the odmm of the phrafe of jtt ft tfit at h* by

ype'kt, with men that are carried by prejudice and cuftome.

5. I will not quarrel about fuchaword^ but I like not your

phrafe of [Faith j*ftifying t and work* jxfiifjing,] for it is fitter

10 introduce the conceit of an efficiency in them, then to fay,

[}Ve arejuftifed by faith and by Vrorkf^ which are only the Scrip-

mrc phrafe, and fignifie but a conditionally.

To

- (iSj> >

To that you fay out of Tki\ 3.9. I believe PauI dot& Bftoft appofitely oppofe the r ghteouihefs which is by faith to that wbichisby me Law. Buc then 1. He means r.oc [By faith as an mfl.um ncpf juftifkation] 2. Nor by faith which i« but a meer affiance on Chrift for juftirication, or only as fuch-3. Nor doth he exclude Knowledge, Repentance, Obedience* &c. 4. But to fay thatnghteoulnefs or juf.iflcation Iblj 'ove t or byobeeLu'nce, &c. Without adding any more,is nor a convenient fpe-ech, as it is to fay that righteouihefs is b/ faith. 1. B:caufeths fpeech feems to be of the rirft receiving of righ-teoufnefs, wherein obedience or works have no hand- 2. Be-caufe faith having tnoft clear dired relation to Chrift, doth moft plainly point out our rightecufnefs to be in him. 3. Becaufe faith &s it is taken in theGofpel,is amoftcomprehenfive grace containing many ads, and implying or including many others which relate to Chrift as the object alfo. Even obedience to Chrift is implyed as a neceflary fubfequent part of the condition, feeing faith is an accepting of Chrift as Lord and King, and Head, and Husband, as well as a juftifler. 5. Yet Scripture faith as well as I, that Chrift (hall juftifie us By his k"orv/gdge^nd we (hall be jxftifiesi by our words , and by workj ; and me chinks it (hould be no fin to fpeak the words of God , except it be (hewed that I mifunderftand them. It is not fo fit a phrafe, to fay, that a poor ignoble woman, was made rich and honorable by her Love, or Obedience,or Marriage, faithfulnefs,and conjugal a&ions ; as to fay, it was by marriage with fuch a Noble man, or confent to take him to be her husband : For the marriage confent and Covenant doth imply conjugal affe-dion,adionandfaithfulnefs. Yet are thefe laft as flat conditions of her continuing her enjoyments as the marriage Covenant wasoffirft obtaining them.

To my fecond Anfwer, you (hew that Paul excludes works under any notion. 1. From his oppofition between faith and works, where you fay~l contradict Paul, and give a tertium. To which I anfwer, to diitinguidi of Pauls terms, and explain his. meaning in his own words is not to give a tertium % or contradid; but this is all that I do.I diftnguifti of the word Works ; fometime it is taken more largely for A8s or Attions,

Bb 3 and

and fo James takes it ; fometimes more ftri&Iy for only fuch Afoons as a Labourer performeth for his Wages, or which m*k* the RsVvardtobe not of (jrace, but of debt. So Paul tells you that he underftandeth or ufeth the term, Rom. 4.4. ufually therefore calling them Works of the Lift. Now he that excludes Works only under this notion, doth not therefore exclude them under every notion. Where you add that Pauls op-pofitlon is between FA h and any thing of curs : I anfwer. I. Is not Faith ours as much as? Love, &c ? 2. Are not Knowledge , Words, Works % ours i by all which God faith, we are juilified? 3. There is no fuch Scripture where Paul makes any fuch oppofuion; but only he renouncech h;s own Righteoafnefs which is of the Law, Phil, 3. 8,9. and any thing of ouroWn that may be called Works in the ftri&er fence.

Your fecond is, becaufe Paul excludes Abrahams Works y &c. Anfwer. 1. You make my ten turn to be [ works that are of Grace ] and here again, -works that flow from Qrace, and fay, Abrahams were not bj rneer flrength of the Law: But thefe are no words of mine 9 nor is it candid to feign them to be mine $ but that I impute it to your hafte : I believe ycu remetnbred fo well the words of An&radius, Bellarmine , and other Papifts, that they dropped from your pen in hafte in ftead of mine; not is my fence any whit like theirs; for I fpeak not of the efficient caufe of works, ( Nature or Grace ) nor the meer command requiring thcm,when I fpeak of Law and Gofpel: but the full entire Covenant or Law confifting of all its parts, and (o making our'A&s the conditions of the Punifhment or Reward : as 1 have opened over and over in my Book. 2. You ask, Wire Abrahams Works in epp fition to that, &c ? Anfwer. 1. °aul excludes alfo works in co-ordination with Chrift,and fo do I. i. Yea and works fuppofed to be fubordmate to Chrift, which arc not capable of a red mbordination, 3. but not fuch as are truly fubordinate, from being fuch conditions as is before laid. 4 You feem to me to miftake Paul mucosas if he took it for granted, that Abraham had fuch works which Paul difputeth againft, but could not be juftifted by them : Whereas I doubt not to fay, thatT^a/contrarily fuppofeth that Abraham had mo fuch Works, ( which make the reward to be of Debt, and

not

not of Grace ) and thereforecould no:be juftifid by the

Your third Argument is, ^htcaufc imputing. coverUg^ all id wholly attributed to God.} Anffrer, I doubt not but that God is the only Principal efficient Caufe, and his Promife or Covenant the Inftrumental; therefore I cannot think as other?, that man is the efficient Inftrumental by believing, or that Faith is fuch; But what is all therefore attributed to God ? Even the performance of the Conditions on mans part? Or are there no fuch conditions which man muft perform himfelf or perifh? God only covereth fin, impureth Rigfreoufnefs, &c. but to none who have nor performed the Conditions. Is Believing attributed to God, or is it an ad of man ? Or is it excluded? When will you prove theConfequence of this Argument ? Your fifth Argument is, becaufe the ts4ffertiop is u»iverfdl rv'thout works in general } Anftter, I, Doth not the Apoftie contradict you by expounding himfelf in the very next verfe before thofe you cite ? Pom 4, 4, That by works he means not fimply^W ^clicns % as fames dotb, but fuch as make the reward to be of deb: and net of Grace ? Indeed fuch works are univerfally excluded. 2. Therefore he excludes the veryprefence of works, and faith, to him that Vvcrketh n9t y &c. ver. 5. But the prefer.ee of good adions you fay is not excluded.

Your Jaft Argument feem. to me the fame with the fourth, and itforceth me to admire that youjhould think theconfe-quence good. Bleffecinefs is Tfhenfin is forgiven • therefore no ^cr\ or good *El perfermed by man is the condition of fcrgtvenefs % either aa begun or continued ' f orcotfummate j If this be not your con-fequence, you fay nothing again ft me : if it be, I allure you i: is not in my Power to believe it,nor to difcern the leaft fhaddow of probability of truth in it, nor to free it from the charge of being the groffeft Arrinomianifm ( fi f*ce tui it a dicam. ) And here I muft needs tell roa alfo my utter difability to reconcile you with your felt; foe 9 ^u before fay.they are media ordinary tnd here you fay, They are excluded under any notion : As if to be a med.xm were no notion ; or the medium did nothing in or to the very juftifying of the perfon,

To my next t\ nfwer. If wcrkj be excluded under any notion\ then J^mes his Words cannot be true y that We*r* juftifed by works.

Ycu

You reply, // there be juflifying works, bow faith Vzul true? 1 anfwer. Tbisisamoft evident Pttitio prwcipU. Itisunde-niabic that fames includeth works under fome notion ; and thac Paul excludeth them under fome other notion : now therefore I rfl'ghi well ask, Bow faith James true elfe ? Becsufe my fup-pofi: ion cannot be denyed : But you fuppofe that Paul excluded works under any notion/ which is the very Queftion, and is denyr & ) When you ask how faith Paul true t Paul faith true tecaufc he fpeaks of works ftri&ly taken,as is by himfelf explained •' James could not fay true, if works under every notion ( as you lay ) be excluded.

Next you come to reconcile them by expounding James ; where you fay, Faitk Which in refpetl of its All ad intra, only jtt/lifies, yet it Works ad extra : fides au<e viva,non qua viva. I anfwer. Whats this to the Qoeftion? The Queftion is not whether Faith work? Nor whether Faith juftifie } Nor what Faith juftifieth ? But in what fence f mes faith, we are juftirled by works, and not by Faith only > You anfwer by a direcl contradiction to fame % (if I can reach the fence of your Anfwer ) faying, Jt is by Faith only* and that not as it liveth y &c. So dare not I dire&ly fay, it is not by works, when God faith it u : but think I am bound to diftinguifti, and (hew in what fence works juftifie, and in what not ; and not to fay flatly againft God, that we are not juftified by works under any notion', but only by the Faith which worketh. A denyal of Gods Aflertions is an ill expounding of them.

To what you fay of the Judgement of the Orthodox, [ that they go eadtm via etfinon eademfemita~\ I anfwer, you may un-derftand your diftindion as you pleale, but I have (hewed the difference •* fome underftand it of juftificarion before God ^ others before men, &c. And if you pleafe to make the way wide enough, you may take me among the Orthodox, thac go eadem via: if net, I willftand out with James.

When you fay \jhey exclude Works under any notion in the all ofjuftification.] I anfwer, i.Your felf include them as antecedents and concomitants (though I do nor J 2. I have (hewed before that [_intheact 9 &c.y\s ambiguous. If you mean [4/ jigenu or'C*ufes\ fo do I exclude them. If you mean [ at

conditions

conditions required by the ner* Lf» to the continuing and confum-mating our ]tt\} * fie *ihri\ I have (hewed you that Divines do judge othet w»le.

Mynexcanfwer was \lfVvorkj under any notion be excluded, then pith is excluded] You reply l,[_Tbus Bellarmine, &c.\ Anfw. I knew indeed that Bellarmine faith fo But Sir, you {peak to one that is very neer Gods tribunal and therefore is re-folved to.look after naked truth. and not to be affrighted from it by the name either oiTZcllarm-ne or Antichnjh^nd who is at Uft brought to wink at prejudice. I am fully refolved by Gods grace to go on in the way of God as he difcovereth it to me, and not to turn out of it whenTZellarmme ftandsin it. Though the Divels believe, I will (by Gods help) believe too: and not deny Chnft,becaiife the Divels confefs him. Ypu fay,iVtf» fequitur, Iprovetheconfequer.ee. If all works (or ads) be excluded under any notion whatfoever, and if fai h be a work or ad then faith is excluded. But, &c. Ergo y &c. By the reafon of your denyal I ur.derftand nothing that you deny , but [ that faith is a xvork^ or act \ which I never heard denyed before, and I hope never fhalldo again. The common anfwer to Hellar-mi* e is t th&t fa? th ft hie h is a work, jufiifieth , but not as it is a Vtork^: Which anfwer I confefs to be found, and fubfenbe to it. But then according to that, faith which is a work juftifieth under fome notion (fuppofe it were under the notion of an in-ftrumentj though not under the notion of a work. But you go another way, and fay, i. Faith is pajfive in its inftrumen-tality, and though to believe, be a grammatical action, its ver-bum a&ivum , yet its phyfice , or huper phyfice pajfive. A m«n by believing doth not operari, £**recipere. As vidcre, audire,*ir* Grammatical attions, but phypeal or naturalp/*Jfions t &c. Anfwer. i. Thefe are very fublime Affertions, quite paft the reach of my capacity, and of all theirs that I ufeto converfe with ; and I dare fay it is no Herefie to deny them, nor can that point be neer the foundation that ftands upon fuch props which few men can apprehend. 2. What if Fairhwere pajfive in its hflrumentality c Is it not at all an ^therefore r If it be ; Then that which is an *sf& or ivork^, is not • excluded under the notion of a pajfive fnflrumtnt j and fo

Cc not

not under fW7 notion ( I fpeakon your ground?. But) becaufe you told me before that I fhould have fpent ray felf againft this Inftrumentality of Faith if I would hit the mark; I will fpeak the more largely to it now : And i. Enquire whether videre, audi^e^ be only Grammatical Actions (as you call them,) and nuural padions ? 2. Whether Believing be fo, only ver-£/**rf57n/*^,butPiiyficallypaflive? And fo to Believe, is not agere^bwipatioi reapere? ;. Whether faith be paffivein its Jn^rumentality? 4 Whether the fame may not be faid as truly of other Graces? 5. Whether Faith be any proper Inftrument of our Judication? 6. If it were, Whether that be the primary , formal Reafon of its juftifying ver-tue ? 7. Whether your Opinion or mine be the plainer or fafer ?

And for the firftj fhould not think it worth the looking afcer, but that I perceive you lay much upon it, and that Philolophers generally fuppofe that the Sence and Intellect in this are alike; and for ought I difcern, it is fuch a Pafsivenefs of ttfe Intellect that you intend : and therefore we may put all together, and enquire whether vipers & intdligere be only Pafsions ? And here you know how ill Philofophers are agreed among them-felves, and therefore how ilppery a ground this is for a man to build his Faith upon in fo high point as this in hand: you know alfothat Hipp WAtes^G den, Plato, Tlotinm , with the generality of the PUtonifts are dire&ly contrary to you : you know alfo that Albertnt Magnet, and his followers judge fenfation to be an aition, though they take the potentU to be paffive. You know alfo that Aqriia* with his followers judge the very poten* lia to be active as well as paffive • ptftive while it receivttb the [pedes yZndatfiyeiDitM per ipfamagit & fen fat lone m pro ducit, AnbTolzt faith, that this is Scotus bisfentence, 2, de Anim*. q* 12. & CapreeL & fere communis. I know Aminos faith, that intelligere eft qvoMam p*ti ; but he taketh pati in his third wide improper fenfe, Vsomnequ d exitdepotsntia in aftum, poteftdtciptti: i.q. 79 a. 2. C. An 1 no doubt every fe-cond caufe may be faid to fuffer even in its a&ing,as it receiveth tbe Influx from the firft, which caufeth it to afl; but it will not thence follow that the^ videreyintefligere eft for maliter pati:

I

* cannot think that you deny the inteketlum agent em : and yon know that generally Philofophers attribute Acl;on to the pnjfi. ble Intellect: and that fandun. ApolLnA, &c. do accordingly make an tsfgent and patient fence: and if the reception of the {pedes were formaliter vi'h & intdletlio ( which I believe not ) yet how hardly is it proved that the Organ and Intelleft are only pafsive in that reception ? Yea how great a controveriie is it what the fenfible and intelligib!e^«7>j are ? Yea and whether there beany fuch thing ? Whether they be an image or fifrili-tude begotten or caufed by the Object, as Combaccloias and moft ? which yet Stare* , &c, denycth. And whether they ftick in the air, and have all their Being firft there, as CMa~ Zjrt*s % and other Peripatttickj e Or whether their Being is only in the eye ? as fome later. Or whether it be Sir Ken. 1>ig-bjes Atonies or number of fmall bodies which are in perpetual motion ? I doubt not you know that0c^#» and Henricus quod-lib. 4-f. 4. rejed all [pedes as vaini and make the Intellect the only active proper caufe of intellection. And Bobs of late in his book of humane Nature faith, that viftble and intelligible fpecies, is the gr tat eft Paradox in the world, as being a plain Im~ pojftbility. Aud indeed it is fomewhat ftrange that every ftonc and clod fhould be in perpetual Action,fending forth that which we call its fpecies ; for doubtlefs it fendeth forth as much when we behold it not as when we do. And more ftrange that a Rock or Mountain fhould be fo active a creature, and fo forcible in.a&ion, as to fend forth its fpecies fo many miles I Yea, according to this Doctrine, many icoo miles: for if our Organ were capable, we fhould fee it fo far. Whether the Angels fee thefe things on earth reddendo pedes ,or not; fure according to this Doctrine, the /pedes muft reach as far as Heaven. And why do not ftones waft by fuch an unceffant emanation? And it is ftrange to conceive how the Air is bepainted with variety of fpecies, if this be true / that every Grafs, Flower, Tree, Bird, Stone, &c and other bodies, have their feveraldiftinct/pff/>* in the Air night and day? Ho wftrangely is it painted ? What room is therefor them all, without confufion,lf both color, quantity, odor, and all be there ? And its ftrange if we do not hear the found nor tafte thefweetnefs, &c. but only the fpe~

C c 2 c+tt

cift of them I and beyond my Capacity how we (hould dif-cern c Difianceas well as tht Objitldijhnt according to the paf-five opinion / find more hard is it for me to believe this Doctrine, when I confider how Cats and Owls fee in the night: and how a man in a deep ftudy, or that (leepeth with his eyes open, feeth not any thing dittindly (though I know the frivolous an-fwers to thefe : ) And yet more hardly do 1 believe it when I feel qnanto labore & :onttu I muft fee to read a fmall print, or dif-ccrn a thing afar off: but above all when I feel the labor of my ftudies, I hardly believe that my underftanding is not active; though I eafily believe that lam alfo too paffive. Why do I not underftand with every dull thought? To believe alio that every ftone is ftill active, and that the eye and Intellect of the living Creature is but pa (five, is hard to me; becaufe me thinks Action better sgreeth to the living, then the inanimate* And yet the lefs do I aflent when I obferve what ftrefs they lay upon the fimilitude of a looking-glafs receiving the [pedes, which I am very confident it did never receive, when I fee it moving as my eye moveth, and withdrawing when I withdraw, ( though the Object be any ftone or other immovable thirg ) I judge that when I am gone, the glafs receiveth no more fteries from the wall,then the wall from the glafs^nor that the water re* ceivesany more [pedes of the Moon that there appears,thcn the earth doth; but that all is in mine eyes by the help of that rc-flection.I doubt not but you have read D'Orbellis arguments, (Dift. 3.** i.[ent.p*r.$.q.2.) againft both extreamsin point of intellection : Againft yours hisreafons feemto me ftrong : -Quia effect us aquivocus non pot eft excellere in psr[ectione cau-[am aquivecam totaUm fed deficit neceffario ab ea ; .[ei int el lectio effeteffectm acfuivocHsfpeciei intelligib'dis , fi ab ea[ola cau[are-tur, &itaeffet (impliciter imperfcctior fpecie inteltigibili, quod, non eft verum* Turn ctiim quia tunc non pojfet falvari image inmente, ut mens eft : quia nihil ipfius mentis loaberet rationem parentis, Itemquomodocaufarentur relationes rationis, five in-tentiones logics, quzfunt in aftu celUtivo ? cum ilia ir.tentio di-catur realU qua cau[atur imediatea re vtl [pecie repre[entante rem infe.Evcndes Cartes his Doctrine of vibration feemeth to make the fenfation and intellection to be formally Action, though the Organ muft firft be paffive to the producing it, before it be

Active.

Active. Zabarel.CombacchitiSf&c. fay that in fenfation there is firft a receiving xhefftcftn 2. ft judging, ctrc. The firft by the Organ which is pailive, and the later r which is the very f< nia-tion by i he feafittve foul, which is active. Therefo;e Com-bacckixs faith, hteltetlfo eft operatio anim& twtianalis , c£r. but />*^ is not cpsratio. Schibler determined) it ( Top. />. 23 2. that the object doth but I, Ex,it are potential Active ad actus. 2. Terminare actus .Vtguerim inf it-it. p. 261. befides the intellect Agent, aicribeth to the Pofiible three offices. 1. To draw and receive the [pedes. 2. Actually to underftand. 3. Toconfcrvethe/Pfc*>.f. The fame Vt^uerius, inftit.p. 17. & Aquin. \.q. 18 a.}. l. Sts^rc^T.m- 2. dlfp 48. $.6. Scalger Exercit.^oj. f. :. asalfo Br$dfltardwe , Scant , Cajetani ambo, Libert: D'Orbtt/is, Ruvio, /lifted us, Ktc-kermanStierius, Zancbius, Bttrgerfdidtif*, A. C. fafcic log. 'Prideaux Hypomnem. with many more, have taught me to account vifion, intcllecl*en,and volition for Immanent Ads. And tbougfothtre be a reception of ihc/pea es,ac\d fo fomewhat of paflionaswellasef adtion, yet that of paffion is but a preparation or qnafi materiale* and the form^le is ina' ; »ion> as Kec~ ktrman, Sjft.log.p. I 10 Ph}ficinonnnll<,dijcerr.i$nt miteria/e &formale : fie materiale in viftt eft receptiofpeciertim vifibilium in oculo, quit eft pajjio : eft deinde dijuJicaii? ret zifibJis per :l~ Us(pedes cju<£ eft actio : bine eft quod Ariftot. fenj'nm motio ad actionem ^nodo ad paffionem refert. Zanckius faith, Vol.!. T.£. p. 581. Vim omnem fenfitivam e(fe partim pafsivum, partim activum, diver fit refptcttbus : < P**fsiva eft qttatenus, percipit cbjefld. Atlivaeft quattnus ipfa ab objetlo ajfiC~l\ pirit Jen-fttnt, & rem ttnam ab alio dtfeemit^ P.ittnti* enim vifiv* pofi-quam recepit coloris albi/peciem,d<fctrwt hanv a ngre, &c. ftc in rebiu Divinisvis noftr* mentis & voluntatis & p Jfiva & atli-va eft. Pajftva quatenus rec pit grati.m d Deo M r.obts optraxte : Atlivaveroquatenus afftftaDeigrattn, i t f Credit jpfa Am+tt • Atli enim Agimut. Res fua natura ineellg bil« vis hare ahima? Patiens inteilettus *pp£IJata, efficic fuo lum ne , fuaque A3icne % nt res atltt intelliganturf Hoc lumen tntelL &us Agentis, hoc efi\ anima noftr*, non minima pars eft imaginis Da in cjua crtati fu-mm. Obfcptratafuit Ittxnobis communicataptr peccatnm Adt,

Cc 3 fed

fed illuftratur denuo per £hriftum : unde hac nova luce Deum Dtiqus myftcriaintelligimus , qua certe animalis homo percipere non potefi. Troiy.&e cum effemiu tenebra y denuo fatli Jumus & veca&sur lux in Domino. Ex hacnova lues donata per Chtifium , inieliigimus quid fit intelleclus. Agens. Zanch. ibid. p. 596. You fee how far Z^nchtm Phiiofophy and Divinity is from yours ; fo f' 5°4» 8ft antem mwifefta in. nobis hie intelleclus z.Ailio^ .nemptt intelligere. £t pig. 638. He faith the intellect hath four operations, 1. Similtcium apprekenfio. 2. Horum Compo-fitio. 3. Comp'oftorum aftimatio,toque & verorum a falfis dipt-fio. 4. Ex his ratioanatio. And you know that T.olet,. having formerly thought, mih^Egih Paul, Ventt. & C*jet. that fenfath ( & it a inte !! ectio ) (ft formaliter pafsio , did change his judgement, and at laft conclude that Vifio vel fenfatio alia duos motut diciti unummtterialiter, & hie eft rece.ptio fpe-ciei'. alttrum formaliter, ejrkic eft Aftio : Prior ineft Orga-no ratione materia: pofteriorrationefottf*ti4 y &a*itna: tamett ftterque eidem ineft Organo. Prior quidem non eft jubft ant ia liter & effentUliter Jenfatio, fed concomitans & velttt d'fpofitio v paftg-rior eft ejfentiaJiter fenfatio. "

But I have been coo tedious on this. vid. ultra in L 2.de Am-m*,p. 76.77.4fc* &L%.q> 13. &c You fee my reafons in part why I may think my felf excufable, though I build not an Article of my faith on your Philofopbical aflertion ; \jhat vide-re s audire,(andfo to bileve) are Grammatical actions (only) (for you muft fay [only ] or you fay nothing)and but phyfical paffions.

JQueft. 2 Whether to Believe be only verburn activum fbutphy-cally p*jfive, and a man by believing doth not operari,£#J recipere.

This Queilion comes a little clofer. By operari I .know you meaner*: for if you ftiould mean fuch an ^frrffKw as Open-rim pro mercede ex debito performeth , then you fhould fay nothing, but difpute againft what I difavowed, even in the letter you anlwer ( which 1 dare not impute to you ) Now the reafons that force me to differ vehemently from you ( as ycu faid to me ) in this point, are partly Ptulofopbjcal, partly Theological. And 1. I would fain know what that is which you here call Favh&tid fay its f» five > Is it the Habit ? No ; For i.Thac cannot be paflive. 2. That isnot it that juftifietb. 3. Thatis not a paftion, as you fay this is. 4. That is not a Grammatical

miction

^Elion, as you fay this is; What then ! Is it the AH of Faith } No : For i. Thatsitthatyou aredenymg,and fay its but ver-bum uftivum. 2. You fay, it up ijfive. But how an A&'tnl can bzp.ijjive, isfofar beyond the reach of my weak under-; ftanding. tnac I could not believe it/.hough it were judged He-rcfie Co deny it. Pafs:o intrinfecttm ordinem dicit ad fubjectum, C* rtpugnat dtri paffimem extra fit bj?ct'<tm y faith Su?rez. Tom.z. difp. 4p. p. 451. And that Action can be the fubjecfc of s P a f-fto»; is Pnilofoph) that I never learned, and I think never ftaJI do^ Efpecially if Ssbibter and moft Philofophers fay true that Acti.j & pafsionon dfftrunt realiter fed fecundnm inadaqua* tMcoftceptyj. For very many have taught me, that to the Pe-ripaceticksitis abfurd for the fame to be both the AAion 9 Taf»

fion and Taffum ; yea to common reafonit is

Moft certainly therefore it is neither Habit, nor *Ac t of faith which you callfaich. What is it then?Is it a Pafionfh you fay your felf, and therefore I rriuft take that to be your meaning: And I cannot imig.ne whatelfe youfhouldcaii faith. But here you leave me at as great a lofs as before. For, 1. You fay it is Paf-five; But I never heard or read before of a Pafitve Paf fo» t any more then of a Pafsive Action: And if I (bould fee my underftanding on the wrack, it would not apprehend or acknowledge any fuch thing. I cannot imagine that it is the foul it felf which you fay \spafsive. i. Becaufeyou fay it is faith. • 2.Becaufe dfe your Argument muft conclude that the foul only is the inftrument But »ve are not questioning the inftrumentality of the foul now, but of faith. More I might urge to (hew that this cannot be your meaning, but that 1 will no: fuppofe that it is the foul it felf which you call faith. It being therefore neither the Soul, Habit , Act, nor Paftion which you here fay is Pafsive in its itftrumentalitj , I am forced to confefs I know not what you mean : Yet if you fhouldmean any Potentia Taf-[rva. i. Whether there be any fuch in the rational foul d;ftin£l from the foul it felf,is'a great doubt. 2. If there were,I know not how it can be called faith. 3. Nor is it fuch a Potentia that is the inftrument ofjuftification.Yet afterwards you fay, It is an act ofdependance/vhich here you call a Pafjiw.

2. Bat whether AH ot^Pafton % k muft belong either to the

Vnder*

(200}

Vnder (landing, or fVilL or both: And I. Tfyou (hould place it

only in the underftanding, you would ( befides Dr. Downam)

have few but the Papiitswiih you. 2. If in the Wi!l only, then

( as Scripture is moll plain againft ir, fo ) you would alfo go

againft ch; generality of our Divines MtLnfth*n Jo. Crociw,

Ame[t<u , Davenant, &c. make it the common Proteftant

Tenet} that it is in both. Inatlufidei Juftificantis tot a an ma

fe convertit ad cau[am juftificantem : Da vent nt,De term. Q^ $ 8.

fag. 174 Fides ilia quam Scriptura juftificantem agnofcit ^habet

in fe complicatum alium voluntatis & intelletttts. idem. ibid.

4>. 3 7. pag. 166. And to them that think it abfurd to have it

in both faculties, I anfwer with the fame Author. 1. fflnod

pbilopfkantur voluntatem & intelleUum e(fe duos pitentitu re ipfa

dftinttas, dogma philofopbicum eft ab omnibus baud receptum,

(not of Scotnt and his followers, with many more J &Tbe-

ologicis dcgmanbus firmandii ant infirm andU fundament*/ mini'

we idcnsum. 2. Ntq-^nobu abfurdum y fed valde conftntaneum

videturpactum ilium quo tot a animapurificatur ef> \uftiftcatur y ad

tot am animam pertinere : it a ut in nudo intellects habeat initiumjn

voluntate complementum. Idem. ibid.

3. If you fay it is In both ( as I doubt not but you will, it

being the plain Truth ) then 1. It cannot poftibly beany one

fingle Act or Tajfion which you call the pafflve Inftrumevt:

and do you chink.to find out many fuch ? 2. For that which

belongeth to the understanding, it muft be either a ftmple appre-

henfion, a compoftticn ordivifion, or a ratiocination or Judgement.

And 1. Afimple Apprehenfion it cannot be: 1. For fotheln-

telled receiveth all Obje&s alike. It receiveth fin, death, un-

righteoufnefs, Satan, hell in the fame kind as it receiveth Grace,

Life,Righteoufnefs,Chrift\Heaven.For it underftandetb both iq

the fame way, receiving them per modum objecti. 2. And thus it

receiveth not the very thing k felf Eflentially, (though it under-

ftand the thing it felf) but only as is fa id, the fpscies or adlion of it,

C^.fexccpt you will fay as Sir Ken.Digbj*md the Lord Brook^

that the thing underftood is really in the underftanding, and

become one with it ) Now according to this ferfcc,you

would not make fairh to receive Chrift or his Righteoufnefs

atall,but only the fpecies or Idea of them.3. And how ofc

hath

(201)

hsth Bdlarmint been called Sophifter for fuppofing, we n fuch an apprehenfion ? Therefore I will not dare to think that you mean this. 4. And if you did, yet I have (hewed how uncertain it is, that ihxstKttHigtre \scnly or formally pati. 2. But if you mean not this fimpU apprekenficK { as fureyou do net ) then how isicpofsiblc to imagine the underftsndirg fhould be paffivein k ? Did ever man chat writ of Philofophy once thir.K that the foul did compesere, dhiJere, rati oar, nri, judicare, patt-tndo & r.on agendo} I think no man. When7V« difputcth utrum ixtdligere fit pari} he faith, Adzerterdum eft quodjtrwv eft dt apprehenfionc ^ ram de cotr.pofiticne & fud'cio r.on eft du* biumtpudomnes. Tol. deanima. p. 166. 1 will not therefore fuppofcyou to differ in your Philofophy from ail men. What Ad of the undemanding you will make to be part of Jufttfy-iug faith, I know not ? tor I find Divines are very little agreed in it; But the moft make Affent to be the only Ad of the uri-dcrftanding ( though fome add notiira ) and of them forrie make it EJfential to juftifying Faith : and others but as a common prerequifite Ad. Now if it were Affehfus Noeticur, yet it is impofsibleit fhould be formally a Pafsion : but much more im-pofsiWe when it is Ajfenfus dianoeticus veldifcurfivus^ as is moft evident it is, and our judicious Rob. Baroniut truly teachetb, Fhihf. Theol. Ancil. Exerc.^, \Art. 16.

Moft Divines place the chief Eflcnce of Faith in fidueia : but then they are as ill agreed what to mean by fidueia. Temblc would fain perfwadeus that to Believe the Truth of a particular Promifc,is to truft on the performance of it to me; and that the Affent of Faith which is given to fuch a Promifc, is properly called fidueia or Truft. But this is grounded on his lingular opinion • that Truth and Goadnefs are all one, &c. Baror.ius, pag. 232. telsusof a four-fold fidueia : The firft he makes to be but a confident Affent to the Truth of the Promife, and a firm fure Perfwafionof theRemiisionof my own fins and of try Salvation. The fecondis a Rcftingon GodsGoodnefs alone, &c. He pl?ceth the juftifying vertue only in the firft, which yet containetb but partly Affent ( which we plead againft the Papifts ufually not to be the juftifying Aft ) and partly a particular Perfwafion or Belief of Pardon, which is properly no

D d Faith.

Rich, but that commonly called AfTurance. Now this kind of fiducia is but'the Affent we have fpokenof, and is beyond ail difpute no meer Paffion 9 but an Att of the Underftanding.

2. But moft Divines make that fiJuch which is an ad: of the Will to have the chief hand in this work of juftfiying : though Btroniut is fo confident that k is not an act of Faith r but an Effect and Confeqaent, that he takes it for a thing fo manifeft, that itneedeth no proof, p. 234. And Dr. Downam hath brought not a few, nor contemptible Arguments to the fame purpofe againft Pemble , Append, to Covennat of Gr. Yet though we have found it in the Will, yet it is hard to find what act of the Will they mean. If it be an Elicit Actjt muft firft cither refpect the End> and then it is either velle intendere vel frtti -, But fure fidtfcia is none of thefe : and if it were, it is more fure that at leaft the two firft are not Pajfions ^ and I think not the laft, though it be nothing to the prefent point: Or elfe 2. It muft refpect the Means • and then it muft be Eligere, C on ftntire vel Vti ( in which joined to AJfent t I take juftifying Faith to confift ): But it is both evident that none of thefe hfiducia, and if they were , that none of thefe arc.p*/-(tons ovptjfive. So that hitherto we are to feek for this Pafsive Faith.

Or elfe it is an Imparate Act 3 and then we are in a wood to feek among fo many that there is little hope of finding it. The Truth feems to me to be beyond difpute,that pa'ueia is no one fingle Act (though one word ) but a composition of many implying or containing the <>s4(fent of the underftanding, the Election of the Will, efpeciaily much of Hope and vfdvent*' roufxefs in thelrafcible of the Senfiiive, together with a fufpen-fionof fomeacts. And if we are juftified by this Recumbencf or Fidncia % I fhali believe we are juftified as well by Hope as any thing ; for that takes up moft here, asT>r. Downam ubifopra proveth. And who everfaid that in all or any of thefe the Soul u Paflive andno£*Active ? Indeed Hope and Venturoufnefs are PaJJiom % but in another fenfe ( as Keckerm. and Tolet ubifupra have well opened • its in refpect of their quafi materi-ale, ) I am content to ftand or fall by the vote of Philofophers, giving you 100 to one, whether the Formality cf thefe motions

(203)

•/ the Will lie inPafsion or Action} And if they MttActi , whether tbey can be the Subjects of Pafsion • and jo be pafsive Acts ? So that yet I cannot find out your pafsive Faith.

3. But yet further, if Faith be pafsive Phyfically, let us find out full what is the Agent f z. What the Action ? J. What the Patient or Object I 4. What is the Terminus ad qntm ?

1. I doubt not but it is agreed chat the Agent is God : for it is he that juftifieth. 2. 1 he terminus or res motufatca is two-fold. 1. J unification infenfulegu, commonly called con-ftitutive J aft 1 fie at ion ( pafsive. ) 2. 7-ubliqvef(tftification by plea and[entence at judgement (pafsive) 3. The Adion mult be therefore two-fold, or twoAdions according to the twofold Terminus. Yea in the former we may ( if we accurately confider it ) find cut a two-fold Atlion and Terminus, though the difference be narrow : In which we are to confider, 1. Of the Inftrument. 2. And the nature of the Adions. 1. The Inftrumcnt is the word of Promife or Grant in the Gofpel ( for if you know any other way of Gods juftifying,or any immediate Ad of God herein which is TranfientJ would it were revealed what Ad it is. ) Herein I have Mr. Rutherford faying as I, over and over agairift the Antinomians. 2. The Adion therefore can be no other then a moral Action, as a Leafe or Bond, or written-Law may be faid to act. Now the Gofpel performed] to our firft J unification a two-fold Action. 1. It, doth as a Deed of Gift beftow Chrift and his Merit? on men, fo it be they will Believe. This Action doch not immediately and directly conftitute them Righteous: for Righteoufncfs being a Relation, muft have its Foundation firft laid ; This Act therefore of Donation ( which fome call Imputation ) doth directly lay the Funaawentum,whence the Relation of Righteous doth immediately arife ( when the Condition is peformed ) pernu-dam refultantiam without any other Act to produce it. And this is moft properly called fuftificath conftitutiva aUiva. 2. When the Gofpel hath by Gift conftituted us Righteous, then next in order it doth declare or pronounce us Righteous, and vcrtually acquit us from Condemnation. This is by the like filent moral interpretative Action only as the other. ( And per-

Dd: haps

haps fruy be moft fitly called the imputing of Righteoufnefs, or efteemingasRighteous,as Yifcator. ) Aid for the latter Juftt-fication at Judgement, the Action is Chrifts pablique pleading, and fencencing us Acquitc : wrrch is an Action both Phy-iical and Moral in feveral refpe&s. 4. Now if we enquire after the Patienr, or rather theObjed of thefe feveral Ads, we (hall quckly find that the Man is that Object; but that Faith is any Patient here, is paft my apprehenfion. For the fir ft Act of God by the Gofpel \_ giving Chrift and his Merit to us, ] it is only a moral Action; ( Though the writting and fpeaking the Word atfirft was a Phyfical aftion, yet the Word or Pro-mife now doth moraiiter tantum agere : ) And therefore it is impofsible that Faith (hould be Poyfically pafsive from it. For Pafsion being an effect of Action, it muft be a Phyfical proper Action which produceth a phyfical Pafsion. I will not ftand Co make your Affertion odious here by enquiring what Phyfical effective Influx, Contact, &c. here is, which (hould manifeft Faith to be phyfically Pafsive. I know in the Work of effectual vocation the Soul is firft pafsive : but that is nothing- to our Queftion, whether Faith be pafsive in Justification. Do but tell me plainly qmb pttitur fides t and you do the Bufi-ncft.

But what if you had only faid that Faith is morally fajftve", and not ftyflcally ? I anfwer. It had been lefs harfli to me, chough not fit, nor to the point. For 1. Gods Juftification nor Donation of Chrift, is not properly of, or to Faith; for then Faith {hould be made righteous and juftified hereby; but to the perfon, if he Believe. 2. Befides if you (hould confefs only a moral Pafsivenefs ( which is fomewhat an odd phrafe and no:ion,and is but to be the Object of a moral Action) it would fpoil all the common arguments drawn from the phyfical nature of Faith, and itsfole excellency herein in apprehending, receiving, &c. and thereby juftifying. And you would bring in all other Graces to which the fame Promife may as well be Caid to be made. 3. The Truth I have and further (hall mani-feft to be this; that as it is not to faith or any other act that Righteoufnefs is given, but to the perfon on condition he Believe 5 fo this condition is no pafsion but an action, or divers

(20<>)

vers actions. This Will fully appear in the Theological Reafons following.In the mean time I need not (land on this, becaufe you exprefs your felf that Faith is phj/^cal/y pafive, Indeed you add [ or lojferphyftcalljf : ] but though I meet with fome Philofophers, that ufe in fuch cafes to give [kperphjice] as a tertum to overthrow the fufficiency of the distinction of pbyfi-c: & moraliter, yet I fuppofe that is none of your meaning, who know that even InttUettus Aum efficit intelUttfon<,m t & voluntas volttiontm, JMtcaufa, phjfica s ut Suarez, i. Tom. difp. 17.$. 2. f>. 26(5. and fo SchibUr, and many more : yea and that our Divines conclude that Gods action on our fouls in converfi-on is firft Phyfical : which yet may be as truly and fully called hyperphyfical as our Faith.

Now for the fecond action of the Gofpei , £ declaring or pronouncing thf Btlitver righteous s a*d fo de jure acquitting him ; ] Ic is much more beyond my reach to conceive how r,faith fan in refpect of it be pafsive : For i. Befides.tbat it is amoral action as the former, and fo cannot of it felf produce a phyfical pafsion. 2. It doth not therein fpeak of or to faith, pronouncing ic juft, and acquitting it, but of and to the Believer. So that if Faith were phyfically pafsive in the former, yet here it is impofsible. 3.If you fey that it is phyfically (or morally)pafsivein regard of the latter full Juftirkation by fentence at Judgement, you would tranfeend my capacity moft of all. To fay faith is the Patient of Chnfts judiciary publiquc fentence.is a fentence that {hall never be an article of my Faith; and is fo grof$,that I conjecture you would take it ill if I fhould take it to be your meaning: therefore I will fay no moreagaiuft it. Now you know that this is ( as you fay in your Lett. ) the molx compten fufii-fication^ and which Imoft ftandupon: and therefore if your arguments fail in refpect of this, they yield me almcftall I expect.

Next I will tell you my Reafons Theological why I believe not that juftifying faith, as fuch,is pafsive. 1. All Divines and the Scripture it felf hath perfwaded me, that Chrift and the Promises are the Ob ject of this Faith : but a Pafsion harh no Object, but a fubject, &c. Therefore according to you Chriii, &c

(zod)

is not the object of it ; which is contrary to all that I have heard or read.

2. I have read Divines long contending Which it the Act of juftifying-faith, qna talu. And fome fay one, and fome another; but all fay one,or other,or many. Now you cut the knot, and contradict all, in making it (at leaft qmtenus fu-flificans) no Act at all y but a Pafsion : uniefs you will fay it is a pafsive act ^ which I dare not imagine. And doubtlefs thefe Divines (hew by their whole fpecch that by Actus Fidei, they mean Actus [ecundus vel Actio % and not Actusprimus vel enti-tativus velaccidentals >five ut informant) five ut operatives, fed ipja operatic

3 .1 am truly afraid left by entertaining this opinion I fhould flrike in not only with the Anti^omians (who cannot en dure to bear of any conditions of life of our performing, but even with the Libertines ,who tell me to my face, that man is but Pafsive, and as the foul Ads the body, fo Chrift in them movech the foul to Good, and Satan to evil, while they are meerly-Paf-five, and therefore the Devil (hall be damned for fin who committeth it in them , sndnot they ; for who will bite the ftone or beat the ft afT,or be angry at the fword? &c m

4.Elfe you muft deprefs the excellent grace of faith below all other, in making it meerly Pafsive while others are adive: For doubtlefs life and excellency is more in Action then Pat Hon.

5. If believing be only fuflfering, then all Infidels are damned only for not fuffering,which is horrid.

6. Scripture frequently condemneth wicked men for Adion, for Rebellion, Refufing, RejedingChrift, Luke ip. 27. They hate him and fay,we will not have this man reign over us, &c. and this is their unbelief. If they refitted the Holy Ghoft only PaJJive & non lAZtivh , then it would be only an ineptitude materiei 9 which is in all alike atfirft, and fo all fhould be alike rejeders.

7. If to believe be but P*//,then it is God and not man that fhould be perfwaded : For perfwafion is either to Action or forbearing Action ; and God is the Agent: But it is in vain to pcrfwade any to be Pafsive, except it be rot to ftrive

againft

C*°7)

againftit. This therefore would overthrow much of the ufe of trie Miniftry.

8 ■ And then when Chrift fo ex?olle:h doing the will of God, and doing his Commandment /, &c. you will exclude juftifying faith, a> being no doing.

9. Is it credible, chat when Chrift cals faith Obeying the Gofpel y and faith, This is the work ofGod^ tl^atye beheve on him whom the father hath fent^ and calls it the wori^ of faith, 2 The/l 1. ti. and faith, Godgivsth to will, (that-is- to believe) and to do^ &c. that all this is meant of meer Pafsion > I undertake to bring forty places of Scripture that (hew faith to be Action.

1 o. It feemeth to me fo great a debating of faith, as to make it to benovertue at all, nor to have any moral good in it. For though I have read of Pajjio perfeftiv* it genere tntis vet nature, andconducible to vertue •, Yet am I not convinced yen that any Pafsion as luch, hath any moral vertue in ir. Indeed Pafsion maybe the ejuafi mtterrale, but the vertue is in Action. Yea, even in non-acting, fas (ilence) the venue lies formally in the actual exercife of the Authority of Reafon, andfo obeying God in caufing that filence. vSure if men (hall be all judged according to their works, and according to what they have done, &c. then it will not be becaufe they did either Pati velnonpati. And thu; you have fomeofmy reafons why I cannot believe that Relieving is pafsion, nor (hall believe it I think, till Credere be Pati , and then I may whether I will or no, becaufe pati vel mn pAti are not in my choice.

3. The third Queftion is, whether faith bt pxfsive in Us inflrn-mentality f

And I think that is out of doubt, if my former arguing have proved that faith is not paflive at alhor if I next prove that faith is no phyjicalwftrftment. But yet it I (hould grant both that faith is paftive, and that it is an Inflrument^ yet muft l have either more or lefs Logick before I can believe that it is pifsive in i ts inftrttmeataluj. -

My reafons againft it are thefe. 1. Eyery Inftrumental caofc is an efficient caufe: bat all true efficiency is by a&ion ;

thwre-

("8)

therefore all inftrumentality is by aftion.That £»**/*//* u effi.iw* tU eft Actio ; & h<zc eft forma per quxm denominatur efficiens\cjma age&s & efficient fun t idem, &c. I have been taught fo.ofc and (o confidently that I believe it, (¥otoportet difc en tern credere) : and chat by Philosophers of no mean efteemjas Snare*. Tom. i. difp. i&.§.io. Javel. CMttaph. 1.9.0. 16. Conim. ^olleg. "Ployf. Lz.q. 6. art. 2. & 7. Scaliger. Exerit,2$4. Aquino*\Kjtvno, Porrece,MelanElh»Z'anchius t Zabarelj Pererius>Schibler, Stierius y Qu. TempelL in Ram. with many more. And if there be no fuch thing in reruns natura as a Pafsive tuftrumtnt, then faith is none fuch. I know Keckjrm. Alfled. & Burgerfdicius do talk of a PaiTtve inftrument ; but I think in proper fpeech it is a eontradidion,in adjecto^nd fay as SchiblerMetapJoyfl. 1 .c4p.11. Tit. J.p. 319. Nifi Actionem propriam habere* Infirumentum, ef-ficiens non e{fet^ & proinde pafsivum inftrumentumquod Kecktrm. vocat, revsrainftrumentum noneft. Et ut Idem ^Topic. cap. 2. num. 34. I nftrumentumtotnmhoc habet (jmd ad caufam efficient tern adjuvantem (adquam referimus caufam inftrumentalem) re-quiritur. Ratio enim communis Marum eft ha?* 1)eferv ire operation! principalis age ntis per ulterior em operationem. Et Uem y Topic.cap.2.num. 6.f£uer. An efficients Caufalitat]Aclio f Refp. ha ponitur in Theor . 36. & [emit it a hdie ^Maxima pars Logi-cerum & 'JMet^hjftcsr urn Vide ultra pro confirmation ainu.g. Sic etiam cap. 3. num.\\6. So that if moji Logicians judge that there is no paflive inftrument, and confequently that fakh is no pafsive inftrument, then who is more lingular, you or I ? For f\iTQ y Nihil eft falfum in Tbeologia, quad vcrum eft in Philofophia. I deny not but the foul in believing is both Pafsive and inftru-mental, but in feveral refpects: as if Camera^ way (hould hold of infufing grace into the will Mediante attioneintelle£tus % then the intellect would be Pafsive or receiving grace into it felf, and an in(lrument of conveying it to the will: but then it would be no Paffive but an Active inftrument: and the action of God on the Pafsive intellect^and of the intellect on the will,are two Actions with diftinct effects.

2. Though there were fuch a thing in the world as & Pafsive inftrument, yet thatpi^fbouldbefuch, and that phyfical, I dare fay is either an unfit aflertion, orelfelamofa llupid ap-

pre-

( 2.09 )

prcbenfion. For there mutt be found in it ( if it were fuch) thefe four requifites. i.Theremuft be a pryfical pa lienor reception. . 2. A phyfaal efficiency. 5. This efficiency muft be paiierdo, nonagtndo, 4. And it rr.uft be fuch an efficiency as is proper to inftruments. I may nor (tend to enquire exactly into ?Ilthcfc. 1. Thefirft I have confuted already, sr.d fball add this much more. 1. What doth faith thus receive ? 2. How doth it receive it ? 3. Whence ? Or from what Agent and Act ?

1. Is it Chrift himfelf that is phyfically received by faith ? it Who dare fay (o t but the VbiquitariArs ■ end Trar.fubftar-tiationmen? and perhaps not they. Christ is in Heaven, and we on earth. A multitude of blafpbemerv. L\bertines ; and Farm-lifts,! latdy meet with that dream of this but no iober rran.

2. And indeed if Chrifts perfon were thus received, it wou!d not make a man righteous, or juftifie him. As all our Divines fay, his being in the body of CMtry would not have jufti-fiedher: Nor did the kitting of his lips juftifie fudas; nor eating and drinking in his prefence juftifie thofe that rntfft depart from him for working iniquity, LMattheft 7. If we bad fo known Chrift, we fhould know him no more : It was neceffary to his Difciplcs chat he fhould go from them ; we muft not have the Cdptrnaites conceit of eating his flcfti. Yea, to talk of a pfafical receiving by faith, is far goffer: For the mouth was capable of that phyficalfcontact, which faith is not. 3? And then this will not ftand with their Judgement,that blame me for making Chrift himfelfthe object of juftifying faith, and not the promife directly. 2. If you fay that the thing received is Chrifts rightcoufnefs, ( as moft do that I read ) I anfwer, 1. Righteoufnefs is but a relation: And therefore a thing which is naturally uncapable of being of it felf phyfically apprehended. This is paft doubt. 2. I fit be phyfically received, then either as a principle and quality, or as an object. Not the former: For fo we receive our flrft, (and after } grace in fancti-hcation; but none ever faid foin {unification : Nor indeed canthat righteoufnefs which is formally but a relation , dwel in us as a principle or quality. If we receive it as an objed , then by an Ad : Or if the foul were granted to be pafsivc in reception of an object, I have (hewed that, 1. It is but *» 47-

£ e prthtH*

Quo)

frchenfionefimplici: None pleadech for more : But faith is nor fuch.2. And io ic would receive Chrift nootherways then it rc-cesveth any object whatfoeveric thus apprehendech.. 3. And this is not to receive Chrift or bis righteoufnefs, but the meer fpecies of it according to your own Philofophers, ( and if righteoufnefs be but a relation ;• and a relation, as Durandus , Dr. Twlfs^vA many another think be but Em Rationis, then the fpecies of a n Em Ration^ is a very curious Web J Knowledge (te'D'Orbellis faith in 2,fint.l>if.$.f.$.) is twofold,*. #./«*-fitive and intellective -, and each of thefe twofold, Intuitive and sllftraftive. Intuitive knowledge is indeed de objetlo itt in fe prafem ; quandofcilicet res inprcpriaexiftentid eft per fe motiva : Exemplum dejenfitiva eft^ut vijus videtcolorem : (yet this is but Recepiendo fpeciem, nonrem) and this is not it inqueftionj .* Exemplum de intellebliva eft, ut vifio Divint ejfentiad beatis 1 This is utterly denyed to be at all by Doctor Stougbton, Cawer, and other folid Divines, againft the School-mens judgement: And if itbe,yetdoubtlefsasweknov7 not how, fd k isnotfuch as faiths apprehenfion, which we enquire after, Cognitio Abftracliva eft quando fpecies rei movet adeognvfeen-dum remipfam, & hoc five res fit in fe prafem , five abfenf, Jive ex ft at five non : Exemplum infenfitiva eft , ut phantafia imaginatur colorem : Exemplum in intellecliva eft ut intelle-titti cognofcit (fmdditatem coloris me die ante ejus fpe.u. So that if it be either of thefe, ic were at the utmoft but a paffive rea-ception of the fpecies, and not of Chrift or his righteoufnefs.

2. By what phyfical contact faith doth receive this? m<yht be enquired : and?. By what phyfical ad of the Agent? to neither of which queftions can J imagine what tolerable anfwer can be given, in defence of this ciuk.

2. And if faith be a paffive phyftcalinflmment, it mud have a Tbyfictl Efficiency ? and what is that ? to juftifie ? why, even God himfelf in this life doth that but by a Moral A& (by his word J and not by a phyfical, (as to particulars. )

3. But that which driveth me to the greateft admiration is, How faith fhould Efficcre pntiendo 1 If I fhould rip up this,

Czii)

r>r require a demonftration of it in relped to the juftification at judgement, yea, or in this life, yoaorofany efTcdv 1 fhould lay fuch an odium on it from its abfurdittes, that in dealing with you. modefty doth forbid me to infilt on it. 4. The fourth requisite will be enquired after in the next Queftion fave one.

The fourth Queftion is, Whether other graces may not be as properly called phyfical pMJfive InftrHments as Faith, in y >ur fenf,i

And I doubt not but they may, ( though its true of neither) For 1. If there be no phyfical reception of Chrifts righteoufnefs imaginable but that which is per modum ob-jctti , and if other gratious acls have Chrifts righteoufnefs for their object, as well as that which you call faith;, then other A &s do receive Chrifts righceoufnels as well as faith : but both branches of the Antecedent are true, therefore the confequence, the bare knowledge or fimple apprehenfion of Chrifts righteoufnefs per modum objech may better pretend to this, then recombency or affiance : Yea, and love it felf more fitly then affiance may be faid to receive or embrace its object (which is not therefore falfe neither becaufe Bellarmint hath it: and you know he brings Auftines plain words, affirming love to be the hand by which they received him, &c.) I confefs if I firft renounce not the concurrent Judgement of Philofophers, I cannot approve of the common Anfwer which our Divines give to t Bellarmine in this^it [That F.-r:h receivrth Chrifts Righteoufnefs firft tomans it our*, but Love only to retain it , and embrace and enjoy it Vvhen firft we k*ow it to be ours : ~ For though this fay as much as I need to plead for, acknowledging Love to be as properly a phyfical Reception for retention, as Faith is for firft Poffefsion,yetif affiance be taken4n any proper ordinary fence, it cannot thus h IJ good neither: for to affiance muft fignifle fomea&of the will ifk order of nature after love, or at leaft not before ir. I acknowledge that fo much of Faith aslyetbinthe underftanding is before Love in order of nature; ficut ipfe inttlletlus eftfimplrcker prior voluntate.ttt motivum mobiliffr attlvum pnffivo, ut Aquin.' i.q ;# 2.a. i,z.*nd\2. q 13. a. i.C For as he; Intelh&useft

E e 2 primum

prim am motivurn omraum potentiarinm anima qucaidetermi**at : '-tnem atfus, voluntas verb q wad exercitium aEius, A quin,i 2. cj. \ 7. a. i.C. But for the acts of the will toward Cbritt, I could give you ( but to avoid tedioufnefs I muft forbear ) at large tbe Teftimony of tAfuinas t Tolet, (}er[on, Camero, AmefiHs.ZuH' cWiusyKob. Baronius^ Bradwardine-, Ravio^ Viguerius y &c, Iliac Love is not only the firft af all the Pafiions,buteven the firft motion of the Will towards its Ob;cct,and little or not at all different from Volition, diligere being but inttvftve veils, I have much more to fay to this, which here I muft pretermit. But ftill I fpeak not of Love as a Pafsion, but a true clofurc, as it were of the will with its Object as Good r and expect love to be proper to the fenfitive, and ftrangeto the intellective foul; we # mu(t make it the fame with Velle : For Amor & gwdiumin quantum fignifcant ASlus appetitus fenfuivi^f^fnones funt ; non autem jecundum quod figmiicant Aftus appetttns tntelletlivi, in' quit Aquinas. 1 .q.i.a. 1.1.

The rifch Qaeftion is, whether Faith be ar,j Instrument of our J unification ?

Anfwer, Scot us gives many fences of the word Jnflrument, and fo doth Aquinas, Schibler , and moft Philofophers that meddle with it: and they give Tome fo large, as contain all caufes in the world under God the firft caufe;In fo large a fence, if any will call faithanlnftrumentof Juftification, I will not contend with him \ though yet I will not fay fo my felf , as judging faith to be no kind of caufe of it at alljbut in the proper ordinary fence, as an Inftrument, fignifieth (^aufam qua inflnit iaejfectum per virtutem inferioris rationis^ as Suarez, Sticrius, Arnifaeus, &c. Vel Inftrumentttm eft quod ex diretliane altertui principalis agentis inflttft ad produceidam tffectum je noblliorem> ut Schibler, &c. So I utterly deny Faith to be an Inftrument. But I will firft queftion whether it be a phyfical Inftrument 2. Whether a moral ? 1. And for the fir ft, I have done it already: for feeing Our acute Divines have ceafid to lay any claim to it as an aSiive Inftrument,but only as a Pafsive ^ therefore having difproved what they claim, I have done enough to that. 2, Yet I will add fome more : And 1. If it be a phy-fical active Inftrument, k muft have a phyfical aftive Influx to

the

c*oo

the producing of the Effed ; but io hath not Faith to the pro ducmgof our JuftiHcanon. Ergo &c. The Major is apparent from the common definition of ftjch Inftruments .* The Minor will be as evident, if weconfidcr but what Gods AcTin Jufti-fication is, and then it would appear impoflible that any ad of ours {hould be fuch an Ir.ftrumenr. i. At the great Justification at Judgement Chrifts adis tofentencc us acquit and difchar-ged.- and doth our Faith aflive, fine ir.fivere ad ku»c effectum ? Doth it intervene between Chrift and the effect ? and fo actively juftific us? Who w»ll fay fo ? 2. And the act by which God juftifieth us here,is by a Deed of Gift in his Gofpelf as 1 Judge) Now i. 1 hat doth immediately produce the etfecl ( only fup-pofing Faith as a condition. ) 2. And it is but a moral Inftru* mental caufc it felf, and how faith can be a Phjkal, J know not. 3. Nay the aft is but a moral act, fuch as a Statute or Bond acteth, and what need Faith to be aphyficallnftru-ment?

2. My fecond Reafon is this : It is^generally concluded,that TotainftrumetiticAufalitas eft inufu & app/tcat;oxe; It ceafeth to be anlnftruinent, when it ceafeth co be ufed or acted by the principal caufe .• But faith doth mod frequently ceafe its action, and is not ufed ( phy(kal ! y)when we fleep or wholly mind other things : Thetefore according to this Doctrine, faith fhould then ceafe its Inftrumentality;and confcquently either we (hould all that while be unjuftified and unpardoned, or elfe be juftified and pardoned fome other way, and not by faith. All which is abfurd -, and eafily avoided by difcerning faith to be but a Condition of our Justification, or a Caufa fir e qv* non.

3. If Faith be a phyftctl Inftrument, then it (hould juftifie from a reafon intrir.fecal y natural and efftnual to it, and not" from Gods meer ordination or* it to this office by his Word of fromife ; but that were at leaft dangerous Doctrine ; and (hould not be entertained by them who (truly) acknowledge that itjuttifies not as a work ^ much lefs then as a fhfical reception which they call its Inftrumentality. The ccniequence of the Major is evident,inthat nothing can be more intnnfecal and eflentialto faith ( this faith) then to be what it is, vtz, a Reception or acceptance of Chrift or his ftighteoufnefs: therc-

(2.140

fote if it juftifie directly as fuch, then it juftifieth of its own Nature.

4. It is to me a bard faying, that God and Faith do the fame thing, that is, Pardon and jaftifie : and yet fo they do if it be an Inftrument of Juilificacion : For eadem efl Actio Inflrumenti & principals cam fa, VsZ. quoad determinationem ad httnc ef-fetlum, ut Aquinas, Schibler, &c. I dare not fay or think, that Faith doth fo properly, effectively juftifie and pardon ut.

5. Icfeems to me ncedlefs to feign this Inftrumentality, be-CbU&fruftra fit per plura quod fieri not efl pe*" paucisra.

6. Yea it derogateth from the work • for as Scotus faith, ( in 4. dift. 4). q. 1. pa^g. ( mHot ) 239. D. ) Actio fine inftrumento efl perfectior qukm actio cum inftrumento.

7. And this Doctrine makes mm tobe the caufa proxima, of his own Pardon and J unification. For it is man that believes and not God:God is the can/a prima % bm man the caufaproxima ere-dendh and fo of juftifying,if Faith be an Inftrument.Or at leaft man is a emfe of his own Pardon and Juftification. Yea faith being by Divines acknowledged our own I nftrumenr,it muft needs follow that we juftifie and forgive ourfelves. Dr. Amefius faith, {fBelUr. 6nervat.T0.4M 6.p.(m\h'\)$i).)Plurimumrefert:qma fictit facramentit quamvis al quo fnfupofsiht diet Inftrument a no-ftra^ dec. priprie tamenfnnt fnftrumenta Dei:fie etiam fides qttam~ viipofstt vocmri Inflrumentum Dei, quia Deus juftifie at not ex fide & per fidem, prtprietamsn efl Inftrumentumnoftrum. Deus nosbxptizat & pa/city ncn nofmet ipfi : Nos crehimm in Ch*iftum % non Dens. Whether faith may be a moral Inftrument, I (hall enquire,when I have anfwered the next queftion; which is,QjS. If faith were fuch a Vhjfical Pafsive(or Active) Inftrument Whether tb»t be the formal direct reafon of its juftifying ? and whether

(a* it t6 ) it do juftifie directly and primarily > quatenus eft apprc-henfio Chrifti, juftitiae, vel Juftificationis. And this is it that! moft confidently deny.and had rather you would ftick to in debate then ail the reft: for I ground many other things on it.I affirm therefore, 1. That faith juftifieth primarily and directly, as the condition on which the free Donor hath beftowed Chrift, with all his benefits in the GofpeFconveyance. 2. And that if ic

were

were a meer Phyfical apprehcnfion ic would not juftifiej no nor do us any good. 3. And thac the apprehenfion called the receptivity .whicti is truly its nature,is yet but its aptitude to its juftify-ing office,andfo a remote, & not the dired proper formal caufe. Thefe three I will prove in order. 1. And for the rirft it is proved. 1. From the Tenor of the juftifynig Promife, which (till aiRireth Juftification on the condition of Believing. Q He that btlieveth ] and £ whoever believeth ] and £ if thou be-lieve~\ do plainly and unqueftionablyexprefsfuch a condition, upon which we (hall be juftified, and without which we (hall not. The Antinomiam moft unreafombly deny this. 2. And the nature of Juftification mikes it uriqueitioinable .- for whether yon make it a Law-act, or an ad of Gods own Judgement and Will determining of our ftate, yet nitherwill admit pf any intervening caufe, ( efpecially any ad of ours, ) but only a condition. 3. Befides, Conditions depend on the will of him thac beftowcth the Gift, and according to his Will they fucceed .* but Inftruments more according to their own fitnefs: Now it is known well, that Juftification is an ad of Gods meer free Grace and Will, and therefore nothing can further conduce to Gods free act as on our part, but by way of Condition. 4. And I need not fay more to this.ic being acknowledged generally by all our Divines, no: one thitl remember excepted, befides Mr. Waiter, that [fuith juftifietb as the condition of the Covenant^ Mr. Wot ton de Reconcil. pir. 1. /. 2. cap. 18. brings you the full Teftimony of the Enilifh Homilies, Fox, TerTyns-i Partus, Trelcatius y r Z>r. G. l^j^cr.am^ Scharpns, Th. ^Matthcrrs , Calvin , Aret'vus, Sadeel , O/evian , tJMe-Lncth. Bez»* : To which I could add mmy more : and I never fpoke with any folid Divine that denyedk,

2. Now chat a phyfical apprehenfion would notjuftifie, as fuch, is evident. 1. Elfe Mary (hould be juftiheJ for having Chriftinhcr womb, asl faid before. 2. Elfe juftification 1 aslfaid, (hould be afcribed to the nature of the act of'faith ic felf. 3. You may fee what is the primary, forrr.al reafon why faith Juftifies, fry its infeparablility from the effect or event •, and which is the improper remote caufe by its frpirability. Now fuch a phyfical apprehenfion may be fas fuch) feparated

from

(2.1(5

from the efTecr, and would dill be if it had not the farther nature of a condition. We fee it plainly in all worldly things.Eve-ry man chat cakes in his hand a conveyance of land, (hall not poffefs the land. If you forcibly feize upon all a mans evidences and writing?, you (ball not therefore poftefs his eftate. If a tray cor fnatch a pardon by violence out of anothers hand, he is not therefore pardoned. (But more of this under the next\ 4. And for your paffivefakh, I cannot conceive how it (houid fas paffive) have any Moral good in it fas is faid,) much lefs juftifieus. And'fo when God faith that without faith it is irflpoflible to pleafe God.we fhall feign that to be juftifying faith, which hath nothing in it felf, that can pleafe God : and how it can juftific thac doth not pleafe, I know not. . I know in genere entis the Divels p'eafe God : They are his creatures ; and naturally Good , as Ens &bonum convert un; tur : but in genere mori^ I know not yet how pati quatenus vati can pleafe him. For it doth not require fo much as libera ty of the will : The reafon ofPafiion is from the Agent : As Juarez dif. 17. $'; 2. Secundttm pr<ccifasrationts formates lo-qutndo, Paffio ffl ab AUione : efrnone converfo: Ideotjue vera eft- & propria hac caufatis locutio t Qui* agent agit , materia recipit. Now fure all Divines as well as the free-will-men , do acknowledge, that there can be no pleafing worth or ver-tue, where there is not liberty. And Snare*, faith truly in that (T. i.Mfp. 19 p*g.(mihi) 34°.) tAddimus verohancfaculta-tem qnatenus libera eft ^ non pojfe ejfe nifi ASlivam'- fen e converfo y faeultatem non pofe ejfeliber am■ nifi fit atiiva*& qnatenus afti-va eft. Probatttrfic . N*m Taijfo tit Paffio nonpoteft effe Libera patitnti: fedfolnm qatatenus ABio dqua talis Paffio provenit^ itli eft libera: Ergo Libert asformaliter ac pract[ft non efl in po-tentiapatiente , ut fic y fed in potentU Agente. {Vide ultra pro-bationem.)

5, Yea I much fear left this Paffive Doctrine do lay all the blame of all mens infidelity upon God, ormoftat leaft: For it maketh the unbeliever no otherwife faulty then a hard block for refitting the wedge, which is but by an indifpofition of the matter; andfo Originall indifpofition is all the fin. For as Aquino* faith, Malum in Patient e eft vtl ab impirftthiont %

vei

C*'7)

vel deftttti agtwtu t vel indifpofuime Ulhteri*. I. a. <f .\ 4.1. C.

3. My third proposition i?,that the Recept-v tj or apprehenfon which it truly of the nature offjttki isjtt Oat its aptitude to iff ? fS ft'[)i' i £°lfi ce 9 and fo a remote andKot the direct proper formal reafon : And this is the main point that I infift on : And it is evident, in all that is laid -lready: and further thus, If faich had been of that apprehending nature as it is, and yet had not been made the condition in the gift or promife of <Jod, ic would not have juftified : but if it had been made the condition , though it had been no apprehending (but as any other duty,) yet it would have juftified : therefore it is evident that the neareft, proper reafon of its power to juftifie is Gods making it the condition of his gift, and its receptive nature is but a remote reafon : i. If faith would have juftified , though it had nor been a condition- then ic mud have juftified againft Gods will, which isimpofiible: Ic isGod that juftifieth , and therefore we cannot be a caufeofhis A&ion. 2. It is evident alfo from the nature of this moral reception, which being but a willingnefs and confent, cannot of its own nature make the, thing our own, but as icisby the meer will of the donor made the condition of his offer or gift. If I am willing to be Lord of any Lands or Countreys, it will not make me fo ; but if the true owner fay, I will give them thee if thou wilt accept them, then ic Will be fo : therefore it is not fir ft and dire&ly from the nacure of the reception,but firft becaufe that reception is made the condition of the gift. If a condemned man be willing to be pardoned, he (hall not therefore be pardoned ; but if a pardon be given on condition he be willing or acceptit, then he (hall have ic. If a poor woman confent to have a Prince for her husband, andfoto have his pofleflions, itfhall not therefore be done, except he give himfelfto her on condition of her confent. If it were a meer phyfical reception, and wefpokeofa pofleflion^r/^ro offomewhat that is fo appre-benfible,thenit would be otherwife : as he that getteth gold or a pearl in hirhand, he hath fuch a poflefsion : But when it is bat a moral improper reception f though per actum phyftcum volendi vel conjentiend.) , and when we fpeak of a poflefsion

<5il8j

in right of Law, and of a relarion and Title, then it mud need? ftand asaforcfa d. Donation, (or imputation, 1 beirg the di-red caufe ofour R ft conft.tueive ju [ lifica'ion,therefore conditional ty and not the naturalreceptivity ot faith,muft needs be the proper reafon of its juftifying.This is acknowledged by Divines: Ameftus faith, (HelUrm. Enervat. T- 4-/>. (m lot) 3 14. /Ifprc-herifio ]*iftifiGationis per veram fHnciam^ non eft fimpliciter per rnoxttm object?) fed permodumobjecti nobis donati: £lnod emm c Deti$ doKaverit fidelibus fchriftum & omxi . cum eo y Scriptnrd Aifertisvtrbi*teftati4r 1> Ror>L < &.i2. 2. And that if any other f/rtoradof faith, as well as this, or any other grace would have juftifledjif God had made it equally the condition of his gift, is alfo paft all doubt. 1. Becaufe the whole work of Ju-itifyingdependeth meerly on Gods free Grace and will, and thence it is that faith is deputed to its office. 2. Who do-btetfr but God could have beftow. d pardon and judication on other terms or conditions, if he would ? 3. Yea who doubreth but he might have given them without any condition, even that of acceptance > Yea though we had never known that there had been a Redeemer ? yct God might have juitified us for his fake. I fpeak not what he may now doafcer he refolved of a courfe in his Covenant: Butdoubtlefshe might have made the Covenant to be. an abfolute prornife without any condition on our part if he would, even fuch as the Antinomians dream it to be. And me thinks thofe great Divines, that fay with Tm$e,Cbam'er , WaU f As i ef-c, /hat God might have pardoned us without a Redeemer, (hould not deny this efpeci-ally. 4. And doubtlefs that faith which rhe Ifraelites in the fuftageswete jbftified by, did much differ from ours now. whatever that doth which is requ ; red of poor Indians now 9 that never heard of Chriit. 5 And God pardoneth and ju-ftifieth Infant?, .without any a&ual reception of pardon by their faith.

2. And me thinks they that ftand for the inftrumentality of faith above all fhould not deny this; for (according to my Logick) rhe fornjality of an Inftrnment is in its adual fub-ftrviency to the principal caufe; and therefore it is no longer caufa inflrHmtntftlu then is is ufed : and.therefore whaLfoc-

ver

ver is the materia of the iuftrumenr, or whatfoever is natural to it, cannot be its form : Nowro be a reception or appre-henfion of Chafi is moii dfrntully natural to this ad of faith, and therefore cannot be the form of its inftrumentality. For as Scotus faith {in 4. fint. difl .1 7.5. Fol. (miki) 1 ?. H.) njtrpt-nnmitdoneit.iS p actdit r.atttraliter ufum ejus ut faftrumentum. And what is the Jdonci'as or Ap'.Uudt of faith bat this? And as Scotus ibi-L faith, Nullum mftrHmentum formatter eft ideo ap • turn ad ufum^ quia aidants utitur eo uiinftrwnento' but it is an Inftrument quia thquis mtii*f $ &c.

3. And if the reception were the rnoft direct, proper csu r e, (efpccialiy if the phyfical reception) then it would follow, that juftifyingfaith ' as fuch) is:he receiving of juftification, or of Chrifts nghtcoufnefs, but no: the receiving of Chrift him r felf, or that the receiving of Chriltwould.be but a preparatory ad,wh ch is I dare fay foul and falfe Dodr ne, and contrary to thefcope of Scripture which makesChri* himfelfthe objed of this faith; and the receiving of hrn foh* I. n, 12.) and believing in k*m to be the condition of juftification ; and the receiving of righteoufnefs, but fecondanly or remotely. Amt-Jtus (uih (ubi fupra ) hie tamtn obfervanlum e : t accurate h-quendo^ apprehenftonem Chrifii & jujlitU ejus ejfe fidem jufti* ficantem t quia j">ftificatio noflra exurgit ex apprehenfione Chri-fti, & apprehen 10 jttflificationis ut pojfejfionu noflra prafenti* % frutins eft & fffeElumapprehenfteniiprurif. So in his Medulla he makes Chrilt himfelf the objed of juftifying faith.

4. AJo;f the faid reception were the immediate proper rea-fonwhy faith juftfyech; thenit would follow that it is one ad of faith whereby we are pardoned ( viz the reception of pardon ) and another whereby we are jnftified ( viz,, the Reception either of nghreoufnefs or judication : ) and there muft be another act of fai'h for Adoption,and another for every other ufe according to the variety of the Objects. But this is a vain fiction , it being the fame believing in Chrift, to which the Pro-mifeof Remifsion, Juftification, Adoption, Glorification,and all is made.

Alfoit would contradid th? Doctrine of our beft Divines, who fay,as A ftedms y Diftintt. Theol. C. 17 p.73. chat Chrift is

F f 2 gar

oar Righteoufnefs mfiaf* csrnfiA , fea i vfit formolu I

; with the plain Tel: Ptrkjm\o\- t. rag 66:. In the true G : Andtieftsxy

jbtMld tmag <? very . \

juflif.s'h : we are to undi Ink not apprehena bj

P&wcr from it f. Ant. If a man

believe tbt Kingdom c e/# be his , it is not therefor eh

jet if he btUie Chit and the K n bj Cbrifl to ic

Iris it is his ir.it-a : not'fimph becaufe he believes-, but bee-he believes upm Commandme, u ( tha' is not pro-

perly as an Inftrument, bu on) For ; :r of the

Cover.ar.: Q:.t jromifeth to tmpstte the Obedience of Chrift to *s for omr Rig*: if we believe. Is not this as plain as may

be? So Bullinger Deead. I. Serm. 6. p. (mibi)±<\. iVe fay frith juftifietbfor it Jelf ', not as it is a quality in our mind, or our oven w*r^: but as faith is a gift of gods grace the pro-

mife of righteoulnefs and l*fe-8cc. Therefore faith jajiifieth for Cbrtft, ana from the grace and Covenant ofCjod.

This being therefore fully provedjtbat faich jaftifrtth properly and dirc&ly as the condition on which God hath made over Chrift and all his benefits in the Gofpel, the two great points oppofed in ray Do&r;ne do hence anfe unavoidably, i.That this fanrh juftifieth as truly and dirt&iy as it is the receiving of Chrift for Lord, ard King, and Head, and Husband, as for a juftifier, for both are equally the conditions in theGofpel. But if the pbyfical Inftrumental way were found, then it would jufti-fieoniyasit is a receiving of JunSficatton or Juftice. This is themainconclufionlconttftfor. Yieldmethis, and I will not fo much fticfc ac any of the reft. 2. And hence it follows, that Repentance, forgiving others lovetoChrift, Obedience Evangelical, do fofar juftifie as the promife makes them conditions ; and no further do I plead for them.

7. My laft Queftion was, Whether row yenr Doctrine or mine be the more obfeure^ doubtful I and dargerouj ? AndVckicb ts the more clear , cert. fei

And here I (hall firft (hew you yet more what my Judgement is, and therein whether Faith be a moral Inftrumer.t. I think that conditio fine qua non^ ■ - effe efficient, quia

(211)

4mjms walls : nee id si arms frt vatum mlimmm emiigit

* UiJts4c:i**tmi *cc ntseensis* dtfpvj&us tjt Iwjjhrmmv*mm^ at Sck*kUr % Ttf.c* j.fogiioz. Even the tSofpcl Pro~ fntk r which bfrr more properly called Gods moralInttnimenc ; or pardock^ is vet bat fom?whatto themaibng chat fm9d*m*w§mm, from whence the relation of jjmj/s coch reiak- And toe /s «i«wr*;» iscalM a cacfeof (ft :n which anleth from ir without any act, but wftat west to e the foundation, even by ameer relaltancy, as D*Gwix lolly in i.feti. &ft. 17. m m 1. Bat to call a coodidoa in Lzm am lm]frmm**t % is yet izz m^re improper. The Law er Pro therefore i will cat! a moral Inurnment.- the comdkton wheh we mod perform, 1 willnot call a moral Icdrocn: the Ad ^vhsdi Go: perfbvwtfdi, or yetof shcef .^ ..:. ;.i fiowetb from that ad immediately. Yet if any wt£2 lay properly and principally a condition, and that k lb folbfieih ; andyctthat ic any be called ah In&rnsene moral m an ms-proper fence, as it is a condition firft, or ctfc in regard of ks receiving ale, wl?1 ftrerch the word h$\ mmmrnsr lb wide, asroapptyk to it; 1 will not contend ior a word , woenwe agree in fence. And tons Mr. trmtm yicldcth as with an ifl wifltoollitanfonrameir, proving kfirn to jafiie as a condition. Bat lam loth to give k any proper caolanry in jot irg.

And now let as fee whole fence h. 1. More obibire. I avoid and abhor all vain oncer es in fo fopdizaentsJ a point as JvlLrkattoo is - therefore I fay plainly bnt £ Thr fmah is the cm&i— mm wkUk qmik*tk htjfafd C*»ft mmlsU * J fits* G*ff*i~] What woman cannot anderjhnd dri* at a word ? Bat yoar Doctrine. wbat(?e.:/mitsabie:o&afolvi^ for nsyparrj KHcjntre paftmyreach; and mollibat I converiewkh_. areas fi% as my fcif. Can every poor man or wemaareach to kiwm what a jugffcrr ABU* % or a psffimm'Psfsum, or a ?* m-

wt*mt is ? and how we receive (Thrift, as a manta&es a r f: ii hishand?--oVto Ice through all the dunlaslcaes ± 1:1 ;o-

vercu here n yowrDocrrme? Evan they that ra Ic ■nfliowr, Ww*f*€*a*ffmhkdtKk )*$*$* % wlm**r if th* *U tir mWiUi Wmt*BtrA*r*tmA$*x£t y &t. Do feem vainly and

hmrJnlty

(ill)

hurtfully curious tome : much more thofc that reduce ail to an unconceivable pati\ 1 plainly therefore affirm, that faith is not any phyfical receiving, ( as the hand doth receive money, as you would afterward make me believe the AiTembiy means ) but a Metaphorical moral receiving : and thae it is not by any one ad of the foul (much lefs a Paffion ) but by the whole foul, Underftanding and Will: the former beginning, die later con-fummating it, ( as Dwenant foundly, ) And let us trye by common fpeecb, which of thefe is the more plain and probable fence. Suppofe a Prince w^ll redeem a Turkijh condemed flave, and fend him word Q I hive bought thte , and if thox Vcilt receive ( or take ) me for th) Redeemer^ Deliverer and Lord, and for the future wilt ferve me and be thankfu.ll , / will actually fet thee free. Here it would fure be a filly thing to fall a queftio-ning, what the Prince means by the word £ Receive or take j Whether it be an ad of this faculty,or that? Whether this or that ad ?Or whether it is meerly Patti Fhough we are too wife to un-derftand this now, I warrant you the fooliftieft (lave would foon underftand it; and know that to receive or take the Prince for his Redeemer, is to believe him, and confent, and thankfully accept of him as he requires, and of deliverance by him; And he that fhould ask him, Whether it were the bare ad of affiance,or whether gratitude or love were included in the term? would feem but fimple to him. If a Prince will deliver a condemned woman from death, and offer with ail to marry her.and give her himfelf, and all he hath, on condition fhe will receive or take him for her husband, ( and accordingly be a faithfull wife to him till death) He that fhould here ftep in, and raife profound Scruples, and enter difficult difputes, whether this receiving were an ad of the Uadeiftanding or Will? Whether Affiance, Recombency, AlTurance, &c or whether a Paf ion ? would be well judged rid culous; when every man knows at the firft word what it is for the woman to receive or take a man for her Husband, even gladly and lovingly to confent and accept the offer, and with all her heart deliver up her felf to him accordingly'. So if a King of another Nation, that hath right alio to this, but not polTefsion, fhould fend to us,to charge us to receive him for our King; what a hard word is this to under-Hand ?

(land? or doth it iignifie any one ad? or the ad of any one

fingle faculty chat the people of the land muft perform? Oh how too learned Divines ( or too unlearned,) have puzzled ana amazed poor fouls, and muddyed the clear ftreams of the Doctrine of Chrilt, in this fo weighty and plain a point of jufti-fication? Jna word, Sir, I know there is never a one of my Hearers can underiiand your Do&rine of inftrumenrality Adive . or Pa i live, nor havetheythe Logick nectifary thereto, snd therefore I will not fpeak to them in fuch a language. Even while 1 unrye your knots, I am thought a B**b*'i*n^ and not underftood; how much more if I fpoke what I underftand not my felf nor am able,though I fet my wits on the tenter ?

2. And then let us fee which is the truer akdeertainer^ your Doctrine or mine. And i. I have faid fomewhat already to weaken the credit of yours. 2. And more from what is laft faid it is unlikely tome to be true becaufe of the obfeurity ; for I believe God hath fpoke plainer in fundamentals, and not laid folk- falvation upon that which none but Scholars of a better or worfe judgement then 1 can underftand. I know there is that kind of difficulty in Divine things which requireth the Spiritual illumination of the underftanding: but not fuch in foundation points that nccefTarily requireth fo much humane learning. 3. Your way hath not one word of Scr pturefor it.- Where doth Scripture fay (in phrafe or fenfej that faith } uftifieth as an inftrument ; or that it is fuch } A Hive or Peffive f Or that it is this or that only AH ?

But now for the Dodrinel teach. 1. Neither your felf nor any folidman denyeth it fthat faith is a condition andfo jfffiifieth: ) and that it is a Moral receiving, and by the whole foul % efepcially the hearty confem, and acceptance of the will , mott Divines teach , as I could (hew but for wafting time. 2. I prove it further, that it is but this plain Moral receprion, thus. As Chriftis offered, fo he is received (therefore the AiTcmbly fay [as he is offered in t he Gofp /J : But Chrift is offered Mo-rally in the Gofpel, and not Phyfically ; therefore he muft be fo received. 3. Rejicere eft rolle ; Ergo,recher* eft velle. To rejed Chriftis the condemning fin of infidelity : but that lies in an unwillingncfs to have him to be their Redeemer, Saviour,

and

(2-H)

and efpecially Lord : therefore receiving Chrift is a willingnefs, confent or acceptance of him for Redeemer and Lord, Joh.i.io. Bis own received him not ; What is chat but they refilled him ? and not that they wree not Pajfive pbyjicalreceivers of Jttftice, Lake 19. 27. Thefe mine enemies that 'Would not £ (hould reign over them^ bring hither and deftroy, &c. Then willingnefs of his re gn is part of that faith which juftifies : Even willingnefs of his fteign, as well as to be pardoned, juftified and faved from Hell by him; (or elfe few among us would perifli; For I never met with the man that was unwilling of thefe.)

3. And then it will cafily appear, Whether jour Doclrine cr wine be the more fafe. 1. Yours hath the many inconveniences already mentioned. It maketh man his ownjuftifier, or thecaufa proxima of his own Judication, and by his own Ad to help God to juftifie us: for fo all inftruments do help the prin-cipalcaufe. And yet by a felkcontradi&ion it maketh faith to be of no Moral worth , and fo no vertue or grace. Yea , (I think) it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God ; Many fuch wayes it feemeth to wrong the Father and the Medi* ator. 2. And it feemeth alfo to wrong mens fouls in point of'f fety, both by drawing them fo to wrong God, and alfo by laying grounds to encourage them in preemption ; For when they are taught that the receiving of Chrifts righteoufnefs, or of Chrift for juftification, or the confident expectation ofpar-don, orreftingonChriftforit, or a particular pcrfwalion of it, &c. h juftifying faith, and when they find thefe in them* vfelves fas undoubtedly they may w 11 this much, or elfe they canrotprefumej, Is it not eafie then to think they arefafewben they are not? Aslfaid, I never yet met with the man that Was fcot willing to be fuftififd and fared from Hell by Chrift : and 1 .dare fay, Really willing; and but with few that did not expel!k from Chrift, andtruft himfor it. Now to pkee Ju-ftjfying faith only in that which is fo common, and to tell the men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is made effential to faith,as Juftifying, is ftrange. For knowing that the godly themfelves have fowly finned, and that no man can perifli that hath Juftifying faith, how can they choofe but prefume when they find that which is called Juftifying faith

un-

("•?)

undoubtedly in themfelves ? And to tell them it is not fincere or true, becaufe they receive not Chrift alfoas Kirg and Prophet, and yet that fuch receiving is no part Of juftifying faith. This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without itfelf (a ftrange Truth J in a fignal ccncomitart: and who will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant fign, when he certainly feeleth the thing it felf ? Will not fuch think they may fin felva fide ? When as if they were rightly taught, that juftifying faving faith ( as fuch) is the receivirg of Chrift for Saviour ,and Lord, and fo a giving up themfelves both to be laved and guided by him, then tbey would find that faith in Chrift and fincere obedience to Chrift have a little neerer relation j and then a man might fay to fuch a prefumer, as I remember Teriulluw excellently doth , Dt peewit ent. Operum pig. {mihij 119 Ca'erum non levtter m Dcminum peccat qui quum amulo (jus DUbelo pcsnitemil renuncia(\et % & hec nomine ilium Dominofubjecijfet t rurfus (undemrtgreffu (ho erigit, & exultati-one ijw ftip!um fecit, ut denuo main* recuperata prada jua , adverfus Dominnm gaudeat. Nortne quod dictre quoque peri-culofum eft, fed ad adificationem proferendum eft, dabolum Domino praponit i* Comparationtm er.im videtur egiffe qui utrumq^ cognovcrtt, & judicatopronunc'iajfe eum meliorem en jus fe rur-ftu effe malnertt, &c. Sed aiunt quidam, fatu Deum habere^ ficcrbe & animo fufpiciatur^ licet atlu minus fiat ; itaque fe falvo metu & Tide peccare : Hoc eft falva caftittte Mdlrimonia violareifalv* pieute parenti vener.um temper Are ; fie trgo & ipfi falva veniain Gekennam detrudentur jdum falvo metu peccant.

.Again, your Do&rine feemeth to me to overthrow the comfort of Believers exceedingly. For how can they have any comfort that know not whether they are juftified and Qiall be fived ? and how can they know that, who know not whether they have faith ? and how can they know that, when they know not what juftifying faith is > and how can they know what it is, when it is by Divines involved in fuch a cloud and maze of difficulties ? feme placing it in this, act and fome in that, and fome in a Paflive inftrumenrahty, which few underfland, ( If any man in the world do.) For the Habit of faith , that cannot hi felt or known of ic felf immediately, but by

(iz6)

its ads ( for To it is concluded of all Habits, Suarez, Mctap. T. i. dtfp. 44 §. i. pag 3 3 2.) and inftead of the acl we are now fee to enquire after the pafiion > and fo in the work of examination the bufinefs is to enquire, hsVc and when TVS didp iffifrelj receive righteoufnefs^ or juftification , or Chrift for tbeje /which let him anfwer for himfeif that candor I cannot. But now, on the other fide, what inconvenience is therein the Dodrine of faith and juftification as I deliver it ? As it is plain, and certain (faying no more then .is generally granted) fo I think it is fafe. Do I afcribeanyof chrifts honour in the work to man ? No man yet hath dared to charge me with that, to my knowledge: and no confiderate man I believe w.li do it. I conclude that neither faith nor works is the ieair part of our legal righteoufnefs: or of that righteoufnefs which we muft plead againft the accufer for our juftification i which is commonly called by Divines, the matter of our juftification. The Law which we have broken cannot be fatisfied Y nor God for the breach of it) intheleaft meafure by our faith or obedience,nor do they concur as the leaft degree of that fatfsfa-dfcion : But we muft turn the Law over wholly to our Surety.Only whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the conditions on our part of the faid juftification and falvation, I fay, thefe conditions muft needs be performed, and that by our felves; and who dare deny this ? and 1 fay that the performance of thefe conditions is our Evangelical righteeufnefs ("in reference to that Covenant, ) as Chrifts fatisfa&ion is our legal Righteoufnefs (in reference to that firft Covenant^, or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteoufnefs. if we bad fo obeyed. And tor them that fpeak of inherent Righteoufnefs in any other fenfe, viz. as it is an imperfect conformity to the Law of works, rather then as a true conformity to the Law or Covenant of gpace, I renounce their Do-clrinc,both as contradictory to it felf, and to the truth, and as that which would make the fame Law to curfe and blefs the fame man, and which would fctup the defperate Doctrine of Juftification by the works of the Law : For if men are righteous in reference to that Law, then they may be fo far juftified by ir. Nor do I afcribe to works any part of the office or honour of

faith

faith ( Though that were nor fo dangerous as to derogate fromChriftJ Fori acknowledge faith the only condition of our fii ft Re million and juftification : and the principal part of the condition of our juftification as continued and confummate. And if faith bean inltrumenral C2ufe, I do not give that honor from it to works, for they are not fo: Nay, I boldly again aver, that! give no more to < bechr.ce tofknft, then Divines ordinarily do, that is,to be the fecondary part of the condition of continued and confummate juftification. Only I give notfo much as others to faith, bccauie 1 dare not afcribe fo much to man. And yet men make fuch a noife with the terrible name of Juftificaticn by \*orkj (the Lords own phrafe ), as if I gave more then themfelvesto man, when I give fo much

lefs.

And thus Sir, I have according to your advice, fpent my felf ( as youfpeak ) in aiming at that ma-k which you were plea-fed tofetme. And now 1 (hall proceed to the reft of your exceptions.

My next anfwer to you was, that [// vrorkj under every notion are excluded (asyou fay they Are) then repentance is excluded under the notion of a condition or preparative : Bht repentance under that notion is not excluded : Therefore not Ifrorlej under every notion.To this you reply,that [Repentance is net excluded as qualifying, but as recipient^ which what is it but a plain yielding my Minor, and fothecaufe: For this is as much as I fay. If repentance be a work or ad of ours, and not excluded under the notion of a qualification, (or as you elfcwhere yield ) a CMedwm orciiatum, and a condition, then works are not under every notion excluded. And that repentance is not recipient, how eafily do I yeild to you ? But do you indeed think that when /^/excludeth the works of the Law, that he excluded* them only as Recipient ? and not as qualifying? If fo, (as this anfwer feems to import, feeing you will not have me here diftinguifh between works of Law, andofGofpeljorNew Covenant) then you give abundance more to works of the Law then I ilo or dare : For I aver that Taut excludeth them even as qualifications, yea and the very prcfence of them: and that the jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient.

Gg 2 To

(22:8)

To my next you fay, [jvhether Paaldtfpute what is our rlgh-teoufnefs, or uym vehxt terms it is m ide ours i' dothn-t much m^.t-ter\ But I chink it of very great moment ;they being Queftiors fo very much difTerent,both in their fenfe,and importance. And whereas you think fW fpeaks chiefly of the manner, I think he fpcaks of both,but primarily of the (qu*fi) materia ; and of the manner or means thereto^but fecondarily in reference to that. So that I think the chief Queftion which TauI doth debate, was, whether We a r e Jufttfitd by our oVen works or merits^ or by Another s y vizx\\z fatisfa:uon of a furety ? which yet becaufe it is no way made ours but by believing,therefore he fo puts the Quefti-on,whether by works of the Law,or by faith ? and fo that he makes them two immediate oppofues,not granting znytertium, I eafily yield. ( Bat of that before.)

To the next you fay, that [V cannot find fuck a figure for faith Relatively in my fenfe.] Anfw. And I conceive that faith in my fenfe may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours. Doubtlefs acceptance of an offered Redeemer and ail his benefits doth relate as properly to what is accepted ( viz,, by the affentof the underftanding initially, and by the ele&ion and confent of the will confummately) as a Phyfical Paffive reception or inflrumentality can do. And alfo as it is a condition I make little doubt, but it relateth to the thing given on that condition i and that the very name of a condition is relative. So that in my fenfe faith relateth to Ghrift two ways .• Whereof the former is but its very nature, and foits aptitude to its office : The later is that proper refpect in which it immediately ordire&ly juftifieth. Yet do I not mean as you feem todo, as I gather byyourphrafe of [tutting Love and Obedience for Chrifls Righteoufnefs~2 : For 1 conceive it may be put relatively, and yet not ftri&ly ( loco correlati ) for the thing related to : when I fay my hands or teeth feed me, I do not put them in-fteadofmy Meat; and yet I ufe the words relatively, mean-ingmyMeat principally, and my teeth fecondarily: Neither do I mean that it relateth to Chrifts right eonfmfs only or principally ; but firft to him/elf. And I doubt not but Love to Chrift and Obedience to him as Redeemer, do relate to him ; but not fo fully, clearly and dire&ly exprefs him as related to , as Faith i Faith being alfo fo comprehenfive a grace as to include

ch'deforr.e others. It is a truefaying.thata poor woman that isrrrrryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love , and rw-tir.ued fobj dmy to her husband : But it is more obfcure and improper then to fay, (he is made honourable by 'JAtar-W*g*,or raking fuch a man to her husband,which includes Jove, and implycth duty and faichfulnefs, as necc(Tartly fubfcquent. 1 conceive with Judicious Dottcr Treflon, that faith is truly and properly fuch a confcnt, contractor marriage with Chrilt. Next to your fimilitude: you fay [that 1 hold that not only fating thu IriKtn Serpent ^but any other AUions offenfe, rvi/lcu Well he&l the WoundedChrtfiian.~] To which I anfwcr. Similitudes run not on all four. Thus far I believe trut this holds. i. Chrift was life up on the Crofsasthe brazen Serpent was lift up. 2. He was lift up for a cure to fin-flung foui^ss tie brazen Serpent for the flung bodies. 5. That as every one that looked on the Serpent was cured fan cade condition,) fo every one that believeth Chrift to be the appointed Redeemer, and heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered , and fo trufleth in him, (hall not perifh, but have everlafting life. 4. That as the cure of thur bodies came not from any natural reafon drawn from thee\e, or from any natural excellency or efficacy of feeing, above hearing or feeling, but meerly from the freewill and pleafure of God,who ordained that looking fhould be the condition of their cure ; So all thofe Adb(ufn-ally comprized or implyed in the word believing) which jufti-fle, do it not from any natural excellency, efficacy or inflru-mentality , but meerly from the good pleafure of the Lawgiver : And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith ( that is its very formal eflence ) muft not be given as the proper direct caufe of its Juftifying : But that is, its conditionality from tbefree appointment of God.

But on the otht r fide,i .It was only one Act of one fenfc which was the condition of their cure -.but you will not fay I believe that •it is only oneactofone faculty which juftineth ; however I will not. 2.1t was the Aft off.eing which cured then^without touching, laying hold on, apprehending, reiiing on, &c. But you will not fay fo of juftifying fajth, 5. The fight.wbich was the condition of cheir cure, was no aftuall reception of the bra-Gg 5 zen

zcn Serpent, but the fptcies of that Serpent by the eye* and fo the eye did no otherwife receive the Serpent, then it received every Object it beheld, even the Serpent that flung them. But if you fay, that our receiving Chrift is but pcrfimplicem apprc k'enfionemibjstti > and that it is a receiving or his fpicies, a,nd fo that we receive ( hnftno otherwife then we receive Satan, or any Object of Knowledge,! will not be of that opinion.4.Their cure was fimal & femeii but our Juftiflcation is a continued Act; as really in doing all our lives, as at fir ft. 5 Therefore though one ad! finished their cure, and there was no condition perfcribedas requifite fcr the confurnmation or continuance r yet when our J unification is begun, and we truly juftified.there is further conditions prefenbed for its continuance and confurnmation. To conclude, l am fo far from laying, that any other Act will as well heal the wounded Chriftian, befides what God hath made the exprefs condition cf his cure, that I flatly aver no other will doit. But whether he hath made anyone fingle act (or Pafsion)to be the whole of that condition, 1 have elfewhere out of Scripture (hewed you, and you do not deny what I fay.

My two laft Anfv, ers to) our expofition of Pauls words, you are pleafed to overpafs; the laft of which ( the ninth ) being the main that I made ufeof : ziz*. that Paul taketh the word Workj more ftrictly, for fuch working as maketh the Reward to fee not of Grace but of debt: and in this fence I difclaim all works, not only ( as you do) from being receptive,or inftruraen-tal,or effective, but from being concomitant: why you faid nothing to this my chief Anfwer, I do not know.

You next tell me that [ / cannot take the isfffemblies definition in that fence as they declare it y or the Scripture words, which are Metaphorical imply : for its the refling of a burdened foul upon Chrift only for Rtghteoufnefs -^ ancl by this fchrifts Righteopfafs is made ever to us ; and its a receiving of Chrift as the hand em-braceth any Oljecl, &c. Anfwer. That the word Receiving and Retting are Metaphorical, I eafily graatyou ; and.wonder the more chat you llillinfift on them, and inftead of reducing them to more proper exprefsions, do here add Metaphor ro Metsphor, till all your definition be a meer Allegory, when you

know

kno v how much Metaphors do feduce. "But for the AfTemblies Ddinition, I embrace it unfeignedly in that fence as the words feem to me molt evidently to impoif, without ufing violence wich them.But I perceive by this,thacyou w.ll rottliink it enough in a man tofubferibe to national Confefsions and Catechifms in the obvious fence, or that which he jujgeth tru-plain proper fence, except he alio agree with you in the expHcmon. Some think icnoc enough that we fubferibe to the Scripture, bc-caufe we may mifunderftand it, and therefore we mufr. fubferi be to national ConflfTions, as more explicate : ( which I like well, fo we add nothing to Gods word, northruft ourowa Commentaries into the Tefcc, or obtrude our own Doctrines upon men as Articles of their faith, or ac leaf}, as the Bifhops d\d the Ceremonies, whk:h they rmde indifferent in word, butnecefTary indeed: ) Bat now I perceive the matter co.ne. all to one in thelffue- when you cannot make a definition of Faith in fuch Language as isanyeafier to i>e underilcnd then the Scripture : when you and I cannot both underhand it : and I find that many are of Bt'lzrminni judgement ( dpol, c, 7. cited by Mr. Vine tin his Sermon againft H&cf. pig. 50. ) That a man may be an H&etkk^ though he believe the Scriptures, the three Creeds, and the four great general Council;. Iftuc to r the fence of the AfTemblies definition; 1 I know not what you mean by the words l as they declare it: ] If any private declaration, 1 am not to take notice of it, nor do I know what it meaneth, and could wi(h they would do, or rwght have done as Mr. Vines deftred in his Sermon, Jan. 28. 1645. that is, [Tofecond their conditions with the Reafonj andQrounis of them ; which ^ ill do much to make them pafs for currant : feeing ( faith he ) the Gorgons headfthich ftrucl^all dumb in former t me^Thc Church, The Church,^ not like Ij to have the fume operation > t>w in this feeing And fear ching age ; for though men be willing to be fubjetl to ^Authority , jet as they are men ih y Vri 7 be fives . to Reafun.~] So that if there were any private expofrion, I would we had ir. But if you mean only what is declared in the words of the Definition, lam moft confident,thoughIncverwasinthc AfTem-bly, that I have hit on their fence far neerer then you teem to have done: and I dare not think otherwife, left I be bainoufly

cenferious

(*3*)

cenforious of To reverend an AiTembly, which I am refolved not to be. i. Their very words are a receiving of Chrift, an d noc immediately and primarily his Right eonfnefs, buthimfelf; and in the confeiTion chey fay as I do, that i: is an accepting, receiving and retting on Chrilt. 2. And as-£hriftthe anointed, which Name iignifiech the Offices which he is anointed to, viz,. KmjS, Pricft, &c. $. It maketh it to confiftin no one aft, hut feveral, expreffrdin two phrafes: 1. Receiving Chrift. 2. Refting on him alone far filvation. 4. It exprefly fiith, that it is a rtceititg of him i as he U offered in the Gofpel, and that i?, not as a juttifier only, but as a Lord and Prophet, and that as immediately as the other, and conjunct with it: for he is no where offered as a juftifkr alone ^ if he be, (hew where ic is. 5. And hence it is plain that they mean no Reception but moral, by Willing, Confentin^ Accepting ( as they exprefly fay in the confeffion of Faith ) For he is no other wife offered to us in the Go'pel: He is not offered to our Phyfjcal Reception. It is n n his perfon in fubftance that- is offered to the Contact of our Spirits, muchlefsof our flefby but hts.perfon asclo3thed with his Relations, of Mediator/Redeemer, Lord, Saviour, &c. And can you receive a King, as King, ( who is perfonal-ly diftaat or invifible Jby any other Reception then I have faid ? If we do receive a King into EngUnd y the only Ads cf the foul are hea ty conferring* and what is therein and thereto implied : though bodily A&ions may follow • (which as to Chrift we cannot perform. ) I think verily this is the plain found fence of the Affcmbly, and (hall believe fo, till the fame Authority, tha,t thus dehned,do otherwife interpret their own definition-

And for your phrafc of [ Refting a burdened foul on Chrift for Righteoufnefs | I doubt not as it intendeth Affiance, but it is as Perkins , Dr. r D)wn^im % Rob.'Baroniv.r, &c. fay, a fruit of faith ftn&ly taken, rather then faith it felf; but if you take faith in a larger fence ( as the Gofpel not feldom doth, and againft which I am no adverfary ) fo Affiance is part of faith it felf. But that it is the whole of that faith, I (hall never believe without ftronger Arguments ■ ■ where £0u fay, [ Us the receiving Chrift as 1 he hand embracctb anj Q(?fe8.~\ I an Aver.

2. If you mean, £ as verity as the b*nd % &:. So 1 grant it, i moral receiving may be properly fatd to be as true as a phylua'. But if you mean f B) a Phyfical Contact and Reception as the band co^h, &c. then •! am rar from believing tiiatevcr Chriii or our Aflembly fo meant,or ever had fo grols a thought. Where \ OU fay, I t*kt it not the inftr.ee as the Scripture Words tmfy-1 an-fwer. When I ice thatmanifefted I (hill believe it. Wnen it is faid fohn I. tie cime to bisorvn^ ar.dhu oftn received kirn not : i.Is it meant they took him not in their hands^or received not his Pcrfon in;o their houfes? the later is true i But i. Only in a iecond place ^ but their hearts were the ffrft Receptacle 2. Elfe thofe wtrrno Unbelievers where Chnft never came in perfon •, And chat had n > houfes ^ 3. And tha: receiving cannot belong to us that never faw him, nor to any fince his Afccnfion. 2.Or k it the Intellective Reception of h\s fptcics? I trow not: I have faid enough of that before, g. Or is it a moral Reception of him as thus and thus related, volendo, eUgendojonfentien-do, dligendo ( pardon this lift, it is but the qualification of the reft ) & confejuenterfidendo ? I think this is it. W you can find a fourth way, you will do that which was never done ( to my knowledge ) and then you will be a Novellift as well

as I.

Foryour.next expreflions, I anfwer to them, that you do truly apprehend that I am loth to feem to recede from others, (and as loth to do it, but magi* arnica ventas : Aid I cannot believe what my lift, nor like thofe that can. ) By which you ma; tsuly know, that I do it not out of affectation of Angularity (asheknowcth that knoweth my heart,), nor intend to be any inftrumentofdivifionin the Church. And if my af-fertions are deftructive of what others deliver,it is but what fome men, and not what all deliver; Not agaijft the Aflembly , nor many learned Divines who from feveral parts of the Land have fignified to me their Afl'ent: befides all thofe great names that appear for me in p int.

But you tell me chat [*/0*4; not build on feme Homiletcal popular expreffions in any mam bookj.] An/tire', Let me again name to you but the menl laft named, and try whether yoa

H fa will

will again fo entitle their writings. The firft and chief is Dr. ?rejlo,u who was known t> be a man of molt choice notions, and fo Judged by thofe that put out his book«,and his credit To great in England^ that he cracks his own that feeks to crack it. And his Sermons were preached before as judicious an Auditory ( ac leaft ) as your Lectures, and yet you defend your own cxpreflions. Yea it is not once nor twice, nor five times only, but almoft through all his Books, that Dr. Pre/ion harpeth upon this firing, as if it were the choifeft notion that he intended to difclofe. Yea it is in his very Definition of faith as juftifying ; and Dr. Prefton was no homiletical Denner. I can produce the like Teftimony of Dr. Stoughton: ( two as great Divines in my efteem as moft ever England 'or the world bred. ) Another is Mr. fVallis i Doubtlefs, Sir, no homiletical popular man in Writing : nor could you have quickly bethought you of an Bngltjb Book that lefs defcrves thofe attributes : His words are thefe. / affent not to place the faving Acl of faith , either with Mr, Cotton ( as his Lora/hip cites k'm) in the laying hold ofy or affenting to that T^ramife, &C. nor jet in a particular application of Chrifl to my felf in ajjurance^or a believing that Chrifl is mine, &c. But 1 choofer ether to place it in an aft of the Willy then in ether ofihefe fortnamed afts of the V nderft anding. It us an Accepting ofCbrijt offered, rather then an A Renting to a proportion affirmed.To as man) as received him 9 &cjhat it t to them that believe in his name John I. (jod makes a» Offer of Chrifl to all (elfe fhouldnot Rtpsobatesbe condemned f or not accepting ofhim f as neither the Devils are^becaafe he Vvas not offered to them. )rVhofoever mil, let him come and take of the water of life freely i Kc\.zi.i f J. Whereupon the believing foul replies, I will : and fo takes him* When a Gift is offered tome, thrt which makethit to be mine is my Acceptation^ &c/ // youcal this taking of Chrifl ( or con' fenring that ChriflfhaRbe my Saviwr)a 'Depending^ Refling or relying on Chrifl for falvatien (ifjoufpeal^ofan all of the Will ) it is all one^for Taking of Chrifl to be my Saviour, and committing mjfelf to thrift to befaved^ is the fame : Both of them being but aconfenting to thU Covenant,!will be your Cjod y and youfhallbe my Teoplei &C. And if you make this the fwixg All of faith> then Will Repentance (fo far at it is diflinU from Faith )iea con-

fejfaent

f quint of it : Confidence alfo, &c. Thus Mr. Walts is cieac^ chat the Nature of Faich is the fame that I have affirmed, an^ in no popular Sermorv but in his Tnrh trjeJ. psg 54,95. And on thefe grounds he well anfwers BelLrrrints Dilemma, which eife will be but fhifcingly anfwered. The next is Mr. Nor of New England, a man judged one of their bed Difputancs, orelfethey would not have chofe him to encounter ssfpoUoni-su: And will you call his very Definition of Faich in an accurate Catechifm, an homiletical popular expreflion ? What then in the whole world (hall efcape that cenfure ? His Words are ; y Que ft. What.is juft'tfjing Faith ? Anfw. It is* faring grace of the Spirit, flowing from Election, vherebj the foul rtceweth Jeftii Chrift, as its Head and Savieu*^ according as he ii revealed in tbtGbfpel. J I fubfenbe to this Definition from my heart. The next cited was Mr. Ctilvervet'l, not in any popular Sermon, but in a folid well approved Tfeatifc of Faith, and not in common paffageSj but his very deflation of faith, pig. t 3.17. and after all concludes./?*^. \9 [Thus rve fee that the very nature of faith conftfteth in the true Acceptation of Chrift proclaimed in the G fpel ] The next I cited ( about the Definit on of faith ) was Mr. Throgmorton, who in his accurate Treatife of Faith (and not in any popular Sermons) and that many times over, doth mal>e Faith to be the receiving Chrift for Prophet ', and only Kzh-b'lytoh hi* 'Vi/ciples, and as toe onlj Way and Truth, and alfo as King, Head, Husband, Frieft, &c. and bj this ws are made Partakers of him and all his benefits, pag. 6,29.3 l ■ 82. &c And for the great point that you flick at of Juftification,I will repeat the words of two of thofe Authors which I have named : And 1. Of learned Conr. Bergirss , in whom you (hall have the TeiHmony of the Angtiftane ConferHon , Luther, MeutK.er % &:. included, both about the nature and extent of Faith; about works Legal and Evangelical ; about Juftifica-tion as begun, and as continued, and the diftind conditions, and about the concurrence of Obedience, &c. Traxis Cathol. d'ffert.y. pjg.973. &C.§.4I. Nee tamen negat cjmfquxm (idem ,e(fe Obedienaam in Una fenfu % ex Rom.1.5. & 6.1 7. & I O. l6 t & 16 76. zTheff.i 8. A&.5.32.HCD.5.9. iPet. 1.2,14, 2. 1 • Fides efi cbedientia qnatenus e]us alius proprius rejfond'i pra.

Hh 2 cepto

Ci3<0

ctfto Evatttellif (frede indominum Jefum^Scc. Iceo crim^ ut Caf-vmus at ad Rom. 1.5. nomine cbe tienttt infignitttr^ quod r Do-mintis per Evangelium nos vocat^ no$ vocanli per fliem refpondt-mm. Et fie fides, ( ut loquitur ApoL A uguft. Conf. in refp. ad Arg. psg.i 25 . ) eft Obed entia e ga EvAnfeiium : qu& cum Obedientt*manda'torurn legurninime con fundi debet: Nam ut retle M.utzerus (intxeg Auguft Conf.rft.4 cent. Phot. in. 15. ) Jjhtantftm ab Evangels'i Lex dxft-M, tuntttm ka; obedientU ab ilia Mfterminattir. 42. 2. Eft etiam filei obed entia, quatenus per Sjfnecdocben tJMeionjm;cam fign feat totum cultum k fidelbus -pr<t[Httim\rad.cem ma cumfrullibus, &c. Not* enfm eft co'i-fuetudofermonU (ut ixquit Apol. Conf - ufljfi.de iirft. leg*p3C. 87. ) quod interdum eodem verbo caufam & efeclus complefii-mur txTci fvititdioxiiv. Ita accipipo f eft fides, Heb. 13.7. and 12.1,2- Rom. 1.8. 1 ThefT. i.8.!er.7.28. ^.Necdu-

bium eft cumefrcitur^ hoc eft mandatum ut credamus & Dili^a-mus\ 1 John 3.2}. ficut in pracepto 'Diligendi & habitus citart-tatU ejrfrutlus a'tjue Opera, a I qu<t hab tusordinatur, mznd<ta funt : itactiam in prtcepto cnder.di & hibvutn fidei & frutins ejus nobis mandatos effe. XJnde cum ipfa etiam chro it as in-terfrutlus fit fi Jet, fit ut tot a doEl< i*a Chrifiima taltquando ver-bum vef'pradiettiofiJei, tota'Kjl'gh Chifttara, toti cecoKcmia-novi Teftamenti fiies praipue appelleturG*l. I. 22,. I Tim. 4.6. Gal. 5. 6.and 3. 23. So he proceeds and Pledges Lu-ther taking faith in that large fenfe,including charity and obe. dience ; and by Works, meaning atHenes facias cum opinions meriti^ & cum cxpefhtioxe jiftifiationis &vi'& arerne tan-quammercidU dibi■.* Strm. ds mi r . & li.de I bert. Chriftiana. Tom. 2. ##,/'. 4. $.&Tom. ^.com.in Zich.2.8.^* ad Gfl.c.2. f. 3cO. Et ultra p. 977. Cum dlc'itur [fine operibus legis J

txcluduntur y \.Opera fjitla m verittte cbedttxtU legalise meriti fninde pir inr.ee en tiamjui detur Amerces t itra rem ffiorem peccsti &impktationem fcundumgratiam. Rom. 4. 3. C f ^WCom-fat us eft Apoftolus toto capite 1 & 2. & f. Ta'em Obedentiam a nemhebaberi, fedomnes fub peccato ejje, &c. 2. Excluduntur etiam opera facia cum opioniont vera cbedier.tU. legaits ac meriti per innccentiam 1 quia hac ipfa funt eti«m p-eccat* & mendacia mtrtntia gosnam y PhiL] .7

C*37)

3. Excluduntur etlam opera facta cum op'nione merit i fine obc* dier.tia jfr in-ocentia legali ant ex quo/icunque imperfect a aut pw ticttU'iobcdientia cut alqualiter detur lM trees citra impura-xioYitm ftcHticumgratiam^ &c.So tlutrhisis all the rxclufionof Worksthat he acknowledged : ard (hews chat Tell.rmh.e is driven to this, which he approveth. $.44. Ex dlciis hifce tr ; -b'Ai mod's , primo modo txcluduntur veraoper.4 /cgi r , it a ut non adfint , licet diberenx adejfepnmo creaiio~4t pre ; pofc-'ior.bus anttm due-bus mod s (xclttduniur praftsmpta >ptra itautnon dtbe-ant adejfe fedcaviri potius ; 8t omnibus ki.ee rntdis cppor.itur inter fe Lex opertsm, per qutm relinquitHr glorintio homir,i % & Lex Fidei, per quam txcluditur Glo< i itio^Rvm. 3. 27.

Afterwards,one fenfe in which he faith Fides foU ytfiificxt, is lh\s,fo/a eft files qua*, en us epp nitur Ugis cperum vb:d eni 1 * ;C• yts Veritas in r.ttllo eft h\V.in'hn^ epir.iiautem in nulla debet ejfe ^ & fignificat contra obedientiam legis Eidti^ feu prac p'i, ncn de cpe-rando & expellando vitam ut mercedem debitaw cur a imjutaio-nemfecundum gratiam ; fed ds credendo in Chrifium fr acc>p>e»-do & Ustinendovitam grali* y & (Xpt&.wdo vit>ir>3glo>i*, ut do-fittm mere gratuitum per imputationem fcundttm graiiAm in Chri-ftojfuem\r4.pofhit c Dem p< ! a:Amentum in ^anguine ipfitss.

And afterward, £at di&ufaciUintelUiitur n'.lii his repugntre Auguftinum^ (qui pr<t: pue nobis opponitnr ) cum docet, exdudi tantum ab ^poftolo opera faSiafi'.e fide &fpiritu Chifti : ( hoc eft y fine v>va file promtJfiows, & tbr.egatioxe m'eriti frofrii, ficut cfrlSellarm. fupradocebit 9 rxcludi Optra quibvs dquost reddi^ ttir efl mercesnon gratia) opera vero fatla cum fide & Spiritu Chrifti ad Mam movente non exclud'. N-zmntque kos ea ex-cludimus y ne fint.aut debtant effe ; fed dtftmgtat titan* Luthe>ut opera legis & opera Ch<iftiin nobis per fidem operan:i> &" ziven-tu per omnia, ddditque hxc non pojfe magis om'tti^ qnzm ipfimr-fiiem^ nee tffe minus necejfaria quzmfidet^ in li. devot.mon. T. 2. Wit.f.i%\.

But the chwfthingl intend is in the next words. At quem-admodum cetera, ailiones fign fi:at<e per [idem quafi matenaUttr & Synecdochice per fe & dwell c non §rdinantur ad <m ; citidm Dti & falutemproprie Efficiendam ("as he miftakingly thinks faith \s) fedvel adfidem cm que quo modo profunt y vel ad amicitiam 'Vfi

Hh 3 &'

& fahtem faltem non amittendam : ita ntqut Juftificabunt & jalvabunt froprie & diretle. Properunt tamen ad Htrumqne quatenusfunt, i. vel dtfpofitiones ad fidem.ut^ artftt.l, Effeftus, &c. 3. Q*at exits per ilia excludimus & cavemus peccata & in-gratt^dwtm^qua omr.ino vera caufa tmitienda fufiitia & faltt-tisfuttira effent: qutlemcauftm removentem prokihevs appelhre^ & adcaujas per accidens referre Jolent. 0mni6enim arbor qv.a ncn, &p. fHere he fpeaksonly of the natural conducibility of work*, and omitteth the moral conditionally ; and fo gives a caufality per accident to them,which is more then I do. ) $.54. & in htcfrulluum compuratwne^fub notione proprit caufa finalis fit was not then conlldcred that justification is a continued Aci)pertinenti6 ad non amittendum/^retinendum gratuito datj y ordo & refpetlus optrum adfalutem ftmpltcijfime i & commodijfime ad Scti t tura fJum txplicavi potefl. 2 Pet. 1.1O. 2 po^.8.

Accordingly before in this Type he makes the conditions to be 1. Acceptation: fchatsfaith) 2. and retention ; (thishe fheweth is alfo by Gofpelwork<)amongdiVers allegations of his out of the sslpol. Vrfin. T>avenant, &c. I will add one out oiGualther in 1 Cor. horn. 28. Vt fil.us etfi hares tiatus fit , abdicatur tamen, e^r r<b 'bareditate excidit , fife inobedientem & contumacioremprabeat : ttanos qucqueregnicalorum beretita-tem^ (judex adoptions gratia nobis debeturjninime quidem no-flris operibns msremur tandem vtro noflra contumacia amittimus t &noftro magno mcrito abdicamur, fi tanta gratia iniqui fimus aflimatores.

And he reconciled Paul and fames thus, /. 56. 'Deinqut no-tandum efl : alium cjfe loquendi & docendi modnm contra Judawf-mum & contempium gratia: ahum contra fecuritat em & abufum gratia, cum difputaturpraciput comrr. fudaifmum five fufiitiam optrum, uti Paulus in tp. ad Rom. & al.bifacit^ tunc docemur folafidejufiiflcan^ hoc efl\*ikitin nobU placere 'Dto nifi per ab' mgationem meriti gr acceptAtionem contra doni Evangeltci. At cum difptttatur contra fecuritatew, &docetur quM re/peclu ami" citia Dnina nobis agendum (it (p>out Jacobus m Spifi fua feat y &hodie t velmjximemcffjeejft ( we may truly fay fo) ut Dr. Toftaniu in fua Cont. P/endevangelicos difputaticne et alii pie acprudenter 'ym[ridem monutrunt) tunc negatnr folam fidem

fuffcere,

C^9)

fafficere, & prtc\piuntur omnia qu& quoqno modo profunt : five dipw>t«t aJfiicm, five imiscoxfummetur fidts, ( ficut qutvu res fine & tff.tl.biu fun confum^'atur : arbor fruftifau^ ft:ntU arsinr.a mot'ibus corpora, non quod ad effent'<am fed quod ad ufum ) five p'ifexs j*m amicttia per ilia firmetur ne diffilia^ icleiiam augtatttr quod etd effe^iu- aliqttos , Cr hoc modo qujfe implex tar.

And he concludes thus. $. 5^. Vw> ve-bo : foil fide jmfli-ficamur j hoc ejl : Nullo noftro mei ito, five ipfiwfide^five al-tetias aSlionis prater fidem. Probetur evidenter & caboliceme-ritum quale d nsftm mgatur^ tunc eti <m tilud prxcer folam fidera admiftwi (umw.

Lud. Crocius faith, ( Syr.tsg. 1. 4. pag i\ll.)Fidesetiamfoh jvftificat quatenus >utit obediential quandam expeilaitemp~c-mlfftonemui donum gratuitum ; quomodo formaliier quidemcon-fiftit in ap'licattone prowijfionis, quam tamen & prtcedunt dif-pofitiones aliqua adhunc'tpfum fidet allum, & (equur.tur frutlus : undeplures virtutes vel aftustum antecedents turn corfequentet connotat; & opponitur illi obedentid qu<t no~ expettat promfjftonem tanquam donum omniio graft i'um, fed utmercedem p-tpofitam fub conditione opiris alicujusprtter acceptationem & gratitudi-nem debitam qua fua natura in omni donatione quamvu gratuita rcqairifolet. Et bujufmodi cbedimii peculiar iter Opus ab isf-poftolo, & Latinu propr emeti'-um dicitur. Et q'U ha: conditione obediunt operantes vocantur , Rom. 4.4. and 11 6. tsftque fi itthdc propofitio exponatur i ea quidem opera q>tz cum fide confrere nequeant^ id eft, qu 1 fiunt cum fiiuci 1 & of intone meriti, prorfus excludumur , itaut r.onfolumnegentn-- juf;ifi:a'e f fed & adejfe tarn in juftificato, quam in juftificaxdo.

Joh. Crocius de jvflifi. difp. 1 ?. pag. 67$. (fredem faila eft promijjio^ fide accepturum remiffioiem peccatontm : mendico & agro non tft fntla promijfit, fi tile manum extendat , datum iri eleemofynam ; fi ifte pharr/tacum manu capiat convalitu-rum y &c.

Mr. Gataker^4/»/? Saltmarfhfhadoftf, &c. pag..16.40 41, 43,44,45,46 47,48,49,53,64. doth fully give as much to Faith, Repcntance.Obedience as I do. Nor know I any reafon why, ( Johns) IZaptifmfor thefnbftance of itjjouldnot be an exam fit

to

(HO

U m alfo in fhefe times, being the Baptifm of Repentance Mto fx-mijfnn of fins, thit u, if I m-'fiaks ntt,Baptijm obfigging remiffi-on of fins ufm condition of Repentance* pag, 40. j and pig. 41. He faith, [that pirdon f fin and falvat'oz are propounded and preached up >n condition of Faith,Repentance, and ?{jV?nefs of life y which are the conditions of the Gofpeh: a*dyamay thy -alfo be fo termed a6 conditions of peace upon agreement unto> and performance thereof peace mty be had, which otherWife cannot be obtained. ] And be evinceth this by an Argument drawn from the definition or nature of a condition, thus, f That wkichis fo pro-pounded^as that be ng performed^ltfe and falvation may undoubte '-// be attained, and without whish it cannot be had* may Well be termed a cond tion : but fuch are the thing* before mentioned -, therefore the) may j'ftly be termed conditions] vid. ult. and p. 4^. Suppose a King be content at the fuit either of the parties them-felves, or any friend, to grant hk gracious pardon to a company of notorious Rebels that hadrfen up againft him, &c. upon condition thtt they acknowledge their offence, audtheir forrowfor it , With purpfe andprjmifc of living loyally for time to come ; whether Would you deem this to be free grace or no ? &C Were he not a moft ungracious wrttch,tha f hazing his pardon onfuch terms granted andfignedhi n, ftouid in regard of th>fe conditions deny %t to be of free Grace ? and whether they do not blafpheme Qodsfree Grace y tie -it d ny it to be free Qrace, if it be propounded on terms of Belief\ Repentance and Amendment of Ife. Sir, PVhatfoever you fay to us , ta\e heed hoW you tellChnfl, that he doth not freely fave jou, if he will not fave you unlefs you believe, &c. ] In ma-ry more places, and more fully Mr. Gat deer (hews that Faith, Repentance, Obedience,ane jointly conditions of Pardon, &c. Onlyhegves Faith a peculiar Rtceptivity , which 1 never de-nyed : nr.d he yields to call it an Inftrument, which fo largely taken, Iwilln t contend againft. But (till I fay that this Receptivity is tut the aptitude of Faith in a fpecial manner to this work of juflifying \ and the reft are apt to be conditions in their phce, or ejfeGod would not have made them conditions. Even in regard of its natural aptitude and ufe [Humiliation, ( asMr. fW/filth, berm. on f^mesq.2. p3g. 12. ) though it dQnot pro-erly cleanfe the hands jet it pluckj eff thj (jlover, and

m *kt$

,emb.ireforwafiing : and Godh falron vs-tb its {even ^Daughters, 2 Cor. 7.11. are clenfing things.

Dr. Scoughton ^Righteous mans plea for H^pp. Serm. tf.pag. 3;.' Fa'th comprehends not only the All of the ZJn ierflar.ding^ but ib: Aft of the Will too, fo as the Will doth embrace and adhere , and cleave to thofe Truths fthich the under {landing conceives ; and not onh embracing meerly bl Affent to the Truth of it , but bj clofl- g with the Good of it: ( What is that bu: loving ? ) tafting and relifbng it. As faith in Chn/l is not only the Affenting of a mans mind that Cbriji is th? Savt$ur y but arr{ultanc) of the Will on Ch'ifl as a Savir.iry embracing of him,Ana lot i g, efteeming an I honouring him as a Saviour. The Scrip we comprehends both thefe together, and there is a rule for it , which the Rabbins givs for the opening of the Scripture ,y'\l.Verba fenfus etiam den>tant af-fetlus^s Jo. 17.3. r hu « eternal life to k^now thee y 8cc. it if not bare Knowledge the Scripture means, but Knowledge joined veith ajfe-Elions. ~] You fee Dr. Stouqhton took Love to be full as near Kin to Faith as I do. Many the like snd more full in him I pafs. 1 cited in my Append. Alfledius, Junius, Parous, Scharpius, AretiuSiHall ,&c.making Faith,& Obedience ,& Gratitude Conditions of the next Covenant (& who faith not the fame ? ) If all thefe be homxleticaland popular\ much miftake them; which yet I cite not as if no words might be found in any of thefe Authors that feem tofpeakothcrwtfe^ but to (hew that I am not wholly fingular>( Though if I were,! cannot help it when I will. )

On the next Q.Whether a dying man ma) bck^ on his Faith and Obedience>& Duty as the condit on of the N.fov. by him perf rm-ed c You would perfwadc me that I cannot think that I fpeak to the poincinthis:butyouaremiftakeninme:forlcan miftakc more then that comes to; and indeed I yet think I fp oke a> directly to the queftion in your terms laid down, as was pofsible ; for I changed not one of your terms, but mentioned the Affirmative as your felfexprcffed it: If you did meanotberwife then you fpoke, I knew not tbar, nor can yet any better undcrftand you. Only I can feel that all the difference between you and me mud be decided by diftinguifhing of £ Conditions : 3 b Qt you never yet go about it fo as I can underftand you. You here ask m?, [whether 1thh\jon deny 4 godly life to be a comforta*

li Vie

(h*)

bteTeftiMoriy,or necejfary qualification of a man for pardon? "] Anfwer. i .But the Queftion is not of the fignificancy or Teftimo-ny.y nor yet of all kind of qualification ^ that is an ambiguous term, and was not in the Queftion, but of the conditionally. 2. You yield to the term Condition your felf elfewhere, and therefore need not (hun it. 3. Qualifications and Conditions are either phyfical and remote, of which I raife no queftion : fo the EfTence of the foul is a condition , and fo hearing the Gofpel is a natural Condition of him that will underftand ic ; and underftanding is a natural Qualification of him that will believe it: Y^otignoti nulla fides. But it is another fort of conditions you know tharwe are in fpeech of, which I have defined, and Mr. Qataker before cited .• -viz. Moral legal conditions fo called infenfuforenfi vellegaliiwhen the Law of Chrift hangs our a&uai J unification and faWation on the doing or not doing fuch a thing.»Yet do I very much diftinguifh between the Nature and Ufes of the feveral Graces or Duties contained in the conditions^ for though they are all conditions) yet they were not all for the fame reafon.or to the fame ufe ordained to be conditions-..but repentance in one fence as preparatory to faith ; and Faith. 1 .Becaufe it honoureth Chrift, and debafeth our felves. 2. Becaufe it being in the full an Acceptation of the thing offered, is the moll convenient means to make us Pofieffors without any contempt of the Gift * with other reafons that might be found .• So I might aflign the reafons ( as they appear to us) why God hath affigned Love td Chrift, and fincere Obebience, and forgiving others, their feveral parts and places in this conditionality . :-( but I have done it in my Aphorifms ^ ) but then all thefe are drawn from the diftin£l nature and ufe of thefe duties Effen-eially in therafelves confidered, which is but their Aptitude for the place or conditionality which they are appointed to, and would of themfelves have done nothing without fuch appoint* ment. So that it is one queftion to &sk a fVby doth Faith or Workt of Obedience to Chrift fuftifie ? ( To which I anfwer ^ Becaufe it was the pleafureof God to make them the conditions of the Govenant,and not becaufe of their own nature directly .• ) and its another Queftion, Why did God choofe Faith to the Precedency in thi* work} To which I anfwer. 1. Properly there is no caufe of God* actions without himfelf. z* But fpeak-

(H3)

ing of him after the manner of men, as we muftdo , it is becaufe Faith is fitter then any other Grace for thisHonorand Office, as being both a high honouring of God, by believing bim(thats as for AfTent)and in its own Eflential nature,a hearty thankfull Acceptance of his Son, both to be our Lord (which is both for the Honor of God and our own goodjand our Saviour to deliver and glorifie us ; and fo is the moft rational way that man can imagine to make us partakers of the procured hap-pinefs, without either our own danger ( if a heavier condition had been laid upon us) or the difhonour of the Mediator; either by diminifhing the eftimationof the favour (if we had done any more to the procuring it our felves ) or by contempt of the Gift > ( if we had not been required and conditioned with fo much as thankfully and lovingly to accept ir. ) And then if the Queftion be, why God hitb ajfigned fin* cere Obedience and Per/ever s.nce therein to thit pb.ee of fee cn-dary Conditior.ality fr the continuance and confumm at ion of Ju* flification, and for tise attaining of falvation f I anfwer. Not becaufe they have any fuch Receptive nature as faith,but becaufe Faith being an Acceptance of Chrift as Lord al(o,and (Jelivering andre(i£n;ngup the foul to him accordingly in Covenant, this Duty is therefore necefTanly implyed, as the thing promifed by us in that Covenant, and fo in fome fence greater then the covenanting it felf, or the end of it: and Chrift never intended to turn man out of his fervice, anddifcharge him from Obedience; but to lay on him an eafier and lighter yoak and burden, to learn of him.e^.and therefore well may he make this thecon-dition of their finding Eafe and Reft to their fouls, Mat. 11.28, 29. For,for this end he dyed, that he might be Lord, Rom. 14.9. And therefore when we are freely pardoned,& bought from hell, i- isequal that Chnft fhould rule us, who bought us,and that his Covenant hang till the continuance of our Legal title to pardon judication, and glory, and fo the full pofTefiion of them upon this perfeverance in fincere loving grateful fubjection tohimthatboughtus.andbyhim to the Father.And thus Sir, I have digreffed and u($d many words on this, ("which to ycu L think needlefs ) not'only becaufe I perceive that you acknowledge the condicionality of obedience in fome fenfe, but cell me

CM4-)

not in what fenfe,but left you (hould not difcern my fenfe, who defire to fpeak as plain as lean, that you may truly fee wherein we differ; And that I alfo may lee it when you have as clearly opened your meaning of your term,[_J2ualific<iticns.~]

And for your Queftion [whether a godly man can think the Righteoufntfs of Cbijl made Icis by working, or only beliezing.^ I anfwer, caufally and efficiently by neither, I think, ( chough you think otherwife ) ; I dare not fo advance faith , and fo advance man. I remember good, old , learned , felid Gata-kjrs words to Sa'tmarfb(pag.5$,) It is your J"elfrather then any of us that trip at tbuft one^ when you Vcould have faith fo much pref-fed in the 'Doctrine of falvation, in regard of the glorioufnejs and tminency of the grace it (elf ; which to fif[ert,u not found' ( Jic in Animadv in Lucrum fart, i. $.9.^.7. ) The righteoufnefs of Chnft is made ours by Gods free gift; but faith and true fub-jection are conditions of our participation; and what intereft each hath in the conditionally, and on what grounds, I have {hewed. 1 fear you§ive too much to faith and man.

You ask [7j it repent t and Chriflf righteoufnefs by this is made yours ?] Anffter, It is oftimes,/?fp*»f and be forgiven ; and repent and be baptized ; and repent and believe^ and be forgiven : but not efficiently by repenting nor believing : but on condition of both: though in ordaining them conditions God might intend one b*t as preparative or fubfervient to the other j and not on equal terms, or to equal ufe immediately.

And when you fay, [that the dying Chrijiianis directed to the Refting on Chrift, and eying the brazen Serpent^ not to be found in any tking but a righteoufnefs by faith t] I never durft entertain any doubt of this; it is no queftion between us: only in what fenfe it is called a Righteoufnefs by faith, I have fhewed , even in oppofition to Works in Pauls fenfe, which make the reward to be of debt and not of Grace, Rom. 4.4. where you fay [It is an ASlof Dependence not of Obedience that intereft s us in (thrifts Righteoufnefs ~\ I anfwer, It is no one Ad but many •, It is an act of /Jjfent firft ( and thence the whole hath the name of faith , ic being fo hard a thing to believe fupernatural things , as it would have been to us to believe Chrift to have been God when we had fecn him in the

fliape

Cht)

ftiapeofman, had we lived in thofetlme?, when the Dodrine

of frith came noc with thofc advantages as now it doth J And

then it is an ad of willing, confenting, eleding, affeding

(which three are but a vtlle Rejpectivum, and fo in the aft alt

onej : and this in order of nature goes before any ad which

you can in any reafonable proprieiy call Dependance: and 1

doubt noc are far more eflential to juftifjing faith : yet I am

heartily willing to take your acts of dependance (for thofe al-

fo are more then onej in the next place. But it confound-

ethand abufeth us and the Church in this controverfie, that

many learned Divines will needs fhun the ftrict Philofophical

names of the feveral Acts of the foul, and overlook alio the

natural order of the fouls motions, and they will ufe, and ftil

ufe the Metaphorical expreflions, as apprehenfion ( improper^

dependance , relying, refti>-g % recombency^ adherence^ embracing^

with more the like. 1 know Scripture ufeth Come of thefe : bur

then it is not in ftrict deputing, as foh. Crociuj tels Bel/arm,

we may ufe apprehend figuratively, becaufe Scripture faith,

apprehendite difci-Hnam, and lay hold on eternal life : But this

would quickly end difputation , or elfe make it endlcfs. Yec

in the places cited, who knows not the fame word hath d.ffcrent

tenfes ? in the former being ufed for to accept and ftoop to ; in

the later for anearneft prelTIng on, and endeavouring after as

a runner to catch the prize. And they will be loth to fay ,

thefe are all and each of them the juftifying acts.

And where you add that its not an art of obedience. Ianfwer, i. I wouftryou had firft anfwered the many Scriptures to the contrary produced in my Aphor. 2. -Its trueoftherlrft inte" reft in Chrift, (further then faith is called obedience) but not of the further continued and confummate in'ereft. 3. Dothnoc Chrift (iy, Take my yoaJ^learn of we to be meek^and loVcly , that they may have eafe and refl ? Tiafe and Reft ? From what ? Why from what they came burdened with ? and that was fure gu.lt and cttrfe^nd whatever is oppofed to pardon andjtiflifi:ation 9 <JW.at % 11. And Blejfed are they that do h<4 commandmentsjhat the) may have right to the tree of life , and may enter in , &c. Rev.2Z. 14. And he is the Author of eternal falvation to all them that obey h'm % Hcb. 5. 9. And CMst. 25. is wholly

(HO

and convincingly againft you. And fo is the fecond Pfalm whol-ly,which makes fubjection to Chrift as King, the great part of the Gofpel condition. [Kifs thefon^ conteineth more then Recombeftcy^n my judgement : and yet no more then that true faith which is the condition of juftification.

But no word in your paper brings me to fuch a {land as your next, where you fay, And that is very harjhftill which yon ex-prefs^toexptSbthe Righteonfnefs of the Covenant of grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your felf through Gods workings. ^ Anfw. Truly iris quite beyond my (hallow capacity to reach what you here mean to be fo harlh:, what (hould I imagine ? That there are conditions upon which the Tenor of the Gofpel gives Cbrift Righteoufnefs, you acknowldge : And that he that perfovmeth them not, the Gofpel giveth him none of it: I know you conrefs thefe; And that we muft needs perform them our felves,through Gods workings ( i.e. both enablement and excitation, and co-operation : ) I know you doubt of none of thefe; for you have wrote againft the cAntinomians : and Mr. G*taker hath evinced the fottifh ignorance 6\ impudency of Saltmarfhy in denying Faith, Repentance and Obedience to be the conditions on which, performed by us, we muft enjoy the things promifed, Pardon, &c. or elfenot. Yea in this paper you yield to this conditionally. What then is the matter ? Is it harlh when yet you never once (hew the fault of the Speech? It muft be either the falfhood, or the unfltnefs • but you have yet accufed it of neither ; and yet fay it is harfh.

But the reafon you intimate, becaufe *BeIUrmint hath fome fuch phrafe: which I never remembred or obferved in him: and little do I care whether he have or no: If the Papifls be nearer to us then I take them to be, it is caufe of joy and not forrow : But fure I am that Proteftant Writers generally ufe the word Condition ; and Wendeline faith, The Pafifis abufe us in feigning us to fay the Gofpel is abfolute ; and faith,the Gofpel ih each fence i* conditional. In one fence Faith is the Condition ; in another\ Faith and Obedience, &c.

Bur here you come again to the Labyrinth and tranfcendent Myfterie of pajfive Faith : nay you enlarge the Myfterieyec more: i. You fay again, £ Faith dothp&ti. 2. Andjet Love

doth

(H7)

doth agere. 3. Elfeyou would yield that Beliarmine argues cox-fonantly enough , /£«* Zw* would juftifie as well as faith. 4. Tee jon acknowledge Faith an Atlive grace : but only in this AH in meerrecipient.

ssfnfwer. I confefs ray reafon utterly at a lofs in this ; but yet if it were in my Bible ( to me Intelligible) I would believe ic as I do the Doctrine of the Trinicy,and ceafe enquiring.But I cannot fo do by any Creature, to make him the Lord of my faith and Reafon. 1. Whether Faith doth Pati, I have enquired already. 2. That Love doth Agere, I verily believe ; and yet I have ofter heard Love called a Paflion, then Faith : And as Keeker am faith, the Affeel ions are more Paflive then the immanent Elicit Alls of the htellecl and Will. And though as ic is in the Rational foul, Love, ( faith Aquin. ) is no Pafston, but a Willing ( which caufeth me to judge it fo near Kin to Faith ) yet as it is in the fenfitive, it is a Pafiion. So that I am quite beyond doubt that phyiically love is more properly called a Pafllonthcn Faith, 3. Therefore for ought I know, it is no wonder if Beliarmine bear the Bell,and Papifts be unconvinced, if you have no better Arguments then this efpecially if no body elfehad better, 4. But yet the Myfterieis far moreun-fearchable to mejhzt faith Jhouldbe Active in all other,fave only this ^c7.What is this thing called Fa : tb,whkh you make fuch a Proteus , to be Atlive andT^/jw as to feveral Obje&s? Yea when it is acknowledged the fame Faith, which receiveth Chrift and Righteoufncfs, and the feveral promifts, and refteth on Chrift for the Pardon of each fin, for hearing each Prayer, for AfTurance,Peace,Comfort, Deliverance from temptations, and dangers and-fin, and is thusufefull through all our lives, for the fetching of help from Chrift in every ltreight, yet that this fame Faith fhould be Atlive in all the Reft, and Tafsive only in One juftifying Ad. Oh, For the face of an Argument to prove this! Sure its natural Reception of one Object and another is in point of Pafsivenefs alike: and its affigned Conditionally in Scripture, is of like nature as to each branch of the good on that condition promifed. 5. Andherealfol perceive by your fpeech you make it confift in fome fingle ad. And yec you never tell what that is and how then can it be in feveral faculties,

^H*5

cuities, as Davenant^ Amcfiw, foh. Cnc'ius, MtUncih. with rnoft do affirm? 6. But yet the depth of the myftericto me lies in undcrftanding and reconciling your words [ Onlj in thi* Ati its meerlj Recip ent, ] Is this an AH :oo } and yet meerlf Recipient? ( which you make a meer Pa(<sve reception. ) A meerlj Pafnve AB is fuch a comradi&ion in aVjetlo to my underftanding, that I cannot welcome the notion thither; yea if you had faid lefs,that it is an Act in any Part or Degree Pafsive* I never knew that an Ad could Pa,ti\ yet am I more confeious of mine own infufficiency, then to contend with one of your knowledge in matter of Philofophy ; but I muft needs fay that your notions are yet fofar beyond my reach>that pofsibly I might take the words as true upon the credit of one whom I fo highly value,yet am I not able to apprehend the fence.

The fo) in Heave* which you mention for a Vrandr>ng fhe*p t I think is meant of thefirft,or fome eminent recovery to Chrifr, and not of every Philofophical notion : fure, Sir, if falvation hang on this Doftrincas thus by you explained, I am out of hope that either I or ever a one in all this coumrey fhould ever come to heaven ; except by believing as that part of the Church believes which is of your opinion: When I am yen apt to think , that fiding with any party in fuch opinions will not conduce to any mans falvation : For I am of Bergiut his mind, that as it is not the Jew, the Pagan, or the Mahometan , or any Infidel, (privative, ) that (hall be faved , but the Chriftian; fo it is not the Tapifl, the Lutheran , the Calvimfl, the *s4rm\nian % that fiullbe Javed ( qua talis ) but the Catholkk. However I aminftrong hopes that a man may be faved, though he cannot underftandhow an Act can be a pafftve instrument ; nor do I think that my fubferibing Co that notion , would make any great rejoycing in Heaven.

I am forry you had not leifure to anfwer the Queftions, which were very pertinent to the bufinefs of ray fuisfaftion, though not to your bufinefs.

That my explication of that plain, weighty, neceffary point, hefto imperfetl graces or duties can jet be the conditions of the New Covenant, fliould feem a Paradox toyou^ I fay, to you, makes me yet more poffeft with admiration ; When you know rhac

fuch

(HP)

fuch conditions there arc (fuppofeit were bur faich alone-.) and you know your felf that this faith is imptmft. But I perceive we know but in part, and thereforemuft differ in part. He (hall fee whom God will enlighten. I had far rather you had fallen upon that point then on the term of f'fli-ficatien by veoikj. Ifycu would but grant me, that J^ftfy itfff faitb 9 as fuch t is an Accepting of Cbrifi for Kixg ■ and Prophet as well<u for a J nftifier, atct.ccnftqutnti) that it u arc-figning our (elves to be ruled by bim , as Veell as to beftved by him, I (hall then be content for peace fake to lay by ttephra.'e of J unification by workj , though it be Gods pwn phrafe, if the Church were offended with it, and required this at my hands.- (So they will be fatisfied with my iiiencing it, without a renouncing ir. ) I have written thus largely, that I might not be obfeure , and to lee you fee, that though I have fcarce time to eate or (leeep , yet I have time and paper for this work , and that I make net light of your diflent. The. Love and Refpeft which ycu mention to me I do as little doubt of, as I do whether I have a heart in my breaft: and your defires of my reducing I know do proceed from your zeal and fincere affections. That which I take worfti?, that you fhould fo defire me not to take it ill to be called an erring (hephcrd : As if I did not know my Pronenefsto err, and were not confeious of the weaknefs of my understanding: or as if the expreflions of fofincere love did need excufe ; or as if I were fo tender and brittle as not to endure fo gentle a couch : as if my confidence of your love were Plumea, non Ftiditbeayind would be blown away with fuch a friendly breath! Certainly Sir,your (harper fmiting would be precious BaIm,fo it light not on the Truth, but me ! lam not fo unduous,nitrous, or fulfureous, as to be kindled with fuch a gratefull warmth. My Jntelled were too much a&ive, and my afFedions too paf-fwe, if by the reception of the beams of fuch favourable exprefiions, my foul as by a Burning-GIafs (hould be fct on fire. I amoftaftiamed and amazed to think of the horrid intolerable Pride of many learned Pious Divines,who though they have no worfe Titles then Viridotti y reverendi^celebtrrimi: yet think themfelves abufed and unfufferably vilified, if any word do but acriiis pungere , or any Argument do faucibus prr«w*( witnefs Rivet and SpanhemiHi late angry cenfure of Amyr Aldus ) Can

Kk we

:WC be Tit Preachers and Patterns of meeknefs and humility to our people, who are fo nocorioufly proud, that we can fcarce be fpoke to ? My knowledge of your eminent humility and gentelnefs hath made me alfo the freer in my fpeeches here to you: which therefore do need more excufe then yonrs: And I accordingly intreat you,if any thing have pafled that is unmannerly , according to the natural eagernefs and vehemency of my temper, that you will be pleafed to excufe what may be excufed, and the reft to remit and cover with love, alluring your felf it proceeds not from any diminution of his high efteero of yon,and love to you, who acknowledged hirafelf unfeigned-? y fo v»*ry much below you, as to be unworthy tabe called

Tour ftltoty-fervant

Richard Baxter.

June 2$> 165c.

Kt4trmin[hr

Foft(crip t

^W*

Toftfmpt.

Ear Sir, while I was waiting foi meffengerto fend this, by, Made: Brooksby acquaints me, that you wiflit him to tell me, that I muft expeft no more in writing from you, My requeft is, that whereas yovt intimated in your firft, apurpofe of vvti^ng fomewhacagainft me on this fubjeft hereafter, you would be pleafed to do it in my life time,* that I may have the benefit of it, if you do it fatisfa-ftonly • and if not, may have opportunity to acquaint you with the reafons ofmydiflfent. Scnbunt Aftmum Pollioncm dixijfe aliquando [e parafje orationes contra Plancum, quas non mfi pojl mortem ejjet cditurus $ & Plan cum re/pondijje % cum mortuis non nifi lar-vas luclari: nt Lud. Fives ex Plinio , & Dr. Hum-fred. ex illo fefuit. 2. p. 640.

Alfo I requeft that if poffible you would proceed on fuch terms as your Divinity may not wholly depend upon meer niceties of Philofophy : For I cannot think fuch points to be neer the foundation : Or at leaft that you will clearly and fully confirm your Philofophical grounds: For as I find that your Doftrine of a Paffive Instrumentality of the Aft of faith (and that in a Mo-

Kka rai

(*?o

raP reception of righteoufnefs which is but a relation f yet calling it Phy fical) is the very bottom of the great diftance betweenusin the point of juftification : So I am of opinion that! may more freely difTentfrom a brother in fuch tricis philofophicis then in an Article of faith: Especially having the greateft Philofophers on my fide •, and alio feeing how little accord there is among themfelves.that they are almpft fo many men, fo many minds: and when I find them profefling as Combacchiut in pr<ef,ad Phy>f. that they write againft their own fenfetopleafe pthers, ifaquodmaximam opinionum in lib. content arum partem nonjam probaret) & Ariftote-Um non effe normam veritates^nd wifhing ut tandem alt-quando txurgat aliquis qui perfcttiora nobis principia mon-JI ret: and to conclude as he, falfttatem opinionum & fen-tenti*rum& [cientiamm imperfeffionemjam pridcm video , (ed in veritxte docenda dcficio. Et Nulli aut paucis certe minus me fatisfa&urum ac mihi ipfi fat fcio. And how many new Methods and Doctrines of Philofophy this one age hath produced < And I am fo far fceptical my felf herein, as to think with Scali-ger {ibid cit. ) Nos injlar vulpis d Ciccnia deluf/e vitreum v.xslambere, pnltem haudattwpere. But I believe not 'that in any Matter point in Divinity , God hath left his Church ac fuch ah utter lofs , nor hanged the faith and falvation of every hone ft ordinary Chriftian , upon meer uncertain Philofophical fpeenlations. I do not think that Paul knew what a Pafsivt h(lrument was 5 much lefs \_an act that was phy fi cat If passive in its injtrumenraliiji/i a msral cauf.dion.~\ You muft give me leave to remain confident that Paul built not his Doctrine of juftification on fuch a philofophical founda-

« tioaj

[<', vv*«

tion, till you have brought one Scripture to prove that faith is an inftrument, and fuch an inftrument - which canneitherbe done. Efpecially when the fame Paul profeffeth that he came not to declare the Teftimony of God, Kffrv*?fL%n-> >iyu n citfe*: and that he determined not to know any thing among them fave Iefus Chrift and him crucified- and that his fpeech and preaching was not hnei'fiic&Aftei'wvftiiM f.o^t;) that fo their faith might not (land u trothJfyfaari &tfcu he fpoke the my-ftenes of theGofpel j* &j\tfuit6licti'fy€*r'mK <rop*f *#&*#**»

i Cor. 2. I am paft doubt therefore that to thruft fuch Philofophical di<5htes into our Crerd or Confetfion , and make them the very touchftoneof Orthodoxr.efs in others, is a dangerous prefumptuous adding to the Doftrineofthe Gofpel, and a making of a new Do-ftrineof juftification and falvation, to the great wrong of the Prophet and Lawgiver of the Church.

I was even now reading learned Zanchius proof that believers before Chrift did by their faith receive Chrifts flefh,or humane nature (as promiled and fature) as well as the Divine, and his heavy cenfure of the contrary Doctrine, as vile andunfufferable-, which occafio-nethme to add this Quere, Whether that believing was a phyfical reception, when the object had no re.il being or did not exift t Or whether meer morral reception ( by Accepting, Choofing, Confenting) as a people receiving the Kings Heires for their future Governours before they are born •, or as we receive a man for our King, whodwels far out of our fight •, Or as Princes wives do ufe to takfc them both for their Husbands and Soveraien Lords, even

in their own Native Countrey , before they come to fight of the man $ the match being both driven on and made, and the marriage or contract performed and imperfectly folemnized at thatdiftance by an Em-baffador or Delegate { juft.fo do we receive Chrift, (whofe humane.nature is far off, and his Divine out of our fight) to be our Saviour, Soveraign (by redemption) and Husband^even here.inour native Country 5 the match being moved to us by his Emhafladors, and imperfe&ly folemnized upon our cordial confent, and giving up our felves to him by our Covenant : (but it fliali be perfectly folemnized at the great Marriage of the Lamb.) This is my faith of the nature of true juftifying faith 5 and the manner of its receiving Chrift.

THE

C*f?)

|§ HE c Rgadermufl underflandtbat after tbisjhad aperjonal conference with thisT>ear and ^e~ <verend c Brother 0 wberein be fiillowned and infixed on the pafsivenefs of fuflifying faith^is^. That it is but a (grammatical aliion, {ornominatyandaphyfcal, orby. perpjbfcalpafsion- which alfo hegiveth us again in the T'reatife of Imputation of right eonfnefs.

FINIS-

«»

DISPVTATION,

Proving the Necefsityof a two-fold Righteoufnefs to f unification and Salvation. Arid defending this and many other Truths about Iuftifying Faith, its Objeft and Office, againft the confident,but dark Aflaults of Mr. John Warner.

By ^cbardTSaxter*

Ads $. 31.

Him bath Cad axalted with his right hand , a Prince and a Saviour ^ to give Repentance unto Ifrael, and forgiveness of fins.

Rom.4. 22,23,24,35.

And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteoufnefs : Novo it was not written for his fake alone that it was Imputed to him % hut for us aljo, to whom it fiall he Imputed, if we Believe on him that raif d up Jefus our Lord from the dead ; who was delivered for our offences, and was rat fed again for our Jnfttfication.

LONDON,

Printed by R. w. for Nevil Simmons, Book feller in Ke-

ditmirtftiTyZnd are Co be fold by him there , and by Nathar

mil Ekins^t the Gun in "Pauls Church-yard. itfj8.

(*5PJ

Queftion. Whether *Befides the%igh^ teoufnefs ofchrijl Imputed, there be a Terfonal Evangelical ^ghteoufnefs necejjary to fu/lification and Salvation ? Affirm.

Hough it hath pleafed a late Opponent (Mr. Warntr ) to make the Defence of this Propo-fition neceflary to me; yet I (hall fuppofc that I may be allowed to be brief, both becaufe of what I have formerly faid of it, and becaufe the Queftion is fo eafily decided , and Chrt-frians are fo commonly agreed on ir. For the right underftanding of what we here maintain, its neceflary that I explain the Terms, and remove confufion by fome ntceflary diftin&tons, and lay down my fenfc in fome Propositions that make to the opening of this.

To trouble you with the Etymologies of the words in fcveral Languages that fignifie Rightcoufnefs or ?*flification would be a needlefs lofs of time, it being done to our hands by fo mmy,and we being fo far agreed on it, that here lyeth no part of our pre-ftntcontroyerfie.

5* The Form of Righteoufnefs,fignified by the name is Relative^ M/lra'.t or brooked is. (For it is not the H ibic of Jufticcby which we give every nun his own, that is the Subje& of our Question , buc Righteoufnefs in a Judicial or Legal fenfe ) i. Righteoufnefs is either of the caufe, or of the ptrfon. Not that thefe are fubjeccs actually fepjtrattd but difiintl, the one being fubor-dinate to the other, rhe ^«/<r is the neareft fubje&, and fo far as it is juft and jn/Hfi *ble, fo far the per fan is juft and jxftifiible. Yet the perfon may otherftife be juft and juftified, when one or many caufes are unjuftifyable.

a. Righteoufnefs is denominated either from a Relation to the ^Precept of the Law , or to the Santlion. To be tight eons in Relation to the Precept, is to be conform to that Trecept • An Allien os Di/pofitioi conform to the Precept, if called a Righteous A&ion or Difpofition.- and from thence the ptrfon being fo far conform, is called a Righteous perfon : And fo this Righteoufnefs,, as to the pofitive precept, is his obeying it ; and as to the prohibition, it is his Innocency, contrary to that guilt, which we call Rea* tm culpa .

Righteoufnefi as a Relation tothe-iW?' ; *v , is either a Relation to the C ommiYlitlQn an d penal A& of the Law,or to the pro-mijfory or Premi int A % As to the former, Righteoufnefs is nothing, but the Not-duenefs. of the pwifbmnt , contrary to the Heatx/pana, ask refpe&s the execution ; and fo A not being ly-able to condemnation, as it refpe&s the fentenct. This is fometime founded in the perfons Innocency laft mentioned ; fome-time on a freepardoi or acquittance : fomerirne on fatiifaBion made by hrmfeff; An j fometime on fitisfjtlhn by another^on-jun& with free pardon ( which is our cafe.)

Righteoufnefs as a Relation to the 'Promife, or Premiant part of the Sanction, is nothing but our Right to the Reward, Gift, or Benefit, as pleadable and juftifyable inforo. Which fometime is founded in merit of our own -, fometime in a free Gift: fometime in the merit of another,conjvntt'rvith. free Gift, which is our c&fe, (other cafes concern us not,) This laft mentioned, is Righteoufnefs as a Relation to the fubftance of the Tromife or Gift t Buj when the Promife^ or G</>, or Teftamnty or Premiant Law h conditional, asinourcafeitis, then there is another fort of'

Righte-

Righteoufnefs riecefliry, which is Related to the Molut pro-miffionu, and that is, Tht performance of the condition : which if it be not properly called Rightcoutnefs Etbicaty, yet civilly in a Judiciary fenfeic is, when it comes to be the caufe to be tryed and Judged, whether the perfon have performed the condition, then his caufe is juft or unjuft, and he juft or unjuft in that refpeft. i j. Righteoufnefs xstkhtT Vniverfal, as toalicaufcs that the perfon can be concerned in: or it is only particular, as to fome caufe* only, and iobwifecundumquidto the perfon.

4. A particular Righteoufnefs may either be fuch as the total welfare of a man depends on ; or it may be of lefs and inconfi-derable moment.

5. When a caufe fubordinate to the main caufe \% Righteous, tbis may be called a. fubor din ate Righteoufnefs* But if it be part of the main caufe y it is a partial righteoufnefs co-ordinate.

I will not trouble you with fo exad a difquifkion of the Nature of Righteoufnefs and Juftification as I jadge fit in ic felf, both becaufe I have a little heretofore attempted it,and becaufe I find it blamed as puzling curiofity or needlcfs diftinguifhing : Though I am not of that mind, yet I have no minde to be trou * blefome.

As for the term *} unification, t. It either may lignite the A ft of the Latioor Promife : or the ftnttneecfthe judge ; or the Execution of'that fentenee; For to one of thefe three fences the word may dill be reduced, as we (hall have to do with ic • that is, to conftitutive,or fententiai, or Executive Ju^ifcatio^ ; though the fentence is moft properly fo called. To thefe, Juft'ftcatios by Plea, Witnefsficz. are (ubferittnt.

z. Juftification is either oppofed to a ■ faffe Accufation, ortO' a true.

3. In our cafe, Juftification is either according ro the Lift of vrorkj , or to the Laft of Grace.

I chink we fhall at this time have no g r e*t need toufe any more diftmftions then thefe few, and therefore I will add no more about this Term.

Astotbeternr [ Evangelical^ Righteoufnefs-may be fo caN kd in a:four-fold fenfe. 1. Eitncr becaufe it is chat righteouf-

Ll 3 ntfm

*ufs which the Covenant or Law of Gr4r* requireth as its CWs-*/<w* •, Or 2. Becaufe its a Rightcoufnefs revealedhy the GojJ*/; Or 3. Becaufe it is 5iv« by ihc Ge^f/ ; 4. Or becaufe it is a perfeft fulfilling of the Precepts of the Qosjel,

L'y \j. per/end] Righteoufnefs,wemcan here, not that wh ch is ou r s by meet Imputation, but that which is founded in fome-what Inherent in us,or performed by us.

[ Neceffity ] is 1. of a meet Antecedent. 2. Or of a Means: We mean the laft. Means are either caufes, or conditions.

I (hall now by the help of thefe few diftinctions give you the plain truth in forae Propofitions, both Negatively and Affirmatively, as followeth.

Propofition T. It is confejfedby all that know themfelves % or man andthe Law % that none of us have a Perfonal univerfal Righte-oufnefc For then there were no Jin, nor pi ace for confejfion % or par' don, or Chrift.

Prop. 2. And therefore we muft all confefs, that in regard of the Vrcceptive part of the Law of works ft#*r* *//unjuft, andcannoi be juftified by the deeds of the Law, or by our workr.

Prop. 3. And in regard of the Commination of that Law, We are all under guilt and the Curfe, and are the children of wraths and therefore cannot be jufiified by that Law, or by our works. 'Both thefe are proved by Paul at large % fo that none have a perfonal Legal Right coufnefs.

Prop. 4. No man can plead any proper fatisfaction of his dwn for the pardon of fin^and efc aping the curfe of the LaW : But only Chrifts Satisfaction, that fulfilled the Law , and became a curfe for us.

Prop. 5. I^o man can pit'ad any merit of'his o&n for procuring the Reward (unlefs as aftions, that have the promt fe of a Reward 9 are under Chrift improperly called 'merits) But our rigbtesufnefi of this fort is only the merit and purchafe of£hrift 9 and the free gift oftheCjefpelinhim.

Prop. 6. We have no one work that is perfedly juftifiable by the per}"e& precepts of the Law offtorkf: And therefore We have no legal perfonal Righteoufnefs at all that can properly befo called ; but are all corrupt and become abominable,*^* being none that

doth

doth good, no not one; Imperfect legal righceoufnefs, // an improper fpeech ; it is property no legal right*oufnefs at a/i, but a left decree of nnrighte oufnefs (The more to blame the) that call fan* clificationfo.)

Prop. 7. No man can fay tloAthe U a Co-ordinate Con-caufe "kith Chrifl in his f aft i fixation ; or that he hath the leaf} degree of a fatisfa&ory or Meritorious Rigbteou (he fs, which may bear any \a't in co-ordination With Chnftt righteoufnefs, for his jttftif cation or falvation*

Prop.8. We have not an) perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefc of perfe& obedience to the Precepts of Chrtft himfeif: whether U be the Law of Nature as in his hand> or the GoFpel pofitives.

Prop.o. Even the Gofpel perfonal Righieoufnefs a/outward works, though hit in fincerity, andnot perfeflion, is not necefft, ( no not as an antecedent ) toonr Juftification at the firfi.

Prop. 10.. External works e/Holinefs are not of abfolsue *etejfi-ty toaWvation). frit is poffible that death may fttddtnlj *fter C*«vtrfion^revent cfprtunitj : and then the inward faith and r*}t%t*nce will ftifftce : Though 1 thinks no man can give us-one izftaytce of fuctil man de fa&O *.: not the thief on the croft : far m\ cotftfiid prr.jfj, reproved the other k &c.

Prop. 11. /-/ here fincereObedience iTiry to Sal vauav.,

it is not aH the fame Ac's of

men, or at all rimes \ for rfa Matrerjw^> >;d jet tU ftace-

ri:y ofobtdunvecontinue,. But fome fpec;..1 Atls vri of Neceffi*. ty to the ilrctrity.

Prop 12.. 7fR:ghteoufnefs£* denominated from the Precept, drifts Obedience wm a perfed legal R ; gJ*Ceoufceii,, a,iJ**vdig a ferfetl vonformit) to the Loft : But not jo y$ £ . ■ _ 4jc a$ Ri&h) teoefnefc: for he gave ut many Laws for ihe application cf hi* Merits, that he wm Neither obligei to fulfil, xor capable of it. If 'Kjghttomffitfsle denom-nat'ed 'from the Proffiifc or previa part of the Law, fyri'fs rightjeopfnt m f+mt fort i<e rjh-

tPmfnifs of He Ltw of jpjr<;, meriiei aUjice reward

tktitLwi} *&u: h was prmcipjiy the rigbi the fps-

cial Covenant OfR^d^mprion ( b:iwie* -and him J )

but notvf Wt Ccvr-int ^ Grace made with man ( he-did *&& rtr ptn$.<cr ob:i ' wdon anifahaiionl .iTLeUever^

If Righteoufnefs be denominated from the Comminatory or penal part of the Law, then Chrifis fuiferings toere neither a ft;idly legal or an Evangelical righteoufnefs. For the Law required the fupplieium ipfms delinquents, and kneft no Surety or Subfti-tme. But thus forifts fufferings were a Pro-Legal-righceouf-nej's, as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening, but a full Sacisfaftion to the Law-giver, ( which vas equivalent) and fo a valuable confideration, Why the Law Should not be fulfilled (by our damnation ) but difpenfed with ( by our (ardon ) So that the Commination Was the caufe of Cbriftsfujferings; and hefuffered materially the fame fort of Death Which the Law threatened. But moft flrittly his fit firings were a Righteous fulfilling his pare of the Covenant of Redemption with the Father : 'But in no propriety Were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of Grace, again ft the Dejpifers or negleclers of Grace. 1 mean that proper to the G off el.

Prop. 13. Chrifl* righteoufnefs isWeS called our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, both at it is Revealed by the Gofpel, and conferred byit,andoppofed to the legal way of J unification by perfect per-fonal Righteoufnefs. So that by calling our oWn per fonal right e* oufneft , Evangelical, we deny not that Title to Chrifts, but give it that in a higher rcfpett t and much more*

Prop. 14. No perfonal righteoufnefs of ours , our faith or re* pentance, is any proper caufc of our firft Juftification, or of our en-teringinto*jufttfyed(late : Though as they remove Impediments, or are Conditions\ they may improperly be called caufes ; So much for the Negative Proportions,

Affirm. Prop, i. That a Godly man hath a particular righ • teoufnefs, or may be Juft in a particular caufe , there is no man can deny : unlefshewill make himVfie+fe then the Devil', for if the Devil may befalfly accufed or belyedy he is juft in that particular caufe.

Prop. 2. ^HChriftians that I know do conffs an Inherent Righteoufnefs in the Saints , and the necejfuy of this righteoufnefs to Salvation. So that this can be no part of our Comroverfie.

Prop. 3. Qonfeauently aUmuft confefs that Chrifts righteoufnefs imputed, is not our only righteoufnefs* Teafhat the rigbteouf-

mfi

(**D

nsfs of Pardon and fuftification from fin] is no farther necejfary then men art ftnners ; and therefore the left need any man hath of it, the better he pleafeth Chrift, that is % he had rather Vce would beware of fin as far as may be, then fin and fij to him for Pardon.

Prop. 4. And we are agreed I thinkjhatthe perfonal Righteoufnefs of the Saints isfo muck the end of Chrift s Redemption and Pardoning Grace, that the perfc&ion of this u that blefled ftate to Which he will bring them ; fo that when he hath done his work, San&ification flail be per feci ; but Juftificacion by Pardon of further fins,foall be no more; Heaven cannot bearfo imperfect a ftate.

Prop. 5. We are agreed therefore that our Righteoufnefs of Sandjfication, or the Dotlr'tne thereof is fo far from being any derogation or di/bonour to Chrift , that it is the high honour which he intended in his Work, of Redemption , that the Glory of Qod the Father, and of the Redeemer may everlafiingly Jhine forth in the Saints, and they may befit to love,and ferve, And praife him y Tit.

2.14.

Prop. 6 U ispaft all doubt that this Inherent Righteoufnefs confifteth in a true fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gofpel-Promife,*»^ afincere Obedience to the Precepts of Chrift. And fo hatha double refpetlioncto the Promife ; and fo it U conditio praeftita: the other to the Precept; and fo it is Officium prarfti-tum. AH Conditions here are Duties: but all Duties are not the Condition.

Prop. 7. 1 think^we Aa agreedjthat Juftificacion by Chrift as Judge at the great day , hath the vtry fame Conditions as Salvation hath, it being an adjudging us to Salvation, c^nd therefore that this perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs is ofnecef-fitj to our Juftificacion at^Qc Judgement,

Prop 8. And I think We are agreed that no man can continue in a ftate of fuftification, that cominueth r.ot in a ftate of Faith, SanRificaiion,Qnd fincere Obedience.

Prop. 9. We are agreed lam fur e that no man at age iijnftificd before he Repent and Btlieve.

Prop. 10 And we are agreed th.it this Repenting f.nd'Believing is both the matter of the Gofpel-Precepr, and the Cond ticn of

Mm the

the Pcoraife. Cbrifl hath made over to us himfelfwith his imputed Righteoufnefs and Kingdom t on condition thxt w repent and believe m him.

Prop. ll fit cannot then he denied that Faith and Repentance be-ingbotbikcX)\iy co ill mindset andthe Condition required and performed art t-ulj * particular fpecialRi^htedufnefs, fubordi-naceco Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, "in order to our further participation of him,ani from him.

Prop, 12. dndhftly its piftdifpute that tbx ptrtonti Righteoufnefs of Faith and Repentance, is not to be called a Legal, bxt an Evangelical Righteoufnefs, becaufeit is the Gofpel that both comroandeth them, and proraifeth life to thofe that perform them.

Thus methinks all that I defire is granted already: what Ad-verfary could a man dream of among Proteftants in fuch a Caufe? Agreement feemeth to prevent the neceffity of a further Difpute.

To be yet briefer,and bring it nearer an Itfue: If any thing of the..main Thefts here be denyed, it mufl be one of thefe three things, i. That there is any fab thing as Faith , Repen-cance or San&ification. 2. Or that they fhould be called an Evangelical perfonal Righteoufnefs. 3. Or that they zreneeef farj to fnfli^cation and Salvtaion : The firft is de exiften-tm rei t The fecond is de nomine : The third is de ufu & fine.

The firft no man but a Heathen or Infidel will deny.

And for the fecond , that this name is fie for it, I prove by parts. 1. It may and muft bs called A Righteoufnefs, 3. tA s? erfonal Righteoufnefs. 3* iAn Evangelical Rigbtcouf-vsefs. "**

2. As Righteoufnefs fignifieth the H^bitby which we give to all their own, fothis is Righteoufatfr. For in Regeneration fihe foul is habituated to give up it feif to God as his own, and Cogive up all we have to him, and to love and ferve all where ihis love And fervice doth require it. No true habit is fo excellent as that which is given in Regeneration.

i.-Thefincere performance of the Dutiet required of us by

£hs

C*«7)

theEvangelical Precept, js ^fincert Evangelical Rigkteou'ntfs s Bat our rirft turning to God in Ghrift by Faith and Reren-tance, is the fincere performance of the duties required of us

by the Evangelical Precept. Ergo. Object. The

Goffelrequirttb aft ft atexternalObedience and perfevirancc alfo. jfnfit. Not at the firft inftant of Converfion: For thatin-ftant, he that BtLeveth and Rtptntetk, doth fincerely do the Duty required by it: and afterward, be that continueth herein with Exprejfive Obedience, which is then part of this Righte-oufnefs.

3; The true Performance of the Conditions of Judication and Salvation, impofed in the Gofpel-Fromife, is a true Qof-pel Righteeufnefs : But Faith and Repentance at the firft, and Sincere Obedience added afrerward.are the true performance of thefe Conditions. Ergo.

4. It is commonly calied by the name of Inherent Righte* ohfr.ifs % by all Divines with one Confcnt: therefore the name of £ Rtgbteonfaefs 1 is paft controverfie here.

5. That which in Judgement mud be his;*/?/>*<* can fit, the Righteoufncfs of his caufe. is fo far the Right eo ft/heft ef ti\ per-fon : ( for the perfon rauft needs be righteous quotd kanc can-fam, as totbatc?ufe) But our Faith and Repentance will be much of the Righteoufncfs of our caufe at that day ( for the Tryal of us will be,whether we are true Believers, and penitent or not; and that being much of the caufe of the day,we muft needs be righteous or unrighteous as to that caufe : ) therefore our Faith and Repentance is much of the Righteoufncfs of our perfons^denominated in refpect to the Tryal and Judgement q( that day.

6. The holy Scriptpre frequently calls it R'ghteoufyiefs, ar.d calls all true penitent Eeiievers, acid all that fincerely obey Cbrift,£ righttws ]] becaufe of thefe qualifications ( fuppefin^ pardon of (jn, and merit of Glory by Chrift for us: ) therefore we may andmuft fo call them, /i/^.25.37,46. Then fl-aliikt

right eextar.faer- 'but ike righteous into life tttrnal^Ut.io.

41. He ih-t receivetio a t ighteons tp,i» in thf n*i*eof a > ijhteous man, fall receive s righecus wans rtwrd. Heb.ii.j. TZjfait'e Abel offend, —bywUcb he c{?ta nsl^itr.eft that he **as

Mm 2 ri'htcons,

)

righteous, God tefilfjiug of his gifts, i Pet. J. tz. To* the eyes of the Lord art over the righteous.—— • i John 3.7. He that doth righteoufnefsis righteous x even as he is righteous. Ifa. 3.1 o. Say to the righteous it Jhall be well with him. Pfal.1.5,6. Mat.5.6, 20. Anenemy to the faith, is called an enemy of righteoufnefs. A$si3.i°. 2Pet. 2.21. 1 Johnziip.and 3.10. Gen. 15.6. And hs believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righte-oufasfs. P&1. 106.3 1, Rom.4 3,5. Hi* faith is counted for righteoufnefs. ver .9. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for rightsoufiefs, ver. 2 1, 24. Therefore it Was imputed to him for righ <• teottfnefs. Now it Was not written for his fake alone, that it •was imputed to him, but for us alfoto Whom it jballbe imputed, if We believe on him that raifed up fefus our Lord from the dead. So Jam.2.23. Gal.3.6. If any fay that by [Faith} in all thefe Texts is meant Chrifls righteoufnefs, and not Faith, I will be-Seivethem when I take Scripture to be intelligible only by them, and that God did not write it to have it underftood. But that Faith is imputed or accounted to us for Righteoufnefs in a fenfe meerly fubordinate to Chrifts righteoufnefs , by which we ate jaftified, I eafily grant. }t\s to Satisfaction and CMerit we have no righteoufnefs but Chrifts* but a Covenant and Law we are ftill under, and not redeemed to be lawicfs ; and this Covenant is ordained as the way of making over Chrift and his meritorious righteoufnefs, and life to us : and therefore they being given or made over on Covenant-terms, there is a perfonal performance of the conditions neceffary : and fo that perfonal performance is all the righteoufnefs inherent or propria axioms, that God requireth of us now, whereas by the firft Covenant perfect Obedience was required as neceffary to life. So that in point of meer perfonal performance our own Faith is accepted, and imputed or accounted to us for Righteoufnefs, that is, God Will require no more as neceffary to Juflifixation at our oWn hinds, but that we believe in the righteoufnefs of another, .and accept a Redeemer (though once he required more : ) But as to the fatisfting of the Juftice of the offended Mfljefty^ and the meriting of life with pardon-, &c. So the Righteoufnefs of Chrift is our only Righteoufnefs. But nothing in Scripture w more plain then that Faith it felf is faid to be accounted

counted to us for Righteoufnefs ; and not only Chrift s oVtn righteoufnefs : He that will not take this for proof, muft expect no Scripture proof of any thing from me.

Eph. 4.14. The new man after God is created in righteoufnefs. Many other Texts do call our firft Converfion, or ftate of Grace,our faith and repentance , and our fincere obedience by the name of Righteoufnefs*

2. And then that it may, and that moft fitly be called an Evangelical righteoufnefs, I will not trouble the Reader to prove, left I feem to cenfure his understanding as too ftupid. Its eafie to try whether our Faith and Repentance , our Inherent Righteoufnefs, do more anfwer the Precepts and Promifeof Chrift in the Gofpel , or thofe of the Law of works.

3. And that this is a perfonal righteoufnefs, I have lefs need to prove : Though it is Chrift that purchafed it ( and fo it may be called the righteoufnefs of Chrift ) and the Spirit that worl^ eth it in us, yet its we that are the Subjects and the Agents as to the afi.

It being therefore pift'doubt that, 1. The thing it felfk txiftent and necefury. 2. That righteoufnefs is a fit name for it. 3. All that remains to be proved is the life of it, Whether it be necejfarj to Juftification and Salvation. And here the com* mon agreement of Divines, (except the Antinomians) doth fave us the labour of proving this: for they all agree that Faith and Repentance are neceflary to our firft Juftification ; and that firtcere obedience alfo is neceflary to our Juftification at Judge* ment,and to our Salvation.So that here being no conteoverfi*,F will not make my fclf needtefs work.

Obejd. 1. But faith andrepentar.ee are not neceffarj to Juflificd+' tion qua juftitia quaedam Evangelica, under the notion of 'a righteoufnefs\btit faith as an Inftrument ^andrepentance as a qualifying condition.

*Anfw. 1. We are not now upon thequeftion under whar notion thefe are neceflary. It fufficeth to the proof of our present 7**//, that a perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs isnecefla-«rjf,wh€ther^M/wornor, M ra 3 2. Bat

C*7°)

2. But the plain truth is, i. Remotely, in refpeft of it$ natural Aptitude to its office, faith is neceflary becaufe it is a Receiving Afc and therefore fitted to a freeGift , and an A Renting Ad, and therefore fitted to a fupernatural Revelation : And hence Divines fay, ItjuJIifiethasanlnftrument, calling its Receptive nature, Metaphorically an hftrument : which in this fenfe is true. And Repentance is neceflary, becaufe it is that Return taGod, and recovery of the foul which is the end of Redemption, without which the following ends cannot be attained. The Receptive nature of Faith, and the difpofiti%$ nfeoi Repentance, may bcaffignedas Rcafons, why God made them conditions of the Rromife : as being their aptitude thereto, %. But the neareft reafon of their Inter efi and Neceffity, is becaufe by the free conftitution of God, tbey are made conditions in thatPromife th$t conferreth justification and Salvation, determining that without thefethey (hall not be had,and thac whoever belicwh (hall notperifb, and if we re.pe.nt, our fins (hall be forgiven us. So that ibis is the formal or neareft Reafon of their neceffity and intereft, that they are thecon* ditions of the Covenant, fo made by the free Donor, Promi-mifcr, Teftator. Now this which in the firfl inflant and con-fideration is a condition, is in the next inflatf or consideration, a true Evangelical Rigbteovfiefs, as that Condition is a Duty in rcfpe& to the Precept ; and as it is our Title to the benefit of the Promife, and fo is the Covenant-performance, and as it bath refpeft to the fentence of Judgement, where this will be the caufe of the day, Whether this Condition was performed or not. It is not the Condition a* impofed, but as performed, on which we become juftified : And therefore as jententUl Juftijicati.-cn is paft upon the proof of this perfonal Righteoufnefs, which is cur performance of the condition, on which we have Tkle to Cbrifl and Pardon,and eternal life $ cvenfoour /unification inthe fenfe of the Law or Covenant, is on fuppofition of this fame performance of the Condition, as fuch ; which is a certain Righteoufnefs. If at the iaft Judgement we zreftntentid/jr juftified by it as it \$quadam jujlitia, a Righteoufnefs fubordi-natc to Chrifts Righteoufnefs, ( which is certain, ) then in

Law-fenfevieitejuftifiailt by icon the fame account, ^orto

be

btju.hfiedin p4it of law, is nothingelfe then to be j*JNjiJ4i l 0l

jatifiztnlu, by fentence ind execution according to that Ltw : ft) that its clear that a per fan d Righteoufnefs , ^ fate, is necef-fary to fxhfication % and not only 70* r«/«r ; though this be beyond our Qjeftion in hand, and therefore I add it bat for eluzi-dation and ex abundanti.

Object. 2. If this befo % then men are righteous before God doth ynftifietherru.

zAnfw. 1. Not with that Righteoufncfs by which he juftifieth them. 2. Not Righteoufnefs (imply, abfoiutel/or jniverfally, but only fecundum qdd, withapirticular frghte-eufnefs. 3. This particular Righteoufnefs is but ^he means to poiTefs them of Chrifts Righteoufnefs, by which they are materially and fully juftifled. 4. There is not a moments diftancc of time between them : For as foon as we believe and repent we are made partakers of Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, by a meer refultancy from the Promife of the Gofpel. 5. Who de-nyeth that we have Faith and Repentance before Juftifka-tion ?

Object. 3. But according to thU Do&rim w* are jvftified before we are jvftified ' For £* that is Righteous u con/li* tuted juft, andfo Is juflifable in fudgement,which is to bejuftified in Ltw.

Anfw. Very true : But we are as is faid, made fall or jafti-iied but with a particular , and not an univerfal Righteoufnefs j which will not donominite theperfon (implya Righteous or juftified perfon : we are fo far cured of our former Infidelity and Impenitency, that we are true penitent Believers before our fins are pirdonei by the Promife : and fo we a-e in order of nature (not of time) firft jnftiflible igttnft ticfalfe Asca-fation, that wears impenitent V^believers , before we are justifiable agiinft the true a:cnf*tion of all our f;; , and de fere of HtlL He that by inherent Faith and Repentance is no: fcft judicable agiinftche former fa!fe charge, canno: by the blood

and

and merits of Chrift be juftifiable againft the latter true accufa-tion. For Chrift and Pardon are given by the Covenant of Grace,to none but penitent Believers.

-ObjeA. 4. Bj this you confound'Junification and San&ifica~ on : for inherent Righteoufnefs belongs not to Juftification^ but to SanUification.

4nffr. Your Affirmation is no proof, and my diftinguifh-ing them is not confounding them. Inherent Righteoufnefs in its firft feed and ads belongs to Sanclification, zs its Begin* ing % or firft part, or root .-And to Juftification and Pardon as a Means or Condition: But Inherent Righteoufnefs, in its flrength and progrefs, belongs to SaviBification as the LMatteroi it, and to our final Juftification in Judgement as part ofthe means or condition .-but no otherwife to our firft Juftificationjhtn as a ne-cefTary fruit or confequent of it.

Objcft. 5. By this means you make Sanclification to go be* fore Juftification^ as a Condition or means to it when Divines con$i

monly put it after.

j4nffr. 1. Mr. Pemble, and thofe that follow him, put San&ification before ail true Juftification, ( though they call Cods immanent eternal A&,a precedent Juftification.) 2. The cafe is eafie, if you will not confound the verbal part of the controverfie with the Real. What is it that you call San-edification i 1. If it be the firft fpecial Grace in Ad or Habit, fo you will confefs, that Salification goeth firft; For we repent and believe before we are pardoned or juftified. 2. If it be any further degrees or fruits, or exercife of Grace, then we are agreed that Juftification goeth before it. 3. If it be both begin-ing and progrefs t faith and obedience that you call SanUification, then part of it is before Juftification, and part after. All this is plain h and that which I think we are agreed in.

But here I am invited to a confideration of fome Arguments

of a new Opponent, Mr. Warner in a book of the OhjeEh and Office of Faith. What he thought it his Duty to oppofe, I take it

to

C*73)

to be my Duty to defend : which of us is guided by the light of God,I muft leave to the illuminated to judge,wncn they have compared our Evidence.

Cflfr. W. / noft come to frew that both tic*ft kinds of Rights* oufnefs, Legal and Evangelical, are not abfolutelj necefnrj to

Jufttficatiox. - f do undertake the 7{jg4t.ve ,

and will endeavour to prove it bj theft demonstration!. Argument I. // things in themfelves contradittorj. cannot be afcrtb-edto the fame perfon or attion, then both theft kjndf of Right eouf r.eft tire not abfoltttel)necejfarj to make up our J unification : But things in themfelves contradictorj cannot be afcribed to the fme

perfon or aft ions,There fore 1 Thefequell it thus proved by Paul.

If itbeofVPorlrt, it U no more of Grace : ifofQrace^ then it is no more of workj. rVhat are therefore theft two k'tn% of Figb-teoufnefsJbut cuntradiclorj to each other f And therefore it Jeemeth illogical Theologie to predicate them of the fame perfon or ailx. 12.

An fur. Reader. I crave thy pardon for troubling thee with the Confutation of fuch Impertinencies, that are called Dt» monjirations : It is I that have the bigger part of the trouble: But how (hould I avoid it without wrong to the Truth ? Seeing ( would you think it / ) there are fome Readers that cannot difcern the vanity of fuch Arguings without AfiT:-ftance.

i. What a grofs abufe is this to begin with, ro conclude that thefe two forts of Righteoufnefc are not neceffrry^fo trakf. #/T]our 1 ! ufttfication ,when [he Queftion was only whether they are neceflfary [ to~\ our Ju/iificatioK. [ Cfca\}nf up ] expnfTcth the proper caufality of the conflitu'ive caule?, { matter and form, ) and not of the efficient or final; nauch lefs tbe Inte-reft of all other means, fuch as a condition is. So that I grant him his conclufion.takingjuftification as we now do Oar "Faith or Repentance goeth not to make it up.

And yet on the by, Ifhall add,that if any manuiiim'eds take Juftification for Sanclification, or as the Pap ft? do crnr-prehenfvelj for Sah&ification and Pardon both ( as feme Pro-

Nn ttfhrt

(2-74)

seftant Divines think it is ufed in fomc few Texts ) in that large jfcnfe our Faith and Repentance are pare of our justifying Righteoufnefs. But I do not fo ufe the word, ( Though "Philip Qodurcus have writ at large for it. ) 2.1 deny his Confequence ; And how is it proved? By reciting Pauls words,Ront. 11 6, Which contain not any of the terms in th.2 queftion.P*#/fpeaks of Ele&ion: we of Jufttfication(though that difference I regard not.) Paul fpeaks of works, and we fpeak of Evangelical Faith and Repentance. In a word therefore I anfwer. The works that Paul fpeaks of are inconfiftent with Grace in Juftificatiori ( though not contradictory, but contrary, what ever Mr. tf'.fay.-Jbut Faith and Repentance are not thofe works • and therefore no contrariety is hence proved. Here is nothing therefore but a ra(h AfTertion of Mr. fV. to prove thefe two forts of Righteoufnefs contradictory. Be judge all Divines and Ghrifttans upon earth :• Did you / ever hear before from a Divine or Chriftian, that imputed and inherent Righteoufnefs, or Juftification and Sand:ification,or Chrifts fulfilling the Law for us r and our believing the Gofpel and repenting were contradictory in themfclves ? Do not all that believe the Scripture v believe that we have a perfonal Righteoufnefs, a true Faith and Repentance, and muft fulfill the Conditions of the Promife ^ and that in refped to thefe the Scripture calls us Righteous ? ( as is before proved.)

Mr. W.2« If the perfon jufiifiedis ofhimfelf ungodh , then Legal and Evangelical Righteoufnefs are not both abfolutelj necejfa-ry to ottr fuft fication : But the perfonjufrfied ( conftderinghim

in the att cj juflfywg)is fijherefure. -The Sequel is undeny-

able^ becaufe he Who is ungodly is not Legally Righteous j and that the perjon nob to be juftifisd is ungodly,is exprefs Scripture r Rom. 4. 5. But to him that V9or\eth not, but btlieveth » him that ftifi fitthshe urgodly Jas faith is counted for righteoufnefs.

Axjw. i. T fuppofethe Reader underftandeth thaj the Legal or rather Pro-legal Righteoufnefs, that I plead for, is Chrifts

Merita

C*7?)

Merits and Satisfaction made over to us, for the effects- and that the pcrfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs is our believing and repenting. Now thac thefe are both necelTary, this very Text provetb,whichhecitethagainftit. For the neceflicy of Chrifts meritorious Righteoufnefs he will not deny that it is here imply-ed : and the neceflity of our own faith is twice expreft, [To him-that believethjois faith is counted for right eoufr.efs. ] If it be the Being of Faith thac this Brother would exclude, it is here twice expreft: \i it be only the naming it [arighteoufnefs~] That name alfo is here expreft. How could he have brought a plainer evidence againft himfelf ?

2. To his Argument, I diftinguifti of [Vngodlinefs~\ If it be_ taken for an unregenerare impenitent unbeliever, then I deny the M'nor, at leaft infenfu compofito • A perfon in the inftanc of J unification is not an unbeliever; This Text fhameth him thac will affirm it. But if by [Vngodlf\ be meant \_Sinners % or per-f<%nsiinjuftifyable by the works of the Law, who are legally im-pipw] then I deny the confequence of the Major, Do I need to tell a Divine that a mac may be a finner and a penitent Believer at once. The SyrUck^ and £f&/0p/V^tranflating the word £ finners ] do thus expound the Text; and its the common Ex-pofitionof moft judicious Divines. It is not of the Apoftles meaning to tell you that God juftifieth impenitent Infidels, or haters of God : but that he juftifieth finners, legally condemned and unworthy, yet true Believers,as the Text expreffeth.

3 . If any rejecc this Exposition, and will take [ ungodly ] here for £ tke Impenitent , ] then the other Exposition folveth his Objection, viz,. They were Impenitent and Unbelievers, in the inftant next foregoing, but not in the inftant of Juftification .* For faith and Juftification are in the fame inftant of time.

4. Rather then believe that God juftifieth Infidels contrary to the text,I would interpret this Text as Bez>a doth fome other, as fpeaking of Juftirlcarion as comprehending both Converfion and Forgivenefs, even the conferring of Inherent and Imputed Righteoufnefs both; and fo God juftifieth Infidels them-felves; that is, giveth them fir ft faith and Repentance,and then forqivenefs and eternal life in Chrift.

5. But I wonder at his proof of his Sequel [Becavfc he

Nn 2 \*ko

who is ungodly isnoi legally righteous] whit is that to the Que-ftion ? It i-s Legal righteoufnefs in fori]} that Juftifieation giveth him: Therefore we all fuppofe he hath it not before : But he is perfonally Evangelically Righteous as foon as he Believes, fo far as to be a true performer of the Condition of Juftifieation •, and then in the fame inftanthe receiveth by Juftifieation that Righteoufnefs of Chrift which anfwereth the Law.

Mr. W. If nothing ought to be averted by tu Which overthrows tsJpoftolical writings , then the neceffity of a two-fold

righteoufnefs owght not to be aprted ^ But Ergo.^— The

Sequel if proved by this Dilemma. Apoftolical Writings are utterly again ft- a two-fold Righteoufnefs in this Worl^; therefore to affert both thefe kinds Is to overthrow their writings. For to rfhM pur-pofedid?&u\ d'/pute againft Juftifieation by works of the L*w^ if the right eoufnefs of Faith were not fujficient I And certainly if both were required as abfolutelynecejfury , it would argue ose-tream ignorance in Paul if he fhould not have known i> 3 and a* great unfaithfulnefs if\ &c. '

jfnfw.Eilhtr this Writer owns the *wo»fold Righteoufnefs that he difputeth againft, or not: If he did not, he were an Infidel or wretched Heretick., directly denying Chrift or Faith ; For Chrift is the one Righteouihefs,and faith the other. If he do own them ( as I doubt not at all but hedoth/is it not good fervice to the Church to pour out this oppofition againft words not under-Hood, and to make men believe that the difference is fo material as to overthrow the Scriptures ? But to his Argument, I deny the confequence of the Major ; and bow is it proved ? for-footh by. a D*lemma t ( which other folks call an Enthymeme) Of which the Antecedent (That Apoftolical Writings are againft a mo-fold righteoufnefs)'\z proved by this Writers word. A learned proof 1 into which his Difputations arc ultimately refolvcd. It is the very work of Tauls Epiftles to prove the neceffity of this Two-fold Righteoufnefs ( unlef* you will with the Papift* call it rather two parts of one Righteoufncfs,) Chrifts merits and mans faith, one in our furety, the other wrought by him in ourfelves^v

Bur,

Bur, faith he, to what purpofedid /Wdifpate againft Tufti-fication by the works of the Law, If the Righteoufnefs ot fa ch

were not furficicnt? 1 a nfwer you, t. Becaufe no man hath

a perfonal legal Righteoufnefs: BiK VauI never difputed againft a legal Righteoufnefs in Chnft, or his fulfilling die Law, or be-ing made a curfe for as. Do you chins he did ? 2. A R'ghte-eufnefs of faith is furficicne; for it fignifieth this two-fold righteoufnefs. i. That righteoufnefs which faith acceptcth, which is [ of F tith ~] because proclaimed in the Gofpel, and is the obyft of Faith -, and yet it is legal, in tha: it was a Conformity to the Law, and facisfacrion to ?he Law-giver. 2. Faith it felfc which is a particular fubfervtent Evangelical Rigetcoufncfs, for the application and pofTeffion of the former.

And now was here a fit occafioi to fpeak fo reproachfully of 3>4*4, as extream ignorant, or unfaithfull,or immavi* foth'-fta ? and all becaufe he would not deny either Chrift or Faith ? Sure «2W hath let jis fee by revealing botb^tbat he was neither ?gnorant,unfaithfufl nor a Sophifter.

CMr. W.4.// both Legal and Evangelicat righteoufnefs fterz thus required to tbepHrpojeofjuf}ifp>4g > then it mufi be becaufe the

Evangelical is of it ftlf inefficient. But For if Chrifis rt gk»

teoufnefs be infufficient to Salvation Joe Were not a fufficient Saviour y and if the Righteoufnefs of Faith in him wire ofufelfinfuffi* ant,

Anfi*. By tbtstime I am tempted to repent that Iracdled with this Brother. If he live to read over a reply or two, he may poffibly underftand them that he writes againfl. He will prove that a Legal Righteoufnefs is not neceffary , becaufe Chrifts righteoufnefs (which is it that I called legal ) is fufficient. Its fufficient alone: therefore not Necefarj. Am not I like to have a faic hand think you of this Difputer? To his Argument once more I diftinguifh: Evangelical righteoufnefs ii twofold 1. That which theGofpel revealeth and offereth ; and this is Chrifts righteoufnefs, therefore called Evangelical: but alfo Legal, becaufe it anfwered the rule of the Law of works>and its ends, 2, That which the Gofpei bach made the

N-n 3 Con--

C*78)

Condition of our part in Chrift and his righteoufnefs: and this is Faith it felf. Both thefeare fufficientto Juftification : but Faith is neither fufpcient , nor is Faith without Chrifts legal righ-teoufnefs : And Chrift is fufficient Bjpothetically , but will not be tffe&nd to our Juftification without Faith ( and repentance. ) But perhaps this Writer means only to (hew his offence againft my naming Chrifts righteoufnefs legal. If that be fo, i. I have given in my reafons, becaufe there can be no better reafon of a name then from the form .• and the form of Chrifts righteoufnefs being relative, even a conformity to the Law of works ( and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption, ) I thoughc did fufficiently warrant this name. 2. The rather when I find not only that he is faid to fulfill the Law and all righteoufnefs, and be made a curfe for us,but alfo to be righteous with tjhat rightc-oufnefs,which is denyed of us^which can be none but a legal oc prolegal righteoufnefs. 3. But yet if the n,ame £ Legal] bewail. I could ealily have given this Brother leave to dy% fronvme about a name without contention, and methinks he might have done the like by me. ;

Mr.W. Qbje&.But -what if work} and faith Veer e both of them apptyedte procure our fufitfication f

Anfw. This Objection yet further Chews, that the Author underftands me not ( if it be me,as I have reafon to judge that he writeth againft ) for he fuppofeth that its works that 1 call a legal Righteoufnefs, when I flill tell him it is Chrifts fatisfa&i-on and fulfilling the Law, of which our faith or works are.no part, but a fubordinate, particular, Evangelical Righteoufnefs.

Mr. W.5. If both theft kinds of Righteoufnefs Were abfolutely necejfary^ then Where one of them is Wanting in a perfon, there can

be no fafti ft cation of that perfon. But —r~— Ergo. -y—For

Where Was any Legal Righteoufnefs of the good thtffoi the Crofu condemned for legal unrighteoufnefs . ?

An\fat

Anfo. I deny your minor. The converted thief had a legal rigbteoufnefs banging on the next Crofs to him; even Chrift that then was made a curfe for him, and was obedient to the death of the Croft. I begin to be a weary in writing fo much only to tell men that you under ftand me not.

tJAtr. W.6. If legal Rightecnfntft be thus necefiaril) to be joined Kith our Evangelical Righteoufnefs to Juftificatiin, then there muft be two formal canfes tffuftification*

Anfw. I deny your confequence. If the formal caufecon-fift in remiflion and imputation as you fay , then Chrifts meritorious righteoufnefs is none of the Form, but the Matter. And if befides that Matter a fubfervient particular righreoufnefsf of faith ) be neceiTiry as the condition of our Title to Chrift ; this makes not two forms of this J uftification. 2. And yet I grant you that it infers a fubfervient Juftification that hath another form, when you are made a Believer, or juftified againft the falfe charge of being no Believer(or penitent)this is not remifiion of fin,but another form and thing.

Mr.W.-j. That Which makjth void thrifts death % cannot be abfolutelj r.ecejfarj to Juftifisation. Hut legal righteoufnefs maktt voidkis Death y Q%\.2.i\.

Anfw. Its a fad cafe that we muft be charged with making void (Thrifts Death, for faying that he is legally Righteous, by fatisfying and fulfilling the Law ; and that this is all the legal righteoufnefs that we hive. I am bold cherefore to deny the Minor: yea and to reverfe it on you, and tell you,that he that denyeth thrifts legal Righteoufnefs, denyeth both his death and obedience. The Text gal 2.21. fpeaksnotof the Law, as fulfilled by Chrift, but by us. Righteoufnefs comes not by our keeping the Law, but it came by Chrifts keeping it : yet fo,thac the Gofpel only giveth us tha-t righteoufnefs of his.

*MrlW. 8. That Which concurs with another efficient , mufi

kivt

C280)

■have both an aptitude ana* Confluence to produce the iffeft: but the Latt> , andconfequently Legal righteoufnefs hath no aptitude to give life , Gal.3.2.

%Anf#. This is Difputing enough to make one tremble , and loath Difputing. Is there no aptitude in Chrifts legal Rightc-oufnefs to give us life ? The Law doth not give us righteoufnefs, but it denominateth Chrifl righteous for fulfilling it f and the Law-giver for fatisfying ) and to that it had a fufficient aptitude. The Text Gal. 3,2. faith truly that the Law giveth not life 1 but firft it fpeaks of the Law as obeyed by us, and not by Chrift, that fulfilled it. Secondly, And indeed its fpeaks of Mo-/«Law; andnotdire&lyof that made with A Jam. Thirdly, And it denies not that Chrift fulfilling it may give us life,though the Law it felfgive us none,fo that all this is htMts the bufinefs,

Mr. W. 9. That ^ottrine which doth mofi exalt the grace of God, ought to be admitted before that Vthick doth leafl exalt it ; "But the Doftrine of purification by Faith alone , as our Goifel* righteoufnefs doth mofi exalt his Grace\and the other left. Ergo.

tsfnfw. Still mifunderftanding ! Doth the Dodrine of faith alone without Chrift advance Grace ? Thats no faith. You do not think fo : that which denyeth Chrift or faith denyeth Grace.

Mr* W. i°« That opinion which confidtreth a per fort under a two-fold Covenant at the fame time, ought not to be admitted : 'But to require both Legal and Evapgelical Righteoufnefs , is to confider him under the Covenant ofworl^t and Grace : I conclude therefore-that two forts of righteoufnefs are not nectffarily required to our J unification.

tsfnfft. How far we are, or are not under the Covenant of works, I will not here trouble you by digrefling, in this rambling Difputc to enquire. But to your CMinor 1 jay, this opinion confidcrech man only under the curfe of the Law till Chrift take it off him,by being made a curfe for us , and making over the fruit of his merits and fiiffcring to us.

C*8i)

Mr. W. 2. As for the Sub jells ofthefe kinds of 7{Jghteouf. ntfs y I thus declare. I. That jefus (fhrift and hi alone who vas truly endued with Legal righteoufnefs, who at he no* made under the LaW 1 fo he did not dejiroy but fulfill it ; and if he had not been the fubjecl of Legal righteoufnefs in himfe/f , he could not have been the ^Author of Evangelical Righteoufnefs to its.

Anfw. Here after all thefe Arguments, I have all that granted me that I contend for (Yuppofing the Imputation or Donation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, whether in fe or in ttfettis* I now difpute not.) You have here his full confefiion that Chrift had a legal Righteoufnefs: Let him but grant the imputation of this, and then its ours: And then I have granted him that it may be alfo called Evangelical in another relpect.

' Mr* W. p*g.l66. 1 thinly it to be no incongruity in /beech, or Paradox in Divinity ;> t*f*y that Chrt/ls Legal righteoufnefs is our Evangelical righteoufnefs ,i Cor.1.30. 2 Cor.5.2i.Jer.23.8.

Anfto. Sure we (hall agree anon, foralltheten Arguments. Heres all granted but the name as to us. Many and many a rime I have faid, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs made ours is Legal inrefpc&totheLaw that it was a conformity to, and which it anfwereth for us; but Evangelical as declared,and given by the Gofpcl. But the thing in queftion you now fully confefs.

A/r.W.pag.iji. That We our felves are not the fubjefts of Evangelical righteoufnefs , / jball endeavour to frove by theft Arguments. 1. If our Evangelical righteoufnefs be out of us in, Chrift , then it is not in us, confifting in the habit or Acls of faith and Goff el obedience ; but it U out of stain Chrift.

Anfw. We fhall have fuch another piece of work with this point as ehe former, to defend the truth againft a man that lay-eth about him in the dark. 1. I have oft enough diftinguiflit of Evangelical righteoufnefs. The righteoufnefs conform to the Law, and revealed and qfiven by the Goffel is meritorioufly and materially out of us in Chrirt. The righteoufnefs conform to the

(iSi)

g*fp*I t as conftituting the condition of life, £ He thxt believeth fbaUnot ferifh : Repent and be converted that your fins &ay he blotted *#*,] This is in our felves materially, and not out of us in Chrift.

Mr.W. 2. If fatiifaftiou to Divine Jtiftice were not given or caufedby any thing in ut , but by Chrift alone , then Evangelical

righteoufnefs it in Chrifi akne. But Ergo — without blood

no remiffion.

Anf*. Your proof of the confequence is none ; but worfc then filence. Befides the fatisfa&ion of Jufticc and remiflion of fin thereby; there is a fubfervient Gofpel righceouihefs, as is proved, and is undeniable.

Cftfr. W. $. If Evangelical righteoufnefs be in cur [elves \ then ferfetl right eoufnefs U in ourftlv^h But thats not Jo. Ergo.

Anfw. Still you play with the ambiguity of a word,snd deny that which befeems yoiwifet to deny , that the fulfilling of the condition [Believe and Live'] is a Gofpel-righteoufnefs , particular and fubfervient and imperfect The Saints have an Inherent righteoufnefs^ which is not Legal : therefore ic is Evangelical. If you fay, its no right eoufnefs , you renounce the con-ftant voice of Scripture. If you fay, it is a Legal righteoufnefs imperfect, then you fet up Juftification by the works of the Law, ( the unhappy fate of blind oppofition, to do what they intend to undo. J For there is no righteoufnefs which doth not juftifie or make righteous in tantum : and fo you would make men juftified partly by Chrift, and partly by a Legal righteoufnefs of their own, by a perverfe denying the fubfervient Evangelical righteoufnefs, without any caufe in the world, but dark-nefs, jealoufie, and humorous contentious zeal. Yea more thtn fo, we have no works but what the Law would damn us for, were we judged by it. And yet will you fay that faith or inherent righteoufnefs is Legal and not Evangelical ?

Mr.Vf.^ If Svangclical righteoufnefs Were in ourfelvet^nd

did

coajifi iither in tire habit or x new obedience, thin

*fon the int ere iff or, of tb*fe *;?/, cu> J pficatron noxld discontinue. Bnt y

An fa. If you thought nor your word rauft go for proof,yon would never fare expeel that we fhould believe your Conk, quence. For i .What fhew is there of reafon that theinterc fion of the ad ftiould caufe the cefTacion of that Juftificarion which is the conft quent of the Habit ( which you put in your Antecedent?) The Habit continuetbinourfleep,when the ads do nor.

2. As long as the caufe continueth ( which is Chrifts Merits and the Gofpel-Grant ) Juftification will continue, if the condition be bw fincerely performed (For the Condition is not the ciufe, much lefs a Phyfical caufej But the condition is fincerely performed, though we believe not in our deep. I dare not in-ftance in your payment of Rentjeft a Carper be upon my back; but fuppofeyougiveaman a leafeof Land? on condition he comeonceamoneth, or week, or day,andfay, Ithanl^jou, or in general, on condition he be thankful. Doth his Title ceafe as oft as he (huts his lips from faying, / thank, jou ? Thefe arc ftrange Doc%mcs.

Afr.W, 5. If Sv angelic aI right ecufrefs were in our felves^ and faith ftttb our GoJfef obedience ftere that right etufnoffi then he Tvin hath mere or left faith or obedience .were more or lefs juftifi-***, and more or lefs Evangelically righteous , according to the de-g ees of faith and obedience.

v4nftr. I deny your Confequence, couiidering faith and repentance as the Condition of the Prdmife ,* becaafe it is the (in-ctritj of Faith and Repentance that is the Condition , and not the degree? and therefore he rhat hath the leaft degree of fin-cere faith , Bath the fame title to Chrift as be that hath the ftrongefK

2. But as faith andohecKencc refpedtht Precept of theGo£ pel, arid act the Pnwr/'T Co it is a certain truth, that he that btttunoft of them, hath moft Inherent Righteoufneff.

O02 Mr.\V.6.

Mr* VI. 6* That opinion which derogates from the Glory and Excellency of Chrifl above attGraces y and from the excellency of Faith in its Office ofjuflifying above other Graces , ought not to be admitted : But this opinion placing our Evangelical Righteoufnefs in the habit, aft, or Cjrace of faith and Gotfel obedience derogates from both Chrift and Faith*

Anf». Your Minor is falfe, and your proof is no proof, but your word. Your fimilitude fhouid have run chus. If an Ad of Oblivion b/ the Princes purchafe, do pardon all that will thankfully accept it and com* in and lay down arms of Rebellion ; it is no derogating from the Prince or pardon to fay, I accept it, I ftand out no longer, and therefore it is mine If you offer to, heal a deadly fore on condition you be accepted for theChy-rurgion; dothjt derogate from your honour \£ your Patient fay, Idoconfent and take you.for myCbyrurgion , and. will take your Medicines?

Your proof isas vain and null, that it derogates from faith* What, that Faith fhouid be this fubfcrvient Righteoufnefs? Doth tbatdiflionour it?Or is it that Repentance is conjoyncd a* to our firfl Jaftification,and obedience as to that at Judgement ? When you prove either of thcfe dishonourable tofaich, we wilt believe, you ; but itmuft be a proof that is ftronger then the Gofpe 1 that is againft you. We confefs faith to be the receiving Cfinditio% and repentance but the difpofing Condition : but both* are Conditions . As for Phil.^.g. Do you not fee that it is againft you t I profefs with ?««/, not to have a righteoufnefs ofmyoWn Which is of the Law, ' which made me loth to call faith tmd repentance a legal righteoufnefs )but that which id through the faith of Chrift % the righteoufnefs Which id of Qod by faith :] Faith you fee is the means of our Title to Chrilts Righteoufnefs : And if you deny faith it fc!f to be any particular Righteoufnefs, you ma'i make it a fin, or indifferent, and contradid the Scriptures. And prefently contradicting what you have been arguing for ( that Evangelical Righteoufnefs is not in us 9 and we are not the Subjects ef it : ) You profefs fag, 178. That Inherent Righteoufnefs is in as.

C*80

It fcems then either Inherent r\ghuoufnt)i is not righttouj-nefs % or it is not EvMngeOcsi bat Legator it is in us,and not in us.

Had yon only pleaded that we are not juftified by it as a Righteoufnefs , I (hould have anfwered you as before on that point. Not as a Legal R ghteoufnefs ; nor an Evangelical Righteoufnefs co ordinate with Chrifts • but as a fulfilling of the Condition of that Promife, which gives us Chrift, and Pardon, and Life ; by which performance of 1 the Condition , the Benefit becomes ours by the Will and Grant of the free Donor; and we are no longer impenitent Infidels , but juft, and juftihable from the falfe charge of being fuch; and fo of not having part in Cbrift. Its one thing to be accufed of fin as fin : And another thing to be accufed of the fpecial fin of not accepting the Remedy : and fo of having no part in Chrift and his Righteoufnefs. From the later we rauft have a real Faith and Title to Chrift, which rauft materially juftific us: but from the former, even from all fin that ever we are guilty of. Chrifts Righteoufnefs only juftifieth ur materially and naeritorioufly, and our faith is but a bare condition.

Go |

j&

C*S6)

<5^/ Confutation of the Error ofSVfr. Warners 13 th Chapter about fuftu fication, and the inter eft of Obedience therein.

HE begins with a falfe Intimation, that we revive the Pa-ptfts htft and fecond Juftification : and he that will be. Heve him, may take his courfe for me : I crave only liberty foe my felf to believe that it is not all one to have Juftification begun and continued, and that Juftification by the fentence of the Judge, is not of the fame kind with Juftification Legal by the Donation of the GofpeL If I may not have this Reverend Brothers leave to believe thefe matters, I will believe them without his leave. And that the Papifts have fuch friends among us,as thofe that make the world believe that fuch things as thefe are Popery, I will alfo lament, though fuch Difputers give not their confenc.

His Endeavours to overthrow thatDo&rinc of mine which he namethof [ fecond fufiification]beg\npag. 223, where he argucth, l. from Rom. 5. 12,3. That the beginning and end 14 afenbed to faith. Anfwer. Its all granted; faith is ic that we are juftified by to the laft. We are agreed of this inclufively; But the Queftion is, wbats the Exclufion : Not believing in Cbr'tft4s Lord*nd Mafttr % mr Uvinghim ^ but the works that make or arc fuppgfed to make that Reward to be of debt, and not of Grace.

His fecond proof is from <Pbil. 5.7*8. To which I anfwer. Wt are of PshIj mind, but not of yours. 1, He counted all

u

(*»7)

as lofs and dung that flood in oppofuion to, or competition wirhChrift: and To would I do by faith and love it (elf, thould they be fo arrogant. 2. Pia/exprefly natneth the works chat he excludeth, that is, toe Right eoufnefs which u of tic- La. ?, or in Legtlftorkj- And do we make any doubt of thu ? No,nor of thofe works that materially are Evangelical : for if they arc formally'Evangelical, they cannot be fee up againft Chrift, their very narure being to fuhferve him.

Once for all, remember this A r gumcnt. Thofe works thar are commanded byGpd in the Gofpel, are not excluded by God in the Gofpel in that nature and to the ufe for which they are commanded. But faith in Chrj/t Jefus the Lord and Saviour, ( an entire faith ) and Repentance toward* Grd and love to him are commanded by God in the Gofpel in order to the par<jon of fin ; and the continuance of tfcefc with iincere Obedience, are commanded as w?a*s of our continued pardon, and as a mear/sof our final Juft.flcatton at Judgement. Therefore none or thefe are excluded by the Gofpel from any of thefeufcsorends.

He citeth alfo, Aci. 15. and Heb. 2.0. and Rom. 1.17. toas muchpurpofeasthe reft.

"Pag, 228. He begins his Arguments. The firft is [ Becaufc in vain art additions of numberswithout which any thing may be done : But without addition of Vporkj the att of jvfttfpng is

ferfeft, Srgo.] Anfwer. 1. As if the Queftionwcreof the Att of juftifpng^gad not of Justification paffively taken.Gods aft hath no imperfeftion , when yet it makcth not a perfeft work. 2. Itsbutfpleen and partiality to harp upon the term .[" works^\ dill to feduce your Readers to believe that I am for fuch works as P*«/denyeth.I ufe not the phrafe of \funification by works'] nor think it fit to be ufed,unlcfs rarely, or to explain fuch texts of Scripture as doule it,or terms equipollent. 3jufti-fication is neither perfeft nor real, without a faith in Chrift as Head and Husband, and Lord, and Teacher , and Interceflbr, as well as a Sacrifice for fin, Nor is it perfeft or true, without repenting and loving Chrift. 4. Juftification is fo far perfeft atfirft,astrntnofinpaftor exiftenc is unpardoned. But it is not fo perfeft, but that, 1. Many future finsmuft have renewed

(2,88)

newed pardon. 2. And means is to be ufed by up, ( believing again at leaft ) for that end. ?. And the continuance of pardon is given us but conditionally, (though we (hall certainly perform the condition.) 4. And themoft perfect fort of Ju-ftification ( by fentencc at Judgement ) is ftill behind. Arc thefe things doubtfull among Divines or Chriftians ? That the Church mud be thus molefted by fuch difputing volumes againft ir, to make the Papifts and other enemies believe we hold I know not what ? Read the many Arguments of learned Sand-ford and Farmer de 'Difitnf* % *nd Bp. VJhtr de Defcenfie ( to the Jefhite ) by which they prove that all Separated fouls, as fepa-rated, are under penalty,and that Chrifts foul as feperated was fo: and then tell us whether your fancy of abfolutely perfect Juftificatiori at the firft will hold or not. I wonder that men fliould fo little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven; a finner in fle(h,and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God '? and (hould dream of fuch perfection (hort of heaven, the place of our perfection ?

His fecond Argument is, £ Faith and works are here contrary : If of Faith, then not of works ] Anfwcr. Its true of the works that Paul excludes: but not of the works that you exclude : For Faith in Chrift is Q Works ] with fuch as you, fave only that ad that refteth on his fatisfafcion for righteoufnefs: And repentance and love to Chrift, and denying our own righteouf-nefs 3 are work* with you. And all thefe are neceflarily fubfervienc toChrift and Grace, and therefore not contrary. A^gufline^i after him the School-men, put it into their moft common definition of Grace,that its a thing [ qua nemo male utitttr. ] And as to efficiency its certainly true: Grace doth not do any harm : And if I may prefume to tell AHiu$inexh*x.\jb)e£livdf\ Grace may be ill ufed,yet perhaps he mightrepIy,[not qua uluWithout contradiilion^ln good fadnefsjs it not a ftrangc thing for a man in his wits, to exped to be justified in co-ordination with Chrifts merits, by denying that he hath any merits of his own that can fo juftifie him, and by repenting of thofe fins that have con-demned him, and by defiring, loving, hoping in Chrift alone for his Juftification : or by ThankfuLnefsto God for juftifying turn by the folc merits of Chrift ? And is it not a ftrange Expc-

fition

fition that feigned P \*l to mean and exclude Toch a6bas thefe under the name or work-. Bur yet reallv if fuch a man be to be found, that doch thsnkro men: J unification by denying fuch merir.I am aga'nft him as well a^ you. .

His third Argument is, \_ f fdtthjujtifie o*,ly 44 the banning of our J ufitp cation, tier, here **e d grees of j-uftifi<a'ion : but there are no degrees. £rgo. ] tsfnffrer. 1. Faith is neither the Beginning nor End of Juft rication , but a means of it. 2. If you would infiriuatechac I deny foith to be the means of our continued, as well as btgun Juftjrlcation, you deal deceitfully. 3. I deny }our Consequence. It may prove more neceflVy to the £e»ttKuaxceot our Juftinxati on* then to its beginning, and yer prove no degree? 4. Rutiioy JuAtficattonhach or hach not Degrees,I have told you before, and fgl cr in other writing*.

His fourth A r gumenl is, £ Bectufegood &orly da not prtctdf, brnfoUovrfuftifictuon.^ Anfwer. 1. Repentance,.and xhc Love of God in Cbrtft, aud fairh in C'bnfr as Lojvland Head* and Teacher, do go before the pardon of fio, and fo before Jultification. ;z. External obedience g^eth be ore Jtjftifica-tion ac Judgcimen^^nd Justification as continuediere.Did you doubcofchefe?

. 1 His fifth Argument is, that [ Thefe tfto JvfijficatioMs pper-throw each other \ If b) one ve have peace w±tlr>G*$ % what neeA the pthtr? How c*n good wwJzj perfefi our fu^ification^ketng themjtlvet imperfeU * J Anfwer. A I] | his is ajrxfw^red in the fecond Difputation. 1. Its no contradi&ioa to be juftified fcyGod, byChnft, by Faith, by Words,by Works, if God be to be believed, riiat affimerh all. 2. As impeded fairji may be tbe condition of parcon, fo may imperfect llepen, tance, .and iroporiect Obedience pf our fenuncial Abfoiu-ton.

Pag.,*jg. He aniwereth the Objection. £ Bleffednefs ti *fcrifadt0 vtfar Gracef*l[ thus Not 4s ifH ipWigjs &ere in them peiie,/^^«/f as they are fii»s. "] Answer. Proofing is more th<n tsffiribmg: 1;$^ great advantage for you to bave the forming of your 'Objections. 2? Happme^.pr/ir is as raucbioLove,asmFaish, *nd more. 3. Ochcr Graces

Pp are

(2^0)

ire medi* 9 means, which is more then only works.

Pag. 241. He proves that works juftifie not fubordinate to Faith 2 cnus L Argument 1. No good workj Were found till faith had done its Workj ] Anfwer. 1. Faith hath not done its work till death- we are not juftified only by the firft ad of faith ; but by after-ads to the D^ath. 2. Faith in ChriftasHead,andLord, and Teacher, and Defirc and Repentance were found before Faith had juftified us. 3. O-bedience is found before the fentential Juftification, or thf continuation of our firft received Righteoufnefs*.

His fccond Argument is, [ Becaufegood rvorkj are the effetls ef Faith and Juftification, and therefore cannot be the caufe, ] Anfwer 1. They are none of the caufeatall. Its not well to intimate that we hold them the caufe, as in defpight of all our own denyals. 2. They are not fo much as Means or Antecedents of that part of Juftification, of which they are the effect. The act of faith which vou will exercifc before your death, is as true a condition ( or Inftrumenr,if you will needs call it fo ) of your Juftification a; continued, as your firft act of faith was of your Juftification as begun. And yet that act of faith is but the fruit of your firft Juftification, as well as Obedience is.

His third Argument is, that \ If GofyelObedience % and good work* do fubordinattly aU with faith to the effe11 hg of J unification y then the Juftification which proceedethfrom both, muft bt of a different kjnd and nature. ] Anfwer I. Neither faith nor works effect Juftification. 2. Juftification by Promife and Gift, and Juftification by Sentence, Plea, &c. are much different. 3. But your confequence is nothing worth. For thefe are not caufes.but conditions. And if they were^et different catrfes may concur to the fame effect, which never man before you denyed, that I know of. Our cafe is, as if to a Rebellthat hach forfeited Life and Eftatc,the King (upon a Ranfom ) grant him both, on condition that he thankfully accept them as the fruits of that gift and Ranfom, and to hold them on condition, that he often do his Homage to the King, and return not to Rebellion. Doth the firft acceptance here ferve turn for continuance of what is firft received,

ceived,without the following Homage and Fidelity ? or do the different parts of the condition make fuch a difference in the benefit, as you here take the[ Monftrous fvfttficttion ] to be ( asyouraflilycallit?)

Another Argument is, [ If faith be a total caufe or condition of producing the t{fel~t of purification , then thirt's na want of obedience fcr its afpftance. ] Anfwer I. F*i:h or obedience are no caufes of pardon. 2. I will not trouble the Reader to open the (hame of that Philofophy which you make fuch oftentation of. Only I would remember you, that caufes totals ftiogenere y may have others under them. And that it followeth not, that the fun (hincth not, or the fire heateth not, or that you underftand not, and wrote not thefe words, though I fuppofe you will fay that God is Caufa total* of all thefe acts: nor yet that God doth ufe his creatures becaufe of an infufficiency in himfelf. 3. Faith taken for our \be-coming Believeri •, Difciples, Chriftians~] is the total condition of our firft Receiving Juftification. 2. Faith taken more narrowly for our accepting ChriftsRighreoufnefs,is not the total Condition of our firft Receiving of Juftification. 3. Obedience is part of the condition of the continuance of ir,and of our fentential Juftification. And whereas you talk over and over of [_Total caufes, and particular canfer. ] I tell you again they are no caufes.

He adds that then £ obedience dsth nihil agere, or actum agere. ] Anfwer. }t doth nihil efficere. But befidcs,["»/M] and [fatlum ]thert's twotlvngs oft mentioned , Juftification at Judgement, and the non-amiflion of it here.

3. Heinfipidly again difputes that L If an effect doth totally proceed from any cauft, then it totally depends on it. ] And what then ? Therefore ic folely dependeth on it .- And if thefe things were true, what are they to our queftion ? But faith he, [ When gtod wor^jhe fruit of faith are interrupted , yet oHr f unification abide J by the {ingle influence of faith only as a total caufe of its being and confervition. 3 Anfwer. I. Alas / What would fuch Difputantsdowith the Church, if Gods mercy did not hinder them 1 By your own Argument now, neither God,nor Chrift, nor the Gofpel are any caufes of pur Juftifi-

Pp z cation.

(Z<?2)

eation. For you fay Faith Is a Total cau r e y and there can be but one Total Caufe i unlefs you iofeche honor of your Phi-lofophy. 2. Faith is no proper caufe at all. \ Did you not fee what muft needs be anfwered you That Faith is interrupted as well as Obedience and yet no imercifion of out jt>ftiicati>n. When we fleep wedonot.atleaftalwayjactfaith no mare then obedience (iffo much. ) And the habit of both concinueth together deeping and waking : And if you fhould give over love and fincerity of obedience, you would ceafe to bejuftified.

His laft Argumenc is, [ "Secaufi for fins after Converfiov, We muft have recourfe only bj faith to Chrift > as our Advocate. ] Anfwer. i. That fpeaksonly of renewed pardon for particular fins, but not of our Juftiricacion ac Judgement, nor the non-omifiion here. 2. We muft have recourfe to Chrift with Repentance, andefteem, and felf-denial, and defire, &c.a$ well as that aft of fairh which you plead for, as the total caufe* And when you would fctZanchy againftZ^c^you do but mif-underftandhim. He faith truly with Paul, that neither in whole or part are our own works ( fuch as Paul fpeaks of) ourRjghteoufnefs, that is, to anfwer the Law as Paul mentioned,or any way to merit or fatisfie, or (land in co-ordination with Chrift. But Zdnchy never thought that Repentance and Faith in Chrift as Head,and Lord, and Defire, and Gratitude , &c. might be no means or Conditions of any fort of Juftification, or of that which we affertthem to be means of.

I would anfwer much more of this Difputation ; but I am pervaded the j idicious Reader will think I have don? him Wrong,in troubling him with this mu:h. See p*g. 298, 299. how he anfwereth the Objedlon, that pardon is promifed to Repentance, &c I will not difparage the Readers under-ftanding fo much as to offer him a Confutation of that, and much more of the Book. Only his many Arguments on the Queftion of my flrft Deputation, I muft crave your Patience, whik I examine briefly, and I will tire you with no inore.

LMr. W. pag. 411,412. / toiti rally up my Arguments again]} theforejaid Definition of Faith to he an accruing of C 4U Lord and Saviour ; proving ilo.-it Chrift on' 1 a* Saviou* and Pr>eft % offering kinfelf up to the death of the Crois for our ftnt y is the proper Objeft of' juftif.ing Faith, as jt*/fif}ihg. Arc ume'iC J. If the Faith of the Fathers under the oLd Teft*ment )S\u direeim td to (fhnfl us djing Vneft and Saviour ; then atfo the Faith of Believers now ought [0 to be diretted.TSut. — Ergo.

Anfvf. i. I grant the whole, and never made queft : on of it. But what kin i*theconc!ufion of this Argumenc cochae which you had co prove, unlcfs £ Only J had been added. Did we ever deny that Faith tnirt be diredcJ to Chrift as Prieft? 2. A Saviour isa termrefpe&ingour whole S.ilvarion, and fb Chrift faveth by Teaching, Ruling , and judicial jufti-fying as well as dying. 3. The Fathers faith did not: refpeft Chrift as dying or fatisfj ing only, which you fhouid prove, but cannor.

Mr. W. Argument 1. If Chrift as djing % and at Saviour do fat is fie Cjods Jufticr y ani pacific a finners confctenee i then art djing and Saviour he it the Ob\tft of l^ftfj^g Faith. But ! Ergo.

Anf*>. The fame anfwer ferveth tothisas tothe laft. The conchifion is granted, but nothing to the Queltton, unlefs [Only ] had been in. 2. Chrift as obeying actively , and Chrift as Rifing, and as interceding , and as judging, as King, doth alfo juftifieus, Rom. 5.19. Rom.*, 24,15. /c^w 8.33^4* ^M2,]7. and25-34,40. Perufe thefe Text* impartially, and be ignorant of this if you can. 3. And yec the Argument wiH not hold, that no act of taich is the condition of Juttifica» tion, but thofe whofc object is confidered only as juftifymg. The accepting of Chrift to ianctifte us,is a real pare of the condition of Justification.

P p 3 * Mr*

CMr % W- Argument 3. IfChrifl as Lord be property theObjeEl of fear, then he u not property the Objetl of Faith as juftifjifig : But-— Ergo,-

Anfvp. I. I f [ Properly ] be fpoken de propria quarto modo % thenisChrift properly the Objed of neither, that is, he is not the objed of either of thefe Oxlj. 2. But if [ properly ] be oppofed to a tropical, analogical, or any fuch improper fpeecb, then he is the Objed as Lord, both of fear, and faith, and obedience, &c. 3. The deceit that ftill mif-leads moft men in this point,is in the terms of reduplication, [faith as jttftifjting, ] which men that look not through the bark, do fwallow without fufficient chewing, and fo wrong themfelves and others by meer words. Once more therefore underftand, that when men diftinguiCh between^/ qua jufti-ficans, and qua jufttficans, and fay, [ Faith which jufttfieth, accepteth Chrifl as Head and Lord ; but faith as juflifying 9 taketb him only as a 7rieft. ] The very diftindion in the later branch of it, [quajuftificans. 2 Js 1. Hither palpable falfeDodrine. 2. And a meer begging of the Queftion 3. Or elfe co-incident with the other branch, and fo contradidory to their afl fertion. For 1. The common Intent and meaning is, that ^Fites qua credit in Ckrift urn ]ufiiftcat : And fo they fuppofc that Faith is to be denominated formally [juflificans^ab objttlo qua objeSlum : And if this betrue> then^i qua fides juft if-cat: Tor the objed is effential to faith in fpecie. And fo in their fcnCc 9 [fides qua jufttficans ] is but the implication of this falfe Dodrine, that hacfides in Ckriftum crucifixum quit talis jvfli-fcat. Which I never yet 'met with fober Divine that would own when he fawit opened. For the nature and eYTenceof faith, is but its aptitude to the office of juftify ing, and it is the Covenant or free Gift of God in modo prowittendi, that af-figneth it its office. The nature of faith is but the Difpofitio materia ; but its neareft interefi in the effed is as a condition ©f the Promife performed. 2. But if by the £ qua juflificans'} any fhould intend no more then to define the nature materially of that faith which is the condition of Juftifkation, then

the

(^)

the qua and the cjhx is all one : and then they contradict their OWnAflercioryhac[/j^/ qua)xftificans nor, rea:tt Chrift hm nt'Dominnm. ] 3. If the [ q*a J {hould relate co the effect, then ic would only exprefs a diltmccion between fnftificmism and other Benefits, and not between faith and faith. For then quajvftiftcans] (hould be conrradiftindt only fi om cjua fancrificarsj or the like. And if fo, i: is one and the fame Faith and the fame aces of faith, that fanctific and juftifie. ; As if a King put into a gracious act,to a company of Rebel*, that they (hall be pardoned, honoured, enriched, and all upon conditionof their thankfull acceptance of him,snd of this act of GraceiHcrc there is no room to diftinguifh of their Acceptance, as if the acceptance of pardon were the condition of pardon, and the acceptance of riches were the condition of sheir Riches, &c. But it is the fame acceptance of their Prince and \xi% Act of Grace, that rmh relation to the feveral confe-q jent benefits,& may be called pardoning^onouring&enrich-ing in feveral refpects. 11 is the lame marriage of a Pr nee that makes a woman rich, honourable, &c. So it is the fame faith in whole Chrift,as Chrift, that is fanctifying and juftifying, as it relateth to the feveral Benefits.- that is, it is the condition of both, fo that their^a* jujlifi ats^dozh either intimate this untruth, that hac flies qnt talis , id efi, qua fides in Ckriftum crucifixum jnftificat ] ( which is true , neither of one act,nor other, ) and fo begs the Queftion, or elfe it faith nothing. So that I fhail never admit thisfn juftificans, without an Ex. pofiiion; and better then yet I have feen from any that ufe it.

Mr. W. Argument 4. Thit which is the fMm and fultftance of Evangelical preaching , h the objetl of 'fnfiifjing Faith. 'Bm Chrift as crucified, is the fubfiance of Evangelical preaching, Ergo.

Anfw. i. When I come to look for the condufion which excluded Chrift as Lord, Teacher, &c. from being the object, I can find no fucb thing in any Argument tbat yet 1 ice. They have the fame face as Mr. BUkfs Arguments had,to conclude

C*9.<0'

dude no more rb^n what I prant, thic is, that Chrift as crucified, is the object or juuirying faicb. >ut whercsthe £'£?*//.»] or any exclusive f the reft. 2. but if it be impived, then 1.1 fay of the term crucified, that Ch,it* crucified to purchafe fanctifi.cat»on and frlvation, is the object of that faith which is the condition « f Jutificanon, and not only Chrift crucified to procurt jufttficatton. 2.1 deny the Minor, if by Qfum and fubftarce (\ i>u exclude Chrifl as Lord, Teacher, Judge, Bead C#c* Surely Evangelical preaching contained* Chntis Refur-rection, Lo;ci-(hip, Jntercefiion, &c. as well ashisxleathjor elfe the Apoftles preached not rhe GoipeMbis needs no proof withihcm that have read the Bible.

Adr.W A gum. $.That Khich we fbould defirc to know above all things js tht Obje-i of j up ify ing faith : But that isChrlft cm' cifisd. -Ergo.

Anfw. i.^till the Queftion wanting in the condufion : Who denyeth thac^ trill crucified is the object of juftifying faith ? 2.But if [only jbe here understood .really doth nottthis Brother defire toJinow Chrift obey ing,Chrift nfen^Cbrift teaching,ru-ling,interceding,^? I do.

Mr. W. Argument 6* That in Chrift h the objeB *f faith, asjnfiifying whnh being apprehended doth juflifie hs : But the deatbuffering, vloodtfbedittice ofChrifi to de*th u that. Therefore /t u the proper objeM offaith t as jufiif)ing.

Anfe. 1. I diftingu : fh of the term [ as jujlifying ] and an-fwer as before. No aft of Faith cffe&eth our Juftification ; and whole faith is the condition s 1 he being or Nature of no ad is the formal or neareft reason of faiths inrereft inJuftifV cation It juftifiech not \jh this *tt y nor as that.^ 2. If [only~\Gi fome exclufive be not implyed in the condufion,! grant it iwll: Bur if it be, then-both-Major and Minor ««re rfalle. .1. The Major is falfe «, for it h ^not onlv ihe tmarter jof iour Justification, that is the object of jufttfyingfaifh. To affirm*h«„ is but to iegihe queftion: weuxpe# lyoariproof. 2. The

Minor

1

Mnor is falfe : forbefides the iufferingsm?nrioned, the very perfon of Chrift, and the adive obedience of Chri , and the Title to pardon given us in the Gofpel, &c. apprehended by faith do juilfie. But the queftion is not what juftirleth ex parte ChriJIi, but ex parte noftri.

Mr. \V. Argument 7. That which the Gospel doth firft pre-fentuswith, utheOb)dl of faith as ^ftifying : 'But Chrift h in the Gofpel firft frefcr.ted as a Saviour : therefore he ts therein the objett of faith as j"ft*fj*"g'

A'fw. 1. Diftinguifriing as before of the £as )uftifying ] I ftill grant the whole ; the exclusive and fo the queftion is ftill wanting in the conclufioru 2. But if he mean i»lj s then both Alaior and CMinor are falfe. The M«ior is falfejfor that which the Gofpel doth firft prefent us with, is but part of the objed of jufttfying Faith. For it prefentethus with the Articles to which we mufl: A (Tent, and to the Good which we muft Accept by degrees, and not all in a femence or word. The Minor is falfe, becaufe in order of nature , the Defcription of Chrifts Perfon goech firft, and of his Office afterward* 3. The word Swiour, comprehendeth both his Prophetical and Kingly Office, by which he faveth us from fin and Hell • as al-fo his Refurredion, Afcention, Interceflion ; &c. And in^hfs large fenfe I eafiiy grant the Condufion. 4. If by a Savi* ottr^ he mean only ( as his caufe importeth ) a facrifice for fin, then (as this is a ftrangely limited fenfe of the word Saviour^ fo ) certainly the Incarnation, Baptifra, Temptation, Miracles, Obedience of Chrift are all expreft before this; And if it were otherwife, yettheconfequencebfthe Afaior is utterly ground-lefs and vain.Priority or Pofteriority of any point delivered in the Gofpel, is a poor Argument to prove it the ObjeS ( much lefs it alone) of juflifying faith,

Mr.W. Arguments. 7 h.tt which the Lirds Supper doth as .a feal prefent to jvftifjfing faiths that is the objett of faith as juftifjixg : Bat the Lorc:s Supper doth prefent its with Chrift as

djivg. Ergo.

Qq jiuf*.

(zp8)

Anfto.i. Still the queftion is wanting in the conclufion. Whac a pack of Arguments are here? 2. Do you believe in your confeience, that Chrift is prciented and reprefented in the Supper only as dying ?

M*-.W. Argument p. If Veebave Redemption and rem\fflon of fins through f*itb in bis blood, then faith at juftifpng jbould only lookuponthat : ButVee have redemption and remiffion of fins bj his bloody Col.l.

Anfvf. Here's one Argument that hath the qucftion in the conclufion. But 1. I deny the confluence of the CMajor t as not by Chriftians to be endured. The Q only] followeth not. Though we muft be juftified by his blood, 1 have proved before, that we are alfo juftified by his Refurrcftion, Obedience, Interceflion,Judgemcnt s d"f. 2. Moreover the confcquencc is falfe on another account : Juftifying faith, that is, Faith the condition of Justification , muft look at more in Chrift f then that which purchafeth Redemption. It juftifieth not efficiently, nor of its own nature, but the Promife juftifieth without faiths co-efficiency; only it makes the condition fine qua non: and this it may do by another Aft of faith, as well as that which apprehendeththeRanfom. 5. The [quajuftifin cans^ Ibavefpoketo : Qua cannot here properly refer to the nature of the faith, but ro the Benefit. And fo ftiith qua jftftificans, is neither this aft, nor that aft, nor any aft ; but Iqua jufitficans^ noteth only its refpeftto Justification rather then to Sanftjfication, or other benefits. As when I kindle a fire, I thereby occafion both Light and Heat, by putting to the fewel. And if you fpeak of that aft of mine [ qua calefa-ciens: or quailluminans ) this doth not diftinguifb of the nature of the aft, but oftheRefpeft that the fame Aft bath to feveral effefts or confequcnts.

C^r.W. Argument 10. JfChriji only aj crucified be the Meritorious faufe of our Redemption and fuftification, then Chrift crucified u the onlj objebl of faith a* fts^ifjing. But-*- - -Ergo.

exf»/tt\

Anfw. i. The confcquence of the CWajor is vain and an proved. More then the Meritorious Caufe of our Redemption is the objedt of juftifying faich. 2. The Minor is no fmall errour in the Judgement of moft Protectants, who maintain thatChrifts a&ive Obedience, and fufaring life, are alfo the Meritorious caufe of our Juftifkation, and not only his Cn*. cifixion.

Mr. W. Argument 11. ifChrifl as a ftrvant did/at is fie Gods Juftice, then he is fo to be believed on to Jujfification. Bui as a fervant he did fatisfie Gsds Juflicc ■ Ergo.

An ftp. i. I grant the conclufion. Chrift as a fervantisto be believed in. 2.But if [only 1 was again forgotten', I further anfwer. 1. I deny the confequencc of the Major , becaufe Chrift 15 to be believed on for Juftifkation in other refpeds, even in all eflential to his Office, and not only as fatisfying. I inftanced before in Obeying, Rifing, Judging, from exprefs Scripture. 2. If the conclufion were granted, its againft you and not for you. Fori. A&ive obedience is as proper to a fervant as fuffering. 2. Chrift Taught the Church as a fcrvant to bis Father, andisexprefly called ACMinifter of the Or-cumcifion. So that thefe you yield the objects of this faith.

Mr.W. Argument 12. If none can call Chrift [[Lord] before he be juft'fieJ by faith, then faith as jfs^ifying is not an Accept <nghim as L^rd. The Minor is true , becaufe none can call hint Lord, but by the Spirit : and the Spirit is received by the hearing off.i;h, after we believe t

Anfxv. Any thing muft ferve. 1. Both Major and Minor are fuch as are not to bz fwallowed in the lump. If by Calf] you mean the calloi the voyce, then the confequencc of the Major is vain and groundless. For a man may believe in Chrift with the heart as Lord and Saviour, before he call him fo with the mouth. But if by {_C a ^\ y° u mean [Belteve^\ then the Milt & fo confefled by all Proreftants and Chriftians that Q_q 2 ever

(3oo)

ever I heard from of this point, till now: For they ali confefs that faithjn Chrift as Lord and Teacher, and Head, &c. is the fides qua ju/lificat, or is of necelfity to be prefent with the believing in his blood, that a man may be juftified. Never did I hear till now that we firft believe in Chrift as dying only, and fo are juftified before we believe in him as Lord, ( and it feems before we are his Subjects or Difaples,and that is ; before we are Chriftians.J %. To your proof of the Minor I anfwer, i. It is no proof becaufe the Text faith only thar f £ No man can call him Lord but bj the Spirit ] but our quefti-on is of Believing , and not of Calling which is C.°rf e Jfi n g* 2. Many Expofitors take it but for a common gift of the Spi-ri" thats there fpoken of : and do you think Juftification mud needs precede fuch common gifts? 3. But if it had been \_ 'Believe in ftead of CaA ] its nothing for you : For I eafily grant that no man can believe in Chrift as Lord but by the Spirit : but I deny that this gift of the Spirit is never received, till after that we believe and are juftified. And becaufe it feems you judge that Believing in Chrift to Juftification is without the Spirit, I pray anfwer firft what we have faid againft the Armintans^ and Augnftine againft the Pelagians , for the con* trary. Who would have thought that you had held fuch a point ? 4. How could you wink fo hard as not to fee that your Argument is as much againft your felf as me , if you do but turn it thus ? [ // none can call Chrift Jefusjr the Saviour , or believe in him to Juftification, before joe be juftified by faith, t-hen faith a* jnftifjing is not the accepting him as a Saviour; The UVUnor is proved, becaufe none can call him Jefus, or believe to Juftification but by the Spine] This is as wife and ftrong an Argument as the other, and all one. Sec 1 lob. 4.15. &5-5- Believing in Chrift as Saviour is as much of the Spirit, ss believing in him as Lord. 5. The Text makes againft you ( 1 Qor % 12.3.) For there when Paul would denominate the true Chiftian faith or Confcftion , he raa&eth Chrift as Lord the Object,

Mr.W. Argument^. If the promife- of Salvation be 4?e proper objeclof juftifjiug faith, then not the cowmaKsIs of Chrift as LordasdZaVp-givtr. But*j_ Ergo. Anf

G^)

tsfnfft. i. The condufion is nothing to our Queftion.wbich is not of Commands, but of Chrift as Lord. I: may be you know no difference be:weentheRela:ion and fubfequcnt Duties, between cbe A andtbeCommand, be:'..:r, je&iona^dobedicnce. 2. The Mmaris ftlfc, If by you mean Only ( and if not, the confcquencc is vain and rullj ForthePerfonof Carift, and hi> Office, and the of his Office, even Pardon, yea and ( are the true Objects of juftifying F2

f . \V. Argument 14. Ifm**e not bj Rlgk-

teonfnefs Inherent and Impu;: :€ ) ir, & C

Lord and LaVr-giver. Ba: Ergo.

Anfip. Wha:? t!.i ; r otheQueftion? 1. About Ju on by Righ Is Imputed or Inherent we fp re.

2. The conclufion never was acquainted with our Queftion > Again it fcems you cannot or will not diftingu fh between Relative fubje&ion and a&ual obedience. A man may become your fervant and fo have the Priviledges of a fervan:, by covenant, before he obey ycu. A woman i 3ge may fubj;ct, I"e:felftoyou. and bavelntereft in your eftace even by that Marriage n mifeth fubje&ion as well as Lovefwithoui excluding the firfl from being any condition of her Intereft; ) and ail this before (he obey you, 3. Your confequence would follow as much againft your feif as me. For Believing in Chrift as a Ranfom, is a particular Inherent Righteoufnefs, as believing in him £5 Lord. 4. We are juftified by R : ghteouf-nefs Inherent as a pa: though not as a 11-

;rfal: as ::> ChriftsR': efs that it may

be oursj though not. it.

Mr, \V. Argument 15. **}***& rf fl

and La\\'-giver b; 'erij or formally fait' "opcrty

to beealUdobedience , rmaBy juftifiid by f*'ub

tyim Lord,xor i»7 cttr t to h'»m as Lsr.i. B t ftch an

acceding of him is not properIr. cr in the account of God,

(3oi)

felf Faith or obedience. Ergo.— The Minor I prove : if purposes t intent iwsy or verbal profejfions to believe or obey are not properly faith or obedience , then fuch an accepting u not faith or obedience. The Minor proved. That which is or may be found in Hypocritet or Reprobates is not true faith or obedience. Bh 'Ergo.

Anfo. The Lord pardon the hardnefs of my heart that ' hath no more companionate fcnfe of the miferics of that poor Church , and the difhonour of God which fuch Difputes as this proclaim ; by Arguments as fie to be anfwered by Tears as by words, i. A little before he was proving ( Argument 12.) that none could call Chrift Lord but by the Spirit, and therefore this ad was after Juftiflcation : And now he provcth that its common to Hypocrites, & Reprobates. 2. Here he delivered me from all the trouble and fallacy that the diftindion of fides qu& Jufiificat and fides quajuftificat, hath been guilty of. For if the ad that we difpute about, be no faith at all, then it is not the fides qui. And yet he often is upon the Qua Juflificans himfelf, forgetting this.

3. Had I but delivered fuch a Doctrine as this*, what foculd 1 have heard t Justifying faith hath three Parts, ASSENT, CONSENT, and AFFIANCE , ( which alfo have fcvetal ads or part?, according to the divers efTential pares of the Object.) ASSENT is but Initial and introductory to the rsft, as all acts of the'lntellcct are to thofcof the Will. CONSENT is the fame which we here call ACCEPTING, which is but themeer VOLITION denominated from its refpect to the offer and thing offered. This, as it is in the will, the commanding Faculty, fo is it as it were the Heart of Faith ; the firft act being but to lead in this, and AFFIANCE the third, being commanded much by this , or depending on it : For as it is feated in the Affedions, fofar itisdlftinct from this Velle or CONSENT. Now when ever we name Faith by any one of thefe three acts ( as the Scripture doth from every one) we include them all, though to avoid tedi-oufnefs we ftand not to name all the parts, when ever by one word we exprefs the whole. And all thefe Acts have whole

Chrift

G°3)

Chrift in all the effentials of his Perfon and office for their object. Now thacthis faith in Chrift as Lord, or accepting him, (hould be faid,andtbatby a Chriftian Divine, and that in the Reformed Church, to be no faith at all, fro fay nothing of his denying it to be obedience; ) is ne matter of honour or comfort to us. How oft doth the Scripture esprefly mention faiih in our Lord Jefus Chrift ? Receiving Chrift Jefus the ' Lord, Col 2.6. with other equipollent terms. But I will not offer to trouble any Chriftian Reader with Arguments for fuch a Truth.

4. But yet the man would bethought to have Reafon for what he faith; and to his proof I further anfwer. 1. Purposes, Irttevtiensi and verbal Prcftffions were none of the terms or things in queftion : but Accepting or "Believing in £fa*fi as Lord, Tetcher&c. Thefe are but concomitants (the two rlrft) and ( the laft ) a confequent. 2. Is it the Act [_ Accepting] that this Brother difputeth againft , or is it the Object | Chnfl as Lor a ] as being none of the faith by wliich we are juftified ? If it be the former, 1. What Agreement then hath this Argument with all the reft, or with his queftion? 2. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the holy Scripture, that caileth Faith a Receiving of Chrift , and maketh it equipollent with [Believing in his Name"] John 1.1^12, C0I.2.6. 3. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the Proteftant Faith, that maketh Chrift himfelf as Good to be the Object of faith ; to be embraced, or chofcn, or accepted by the will, as well as the word as True,to be Affented to by the underftanding. But if itbetheO^fft that he meaneth , then what force or fenfe is there in his Argument, from the terms, [ Purpofmg, Intending, Con}"effing ? j Let him name what Act he pleafe, fo it refpecc this Object; and if it be an Act of faith indeed, its all one as toour prtfentC ntroverfie. If he take C 0Y> f* nt * ™tt ,yi Z- or tsfccevirgoi Chrift to be no act of Faith, let h:m name any other that he will own ( for I would quarrel as little as may be about words, or impertinent things, j and let that be it.

4. And how could he choofe but fee, 'hat his Argument is as much againft £ Accenting Chrifi as Prieft ~] as aga?nft Q Ac-ceptinghmas Lord] to Juftification ? No doubt but a man

that

(5 °+)

that had the common Reafon' to write but fuch a book as this, muft needs fee this if he regard what he laid. And therefore I muft take it for granted that his Argument is againft both alike : even to prove that Accepting oi Chrift as Lord, or as Saviour, is no faith or obedience at all. But the Reader will hardly believe till he weighech ic, that a waking roan would reafon thus upon fuch a Queftion as this in hand.

5. Confenting that Chrift (tall be my Lord and Teacher, and Head, doth imply a confent, and fo a Purpofe of future obeying, learning and receiving from him j And fo confent* ingthat Chrift (hall be my Righteoufnefs, Interceflbr, and Juftifier , doth imply a Purpofe of Trufting in him for the future. And yet this confent in both cafes is Juftifying faith.

6. And its dolefull Do&rine (were he a true Prophet) to all Gods Church, that Purpofes and Intentions te believe and obey y are no more then may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates. Tor though there are fuperficial uneffe&ual purpofes and Intentions in them, as there is an unerTeduai faith in them; yet if no Purpofes and Intentions will prove men Saints, then no-thing in this world will prove them Saints; For the Evidences of Grace are more certain to him that hath them, in the Heart then in the outward Actions. And in the Heart, the very new Creature lyeth much in thefe two. Defires themfelves will prove true Grace: Much more when they rife to fetled Purpofes. Why elfe did Barnabas exhort^the young beginners, that Q With purpofe of Heart they fhouldcleave unto the Lord'} as intimating that their ftability lay in this; And Intentions are the very Heart of the New man. For Intention is that act that is exercifed about the End, which is God himfelf. Inten-derefinem, is no more then Vettt vel Amare Deum ^ It is the Love of God above all. And if this be common to Hypocrites and Reprobates, what a cafe are we in then ?

I hope I have given you a fufficient account of the Imperti-nency and vanity of Mr .Warners fifteen Arguments. To which he adjoyneth a rabble of the words of Socinians , A'minian: , and I know not who, to aflure you that we his new Adverfa-ries, do joyn with that company and plead their caufe : And

he

he that will believe him, -fhall no further be difturbed by me in his belief.

I doubt I have wearied the Reader already, and therefore I fhall only add a few words about a few more of the mod considerable pafTages in his Book.

Some other of Mr. Warners pafages ofmojl importance confdered.

Ttg* 3 *5- \J[ R - W. faith £ Its worth the obferving hoft to IV Jl evade the Difiinftion of the Atts of faith , he filth that faith u ont ati in a moral fen ft , as Taking a man tJ be mj Prince^ Teacher^ Phyfitian % 8cc> and not in a phjfical fence ^ for fo it U many a£ts&c. ] And he confuteth me thus : [ Her*, Re*der f fee the Wit or forgetfnlnefs of the many who to man tain hit own groundt doth often confider faith 04 Phyftcally fecited in the under ft Unding ani^iU \ but when we a (fault him , will not allow us % anj Pbjftc*l % but a moral tsfeceftion of it. ]

Anfwer A moft grofs untruth 1 ( and thats an Arguing that Faith needeth not) Your forgery is not only without ground, and contrary to my plain and frequent words,but contrary to the exprefs words that you draw your Observation from. I fay faith PhyficaHy taker*, is many ads •, but morally taken it is one work : Hence you call out to the Reader to oblcrve, that I will not allow you any Phyfical but a Moral AcceptioR of it. ] Is it fit to Difpute with fuch dealing as this ? Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether faith be a Phyfical Ad ( except them of late that take it to be but a Paflion and a Nominal adion ?) Surely all know that ic is an Ad in order of Nature, before it is a moral ad. Attus mora!u,\sfa& a&usPhyficus. Though Moraliter alius , j, e. aftusReputativw, may be but a non-ading Phyfically : He that wilfully famii'hcth his own child, doth kill him morally or reputatively, and fo is moraliter agent , that is, Reputative.But btthatcherilhetbhim is an Agent natural and moral, that is v

Rr> EchicaE

Ethical or Vertuous. I wonder what made you think me of fuch an opinion that I have fo much wrote againft ?

He next faith, that [ Though by one moral ati we receive Ai-vers benefits , jet We receive them to divers furpofes.] Anfmr, True 1 But many fuch paflfages of yours are to no purpofe; and fuch is this -.impertinent to the bufincfs.

P*g*19 l * HecomestomyDiftin&ion, where I fay, that ex parte Chrifii hefatisfieth Jufticeas aRanfom, andTcach-ethusasourMafter, andRulethusasourKing, yttexparte noftri, it is but one and the fame entire faith that is the condition of our Title to his fevera! benefits: From hence he ingeni-oufly gathereth that I fay, [That faith hath but one refrett to thofe benefits\ ana* is not diver ftfied by feveral afts ; and deny the rteceffity of'thefe diflinft atis in reference to the fever al benefits efChrift.] Whereas I only maintained, that though the!<Ss be Phyiically diftinfl, yet they are not diftmct conditions of our Intereft in the benefits, but the fame entire faith is the one condition of them all. Hereupon he learnedly addrefleth him; felf to prove that faith hath feveral acts. And he that think-eth it worth his time t<ftranfcribe and confute bis Arguments, Jet him do it, for I do not.

P Age/pi. He thinks \Wt need not dilute whether the Re* ception ofChrifl by faith* be moral or Phjical: however it is net An improper, but proper reception."! Anfft. 1. It fcems then we need not difpute whether Chrifts body be every where, and (whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as the mouth doth the meat ? 2. And whereas Ridpere , in its firft and proper iigniflcation was wont to be pati , now it is agere : And whereas confent or Acceptance was wont to be called Receiving but Metonymically, now it is becoma a proper Reception.

Page 303.504. Reafoning againft mc,he faith, £ The near-eft formal Reafon of a Believers Interefi , is no-: (jods making it a condition, Vehich is the remote reafon thereof , but a Believers fulfilling the condition ,&c] Anfa.i. Here {ie changeth the

fueftion, from [ What u the nearefl reafon of faiths Intereft ] to What is the near eft reafon of the believers Intereft* ] To the firft I fay, [ hi beingmadt the condition of the Promife.JTo the

fecond

G°7)

ftcond I fay, [ The Promifi crgrant itfilf.] 2. He findeth a learned Confaurioufor me,™*. That ic is not Gods m&king^mi the fulfilling the condition th»t is the formal Rcafon. Anfo. Performance, that is,Believingmakcth faith to be faith, and exift ; but the Promife makes that the condition. 2 fpoke de c{fe f and he it exifiere: And yet I ufually fay,that [The neareft Keafon cf faiths intereft in fufiification, is, as it is the condition of the Pro-mifes fulfilled'] that I might joyn both. 5. Note that in this his Aflertion he granteth me the fum of all that I defire. For if this be true, then it is not the Nature or the Inftrumenta-lityof faith that is the neareft reafon, as is ufually faid.

Page 200. He doth as folemnly call his Adverfarie ad pari tes, as if he were in good fadnefs to tell him what is the caufa-lity of works in Juftification : And falling to his enumeration, he tells us th&t^The particle A or Ab notts the peculiar caufali-ty of the efficient : the particle Ex notes the material caufe : the particle Per or By* the formal caufe : thep.trticle Propter , the finalcaufe.~\ Anfw. I mufl erave pardon of the Reader while I fuppofe all this to be currant, that I may anfwer ad hominem. And then 1. It feems faith is not the efficient caufe,and therefore not the Instrumental caufe : For A or ab is not affixed to «t,inthisbufinefs. 2. It feems then that faith isthe formal caufe of Juftification, becaufewe are faid to be Juftified «t* x afe* Rom.3.22 2j,3p, & pajjim[ ftyVmh ] So that faith is come to higher promotion then to be an Inftrumental efficient caufe. 3. Hence it feems aifo that faith", even the fame faith is [ the material caufe] too : For moft certainly we are faid to be juftified ex fide : &> ™rws: Rom. 3.2^,30. Rom. 5. x.G4/.-i.i6:&.3-8,7,-5,9j22 24-& 5.5. fam.t.z^. Whether ex fide hi *faki do indeed exprefs an Inftrumental efficient ,1 leave to confidera:ion : But fure I am it fitly exprefleth the Intereft of a condition. And if Mr. tv. will needs advance faith hereby to be the matter of our Rightcoufnefs, iE muft be but of our fubordinate particular Evangelical righteoufnefs, which confifteth in fulfilling the condi:ton of Juftification.

Chap.$.pag.ig. 30>3i. Hefpends a Chapter toopentous A the meaning of [fidesquajuftificat.] And profefleth that it k*tbe Cardo controvert* : yea it was the remembrance of

this diftin&ion and the light he received by it that induced him to enter on this Difcourfe ; and that it is the bafis of h« following exercitation. And what think you is the happy Light that deferveth all this oftentation? Why i. On the Negative wc are fatisfied that he means not \_wh*t fides qm -fides can do : ] And then we are fecure that he means nothing that can hurt his Adverfaries caufe. 2. The Light then is all but this £ That qua here u not takfn Reduplicative^ but fpecifica-iive, when by the pArticle qua or quatenus, there is fame neW or fingular kj»d of Denomination added to the fubjetl of the Propofi-tion : as when We fay, man as a reafonable creature fee let h : In this latter fence ( faith he ) / believe tht particle qua or quate-nus is taken , when We do not fay > faith asfaith , but faith as fufti-fying^'xz* as a Grace defined to this at! or operation offufttfy-ing> looks on Chriff as Saviour."]

sAnfw. This Chapter was worth the obferving. Tor if this be the Bafis of all the Exercitation, and the Light that Generated all t^e reft,the difpatch of this may ferve for all. It feems by his words he had look't into Reebe's Diftinflions in the end of Cdflaneus y and meeing with Reduplicative and tfecificative^ admired the diftincticm as fome rare Difcovery : and this pregnant fruitful Diftinction begot a Volume, before it was half underftood it felf. Had he but read the large Schemes for explaining £lua or guatenus in others, its like it would have either begot a larger Volume, or by informing or confounding him, have prevented this. Pirft, he difowneth the Reduplicative fence ; and then owneth the Specificatwe. But i. He feeth not,it feems, the infufficiency of this diftinction ; 2 Nor the meaning of it; 3. Nor could well apply it to the fubject in band. Of thefirft I ftiall fpeak anon. Thefecond appear-eth by hfs Defcription, his Inftance, and his Application. He defcrlbeth it to be [ When there u fome neVv or jingular kjndof Denomination added to the fubjetl of the Propofition.~] 1. And why may it not be added alfo to the Pre dicate,as well as it may Redufltcatively fas Motus eft aUns mobilts quatenus eft mobile. 2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will not ferve for your ffecificative Qmtenns. The inftance you fiive is, T <u when we fay man as a Reafonable creature faileth. 1

This

this was but an unhappy Tranflation of [Homo cju'afenut anU mal eft ftnfibtlu ] and its true in the Latine, how falfe foever in the Englifti. For the Application, i. You fay £ y 0 u [ Be-UcvQ its thus take*. As if y ou did but Believe, and not know your own meaningin the Bafts of your Exercitation. 2. Your Svtcifisative Quatenu* is Caufi*I> or fignifieth -the Reafon of the thing, either of the Predication or the thing predicate: ; But fo cannot your Bads hold good. Far faith doth not looJ^ en Chrift as a Saviour (as you pleafe Metaphorically to fpeak) becaufe it Juftifieth : for its Nature is before the erfed, and therefore cannot the effed be given as the caufe of it; (uniefs it were thefinal caufe, of which anon.)

Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common ufc fignirieth the proper reafon of the thing or predication; and is appliableonly to that which is fpoken v&t* nwuoe. As to the terms, fometimes there is a Reduplication of the fame term, fometimes that reduplication is of the w^r#r,but in other terms % as in a definition, or rynominal words, or it is implyed : fometimes it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Reduplicate ; fometimes it is without a Reduplication : And then fometimes it giveth a Reafon from an gjfential Part : fome-time from the Qtnerical Nature \ fometime from the Specific^ Nature j fometime from an Accident .- and thofe are divers: fometime from a QuiLty : fometime from Quantity ; fome-time from Relation ; and that is multifarious : If we (hould run into all the fences of this Term which Mr. w. doth lap up in the word Q Specificathe ] the words might exceed the profit. And its to be noted that ufually the term is refpedive as to fome other thing excluded which is contrsd ftind : & fo we give fometimes a more Remote and General\3c fometime a necr-cr and more fpecial Heafon by Qua or quattmu. As if you mix a purging Eleduary in your D> i»\ , I fay that Purgeth quate-nus medicated, which is to exclude the 1) i»k from being Purgative. If I fpeak of the EleUuary, I may fay that it purgeth quatenus Diagridtate ,to exclude many other Ingredients from being Purgative. But if. I fpeak of the < T>iagr\dium y 1 may fay that it Purgeth as having an EleElive faculty, dec. to excltde other Reafons of its operation.

Rr 3 Now

Now for the opening of the matter in hand, let us try cer* tain Proportions that may be fuppofed to be laid down con; cerning Faith.

£ i. Faith a* faith }uftifitth2 This k?™', taken laxelyl for the excluding of £ faith as ameer Phyficalatt, or merit orU 0W-&C. ] but ft is falfe firitlly taken^s fignifying the formal or nearcft reafon.

So £2. Fides in Chriflumsjua talis Juflificat'] that is, ha* fihs injpecie] is true, taken Laxely and materially to exclude ail other Faith: q d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul, but faith in (thrift as fuch that is the matter deputed, to be the condition of fufiification. But its falfe taken flri&ly y de ratione formal*.

3« So £ This faith as it is an Apprehenfion or Acceptance tf Chri(i 9 ju(tifieth.2 Its true, Materialiter & Remotius, taxly : but falfeformaliter & ftritle de ratione proxima. For this is nhe farce in other terms with the fecond..

So C 4» Faith juftifiethas anInftruwerital efficientcaufecf &ur J unification.] Us falfe in every tolerable fence.

So [ S • Faith juftifieth at an Inflrument of receiving Chrift,'] Its true, 1. taking the word [ Inflrument ] Metaphorically, and meaning only the Nature of this faith, which is [ to Believe in and Accept Chrifts *. and taking Jguatenue remotely, laxely and materially only ,q.d. Faith is the Sletled matter of the condi" tion (or is chofen to be the condition of JuftificationJ for this Apthude ', as, or becaufe it u a Reception or Acceptance of Qhrift. But its falfe, 1. Taking an [ Inflrument ~\flritJlj and Logical* ly^ 2. and (peaking de ratione formali.

So [ & Faith as a believing in Chrifts facrifice , juflifieth* ] Its true, Laxly, Materialiter & partialiter : that is, This att of t faith is part of the matter of the condition. But its falfe ,/bnwa-liter de ratione proxima.

So C 7. Faith juftifieth only as it is a Relieving in Chrifts fa-crifice or Righteoufnefs.~\ Its falfe both de materia & deration formali.

So [ i* Faith as Juftifying is only a Believing in % or Atcept-hfg Chriftas our Ranfom^~\ Here is darknefs, and either non-fence or falfe doctrine. 1. [As fuflifying ] fignifieth either C<te ajftftifying efficient caufe J 2, Or [as the merit or matter of

&UTs

our Right eoufn*fs.~] }. Or [_'as the means i. e. condition of our Right eoufnefs , of which juftification u a confluent and final caufi.1 Inthefirftfenfcit is every way falfe. In the fecond fenfe ic is every way fall*, fpedking of our Univerfal Righce-oujpefs. In the third fenfe, if fpoken laxelj de materia^ falfc, becaufe of the exclufivc [ Only. 3 And if fpoken de ration* for-n wah velproxima, i. Its prepofterous to put the Confequent before the Antecedent^ you fpeak de or dine exequendi .- 2. And it is falfe : For [ qua Jufttficans ] fpeaketh of Justification as the confequent,or as an ad, and not of the Nature of Faith ic felf. And therefore [ qua fuftificans ] faith is nothing ( much lefs that a& alone.) For it is not de ejfe fidei that the term fpeaks, but of the confequent h So that the £ Fides qua juftificans eft] what ever ad you mention, isabfurd andunfound: For as non jnftificat quatenus *ft,ita non eft quatentu Juftificat , its Effence being pre-fuppofed. But if you fpeak dtordine In-Sentionu t \'\z. £ Faitkas elefteda means or condition ofjufttfi* cation is onlj a ^Relieving in Chriftsfacnfice. ] then Laxelj & CWateriatlj it would be7V«r, if it were not for the £ only. ] But becaufe of that it is falfc^both de materia & de ration* for-ntali. The nature of it is before its Office.

So [ 9. Faith 04 defignedto this aft or operation of fuftifjing, lookj on Chrift as a Saviour. ] This is Mr.^i. Affertion. Bat l]*fttf)i»g is not an aft or operation of faith ; but of 6od on the Believer. 2. But if you mean but conftituting it the condition of Juftification,then 1. the wrong end is fet firft : For it doth not look at Chrift, as its made the condition-, but its made the condition, becaufe being an Accepting of Chrtft, its Apt for that Office. So that Materially and Lax ij , its rhus true; (a Saviour,comprehendeth Chrifts Kingly and Propbe-tical Offices, and cvcrlafting Priefthood in Heaven ) But this is nothing to the formal Reafon of its Intcreft in Judication.

But left you think that [ qua Juflificans~] hath no p r oper place, I further inftance [ q. Faith at ju/lifjmg u dijiir.sl from faith as entitling to Heaven , or other premifed mercie*.] This is true f fuppofingjuftification and the faid Title to Glory to differ.^ But this is but a denomination of the fame faith from

its

its divers confequents. As my lighting a candle being one a&i-onis Abl.oiUam'mAns (ut caufamaralis t ) & calefaciens ; & qua ilium™a*s non efl calefaciens* So a wotnans marrying a Prince, is an Honouring, enriching aft i ani qua honouri g, it isnoc enriching. Bat its the fame entire undivided aft or Antecedent Means, or Condi.ion, that is thus varioufly denominated from fcveral Benefits. And thas Relations may give divers denominations to the fame perfon; the fime man may be considered as a Father,as a Phyfitian? as a Subje&^r..

So io, FAITH WHiCH IS AN EFFECTUAL ACCEPTANCE OF and AFFIANCE IN CHRIST AS CHR ST, was CHOSEN and ORDAINED by God the Condition of Juftification and Life, becaufe his Wifdom faff? it fit for tkt Office, aid that fitnefs lyethi* its retfett to theObjett and gods ends ( fuppofing we may afljgn Reafonsor caufes of Gods Will. J By this faith (la conftituted the Condition) we are attuallj JUSTIFIED AS TIS THE PERFORMED CONDITIO* OF GODS PROMISE.] This k the plain Truth in few and eafte words.

By what is faid you may fee that when they fay [faith as Jv» ftifying ] is this or that, it is both prepofterous, and the [ qua ] as diftinft from the [ qua ] de ratione formal'^ caufally fpoken, is plainly falfe : Bat in other cafes, Laxely and MateriaRj % z\& £ qua ]fignificth the fame as the [ qu*2 w ' cn theexdufion of other matter. And when they have raifed never fo great a duft 5 the Queftion is but this: Whether we are juftified by Believing in Chrifl as Chriflioronlj in Chrifl as a Ranfom ] ( and yet as a Ranfom and as dying he purchafeth SanftiAcation as well as J«rftirlcationO Or. [ Whether faith in Chrtfl as Chrifl , or only faith in Chrifl as Purchajing fufttflcatipn^ be the condition of our purification .]

Reader, Having Shewed the darkncfs of that Light that caufed Mr. fVs. Exercitation, and overthrown its Bafis, I (hall put jthee to no further trouble._.

T®

To my Reverend Brother Mr. fobn JVarner, Preacher of the Gofpelat Chrifts Church mHantJhire-

Sir,

T Hough ( through the privacy of my habitation ) I neve* fo much as heard of jour name, before your Book^ofthe Object artjl Office of faith was m the Prefs ; yet upon tht perufalofit I confidently conclude, that a z.eal for God , and that fthich you verily think."* be his Truth,hath movedyou to this undertaking ; and doubtlefs you th'tnl^ that you hive done God firvice by it. 1 love your zeal: and your ind gnation again ft Error ; and jour tendernefe of [o great a point as that offuflfication. And could J fin i your Light to be anfmrable to jour heat r I hope I fjould alfo love ani honour it : Bad) oh not taken me (yrith ihe Vfco Revertnh Brethrtn Whom you oppufe ) to be the enemies of the per-fonand Grace of the Lord Jefus,or the followers of [htm (as you [aj<> Fpijt. p*g*6.) I am perffcaded yon ftcula net have ether called tu fo^ or thought your felf called to this affault. *y4nd if Hove ChriftJ mufl love that man that hateth me, though mifta-hinglyjor the fake of (fhifl. That print Iple Aitkin you that hath made Chrifl and Truth fo dear to )cu, that you rile up for that which fe em eth to you to be Truth , 1 hope ftiftgrow till jou attain perfection in th*t world of L ?ht that will end our dfferences. 1 [ball not go about to deprecate your indignation fcr my plain ex-prejftoxs in this Defence, When the nature of your matter did require them : For lam not fo unreafonableas to expeel that fair word: Jhould reconcile a good man to thofe that he take! to be enemies to Chrifl i or to their followers. 'But as J can truly fay if He/sow what U in my heart, that the Reading of your 'Book, hath

Sf bred

(?.'+)

if red no enmity to you in my breft, but only handled a love to your z>eal, with a ce-mpaffion of jour Aarknefr, and a d ft ke of your fo much confidence in the dark ; fo it fh ill be my care as it is m) duty % to lovi yon at a miftaken fervant ofChift, thoughyctt fhould take me for hi* great eft enemy. And therefore being c onfclous of no worfe (ffetlions to you, I deftre tbit fuftice offou, as to impute the ungrate full paffages that you meet With, to my opzrehen-fion of the badnefs of your caufe and Arguments, and a comfaffion K to the poor Church that muft be troubled and tempted, arid endangered by fuch grofs mifrakjs, and not to any contempt of your per-fon t with which I meddle not, but as you are the ^Author ofthofe Arguments.

In your preface J find a LaW impofed by you on jour Anfwe-rer,which I have not fully obferved : I. Becaufe f had Written my Reply to your Arguments a con /tierable time before I faW your Preface -, For it fell out that I firftfiW your Book^ without the Spiftle and Preface, 2. 'Becjufe I thought it fiueft to follow the Method that my Subjetl and the Readers edification did require* ' 3. Tet kid I once purpofe to have anf veered all that was of moment in your Book again [I the Truth', but Upon trial I found your Reafons fo inconfiderable % thrt v earinefs interrupted me and put an end to my Reply, and withal f grew confident th*t my labour Would be to little purpofe* For I dare venture any fudici-oui Divine upon your Hook without the help of a Reply : t And for thereft y it u notreplyingthat will ferve turn : but either pre]** dice will hold them to the fide that they have taken , or elfe they Will thinkjoim inthe right that hath the la ft word : When th(y have read mine t they will think that f am in the right; and When they have again ready ours , they will thinly that you carry the taufe : and when they read my Reply agatn/hey will fay,you Were wiftak^n ; but ufually they will go With the party that is in great-eft cr edit, or hath mo ft i#.t ere ft in them ^ or advantage on them. But yet I thinly you Will find that none of your ftrength againft me xneglecled : For / can truly fay y that when I think not meet to Anfrter all that a man hath/aid, Ineverpafs by that which I take to h his ftrength, but purpofely call out that y and letve that Which I think i*fo grofly weak m to need no anfwer: So much tfjottr ten Dtmands or LaWs at / apprehended neceffary, t have

her*

(3>0

here anjrvered; fupfofirg what 1 had fud of the fame points i* my firft D.fputat:. •; / /rf\V no BeS/on too often to R%-

fCAt.

I am none cf. yea for too much ftheMeta-

phy Picks, but rather m*.r vail that you feared not left jour Metaphyseal Read*K &i0 wrong yon by mif-applying jour atedScheg kias contrary to your bitter epixton of your J elf , and take both your Schcgkias and your Scaliger for Prophets that could Jpeak as if they had read jour 'Beoi^, and been acjuainted)frith )onr ar-guings. Hut itfeemsycuare net the fi-fi of that way,

Bj your Arguments in your Frefa;e i I ptrceh-tyou think, it a matter of very great moment toj ou r caufe, to prove that there ere divers atls of Faith, whereas I am fo far from denying it , that I am ready to demon/Irate , tbAt even the faith by which Wf are fuftified>id likjr to have tnenty alls then one only ^ but many certainly tt hath. Tour fi'ft Argument is, from the d fferent cb-jeHs^becaufe the Obje Els fpecife the Aclt. Afufficient Argument which no man can confute. Bat I. This it no proof ', that one 6C~h only is it that we are juflifiedby. 2. Whore you add that f unifying Faith hath not retyell to Chnfl as Lord formaliter,js* beg the J^ueflion t and affert no light mifluke. But where you add _ in its aft of jaftifying you do but-obtrude upon us your fund** mental Error ( wLicb le-dcth you to the reft b* ■:ak K ed affirmations. Faith hath proper/} no jufiifying atl : Juftificareeft ef-ficere, Faith doth not effttl cur : unification \ Wv ttej ju/lifird bj faith indeed , but not 04 by \r. efficient can ft nnlefs you Wiii take Juftificatirn -for Sanciificaticn ; For real tfva'.tative Mutations it doth tfttl J but tke]u* or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effcd, but Accept when nered. if ycu anna fee fo plain aTruih n its Evidence, yet ob erve b) the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the feco d Difputati n ^nd by your Prefaers Dr .Kendals ccurfe.that its apajftve inflfum t.-tality that the Defenders of y.w caufeat lai arc drtvejt to ; a-;d • not of i:s ad of juftifyir.j: Gods ad of Jaftifyipg which faiih is cr ; e Condition of. eas you make unbelief to be formally a fl gluing and r.egled.ng Chrift as a Saviour and effectively ( you muft m*an only effeliive & non formatter ) a denying iubjeccion to him

Sf 2 as

(?><0

as Lord. You err fo great btttfo rare an error 9 that 1 fupfofe it mtdlefs to confute it. All Christians as far as I can learn have been till noty agreedjhat Believing in fhrift as Prophet and King is a real part of faith ^ and that unbelief or rejiBing him as Prophet and King is a real p*rt of unbelief.

Tourfecond Argument is from the different fubje&s • where jougjve m two fisch palpable Fitlions, that its a wonder jots can make your felf'believe them, much more that you (hould lay fo great a fir efs on fitch abfurdities. The firftis thai the Ad of Faith is in feveral faculties : and you elfwhere give us to under-ftand that it is onePhyfical Act that you mean, s>4nddoyou think^in good fadnefs that one Jingle Phyfteal aft can be the aft of both the faculties ? Thefccond is that the fear, love and obedience to Chrift as King is but in the Will. Bttt i. what Readers do you expetl, th«t wilt take an Ajfertion 0/Fear, Love, and Obedience, in /leadof an ajfertion concerning Faith ? Were yon not comparing faith in Chrift as King, ^ith faith in Chrift as Prieft only? And why (peak younot of faith in one part of your comparifoK t as well as in the other ? Tottr cone/ufion now is nothing to the Queftion .* 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Chrift as "King is not in both faculties, as Bellas Faith in Chrift as Prieft or facrifice, disiyou think^thzt any man of ordinary underftand-ingwould ever believe youWuhottt any proof ? or that ever fuch a thing can be proved ?

Tour third Argument is, [Becaufe they are in a different time exerted ; the one, that is, Faith as Juftifying, being precedane-OUS to the Other, ( and to other Graces ) ] Anfw. PVonderfuli I // that man jttftified thitbelievcth not in Chrift as the King and Prophet of the Church t Do you believe this your felf'? why then an Infidel is juflified by Faith. The "Belief in Chrift as a Sacrifice or Prieft Only, is not the Chriftian faith ; it is not faith in Chrift properly % becaufe it is not faith in Chrift as Chrift. For Chrift as Prieft only is not Chrift. A Heart only ii not Corpus humanum: tsfBody only is not a Man •, Where there are three ejfential parts, one of them is not the Things without the reft* The name £ Jefus Chrift ] fignifeth the office as well as the ferfon. It is ejfentiiho that Office, that he be Prophet and King* And hereby you jhtw that)ou do not 0>?//diftinguifh but divide.Fir Where

there

(3 '7)

there is a diftanct of time bet)to een the Atts , there is a divifton. Do you thinly that fte are Chrifts enemies , or followers oftbem> unlefs we will believe you that a man is fuflifitd by Belttving in Chrift only as a Trieft or Ra^fon^ cr in his Right eoufnejs, before ever he believe in him as King And Lord (andfo as Teacher.Sec.) If I had [aid that yon are Chrifts enemy for fuch DjHrine^bich, thinkjyou, had had the fairer pretence for his cenfure t But I am far from faying fo y or thinking it. I knoV? that the AJfent to the effential Articles ofChriftiaxitr jontaineth many A els,and that our Confent and Affiance are many Phjftcal A els, as the parts of Chrifts Office are many ObjeEls, But yet I {do not think,£/*r) am certain that allthefe phjftcal AUs concur to make up thit '^Moral A^ which is cabled Chrift ian, or favmg^or fuftfying Faith ; and that he that believeth not in Chr'ift as to all that is effential to Chrift, is no Chnftian* And a man is not juftified by Faith before he is a Chrifiian. tsfndtruly Sir , men that an loth to fiie from the Light , and that love the Truth , and diligently fee\ it ( as heartily, ifnot as happily as you) muft yet needs tell you, that if you produce your Mormilu:kj an hundred times, an\ cant over and over [ a Papift. a Socinian, an Arminian ; and an Arminian, a Socinian and a Papift]] their under/landings will never the m?re be perfwadedt) embrace your Deluftons , though you Jhould fay that the Kingdom ofCjol doth confift in thsm.

Tour fourth Argument is that , [_ There is a difference in Nature,Erflcacy, Energy, and Operation; therefore the Acts are not the fame. ] Anfw.1. / maintained the conclufion ( th*t faith hath different Aels) before ever 1 htard of your name ; and have no reafon now to denie it. 2. The difference of Nature y 1- grant j m between many Alls of faith i butWhttyou mean by the Efficacy, Energy, and Operation , he th*t knoWs can tell; for I cannot.

But fttH Ide/ire youto know that I deny faith to have any efficient operation in jnftifyng us, or that it is a* efficient caufe of our funification ; ejpecially its no Phyftcal efficient ; you add a ftrange proof of your Ajfertion 1 £ viz. For faith as Juftifying makes a myfticai Union and relative change on the perfon ; buc faith as working and fan&ifying produceth a moral union wkh Chrift,e^.]yf*/w. I. Faith as]uftiijing doth only fufti-

(3i9)

fie y andproduce no Vrriov^ the fame fath as unitingLihe meant ofVr.ion. 2. The que ft ton is of ^ Faith in Chrift asPrieftS and faith in Chrift as Prophet and King alia] And you talk c/^faith as juftifying, and as working and ianctifying ] A fma.ltalteration. 3. What My focal Relative Union U that which is not a Moral Union ? 4. Faith in Chrift as Chrift, and not as a Ran-fom only, is the means of our Juftification ; And you give m nothing like a proof of the contrary reftriftion.

In the fame Preface ycu tell the world of a threefold Artifice that we ufe ± the fir ft is £ tofetup a fccond Juftification ] Anf Is it the Name or the Thing that you mean ? If the name, 1. cite the words Where we ufe that Name. 2. If it anfVcer the fubjetl, you may bear With the name. If it be the Thing , then tell u$ -what Religion that it that denyeth 1. a Juftification by fentence at fudgemtnt* 2. (jods continual jufttfyng us to the Death. 3. And his particular pardoning or jujftifyi/tg us from the guilt of renewed particular fins. 4. And that faith is not cnlj/ in the firfl ably but through all our lives, the means of our Juftification ; Or, juftifying faith is more then one inftantaneous Atl ; or a man ceafeth not to have juftifying faith afttr thefirft Atl or moment. Tell us Who thofe be, and what Religion thej are of that deny all thefe, that Chrf-ftiansmay be acquainted Vrith them , if they be Worthy their acquaintance.

Cnyjecond Orifice is^ £ to require Works only as Gofpel-Condittons. "\ Anfw. Wouldyouhaveus fay more of them^ or lefs ? fief, Ihj-ve faid enough of it in the ftcond D Jputati* on.

Our third ? Artifice is, £ To include works in the Definition of Juftifying faith, making it a receiving of Chrift as Saviour, Lord and Law-giver to Juftification • as alfo confounding our confummate Salvation or Glorification with our Juftification.] Anf.C/> 0/s untruths I contrary to la r ge and plaine expreffi-ons of my mind in fever al Volumes ( >fyou mean me, as you know I have reafon to judge) 1. lever took^ Vvorks to be a fruit of faith, and no part of it, nnlefs you take the word Faith improperly and taxely • unlefs by £ Works ] you mean £ Acts] tyind you take faith for fuch a Work^ your felf, that is, an Act, 2. J expref-ly diftinguifhed what you faj I confound ;Confumm ate SanUifica-

tim

t ion or (glorification, andconfummate Jufiifieafion. Bit yet as Ido in the Definition ir.cliie Con en: to Chrifts Lordfhip, though not Obedience ( thus only implyed to be a neceffa^y con-fequent,) fo I flill fay thit much of y^ur fmfiideation is yet to come ; And if your Riligiov tea:hyj*n fay, that you will be beholding to C^ r 'fif or no tnore Juflification t fo doth not mine.

And whereas you cite fome that f*y, that all our fins a^eptr-donedin our fir ft believing f as if I had ejuefiioned anyfuch thinf, i mufi tell Jou that I eahly grant it, that every fin is then for* given,andfa far as that J ufiifieafion it perfett\but what have you yet Jaid to prove, I. That vce are never jvft'fied bjfvth % but in that one infant. 2. That We need no particular Juflification from particular fins that after fij ill b? committed. 3. Nor no fentential Juflification at Judgement , which cJ*/>.Burgefs will tell you, is the chief. Tou and others ufe to fay, that, that at Judgement, is but Declarative. 'But 1. It is w common Declaration, but a Declaration by the Judge. 2. And the Sentence doth more then meerly declare -, for it d;th finally decide, acquit and adjudge to Glory. 3. Andmethin^s thii Declarative fhould be no term of Diminution, but of Aggravation, with thofe that ftillufe to fay that Juflification is a judiciary Term. tAlaslThat thefe matters among the friends ofChrifland Truth, fhould needfo many words.

Some more lhad to fay to you, but you m*y find it in the Preface to thefe Difputations. I only add, that if indeed it be true which you Write to that Honourable perfon, to whom you dedicate your Labors, viz. That the SubjeU cf your Difcourfe isfo excellent ana neceffay to be known ; and that He who is Ignorant of theObjecl and Office of Faith, doth neither know what he believeth , nor how he is juftified ; / fhould thmk it is high time, that you call your ZJnderftanding once more to an account, and review the Fabric^ that you have built on aqua juftiflcans not underflood, or upon a fpecificative qmte-nus, Where there U no fuels thing : And ifyou thinly me unfit to be heartened to in this, ( as being one of the men of perverle minds that there you mention , ) its more Worthy your induflry, tofeek^the advice of the learned Oxford Divines htrein > then

that,

C^o)

■that they fhould be fought to approve and midlife fuck a Book^in-to the world : and its Ukelj thai their Charity will provoke them to beferyiceable to yon in this ; though I hear that their Difcre-tion forbad them the other. For all men are not jo eaftly Whiffled into a Cfaifts-Church contention againft the Truth and £hurch of Chrift, as T>r. K, and one cr two Confidents , that living in a cold and fterit C omtr Ji Are l*f s fubftantive y and more adjeclive' 3 then Innocents and Independents ufe to be.

None's here fo fruitfuil as the Leaning Vine :

And what though fome be drunken with the Wine ?

They'l fight the better, if they can but hiti

And lay about them without fear or ) But flay I

See What Example is I As the name of Dr.K.andthe remembrance of his differtatiuncula ( an Appendant to fax pro Tribunal^ that couldhlva. fide, fldem folvere ) began to tice mt intoajdeoundvein ; fo jour concluding Poetry hadalmofl temped ■mein An Apifh imitation to Poetize, when wearmefs made me thinks of aconclufian. 'Bus 1 had rather conclude with thisfe-rious motion to yen (that my end may meet your beginnings)that before you next write on this Subjttl^ you will better conftder of the que ft ion that your qua jultificans concerneth : Anzin-fteadof telling us , that fides qua juftificans refpicit Chriftum Salvatorem, thatis t fides qua juftificans eft fides, as if it were juftifying in order of Nature before it is Faith : you will be pleafed to tell us, fub qua ratione fides juftificat ( vel fide juftificamur ? ) Whether you will Jay , that fides qua juftificans , juftificat , or fides qua fides juftificat , ( which / think^yon difoWn, ) or fides qua refpicit, apprehendit, recipit Chriftum, Which is all one 9 as fides qua fides, or fides qua Inftrumentura apprehendens, which Metapborical cxprtffion flillfignifieth no more then £ qua credit in Chriftum, or qua fides? ] Or whether you Willftandto what you have affirmed, chap. 9* pag, 67. that its Gods affignation of it to the office, who

therefore

Therefore doth it, becaufe he wills ic : andtotokat {onf<*id % pag.g04. I he mcercft formal reafon of a Believers Intcrcft ropardon, is-—a Believe?s fulfilling the condition. A>:d if jch will ft and to this that joh hwt [aid, and under ft and that the Doftrine of us Whom jcu affattlt is the fame ( more carefully exprejfed,) be intreated then to let jour next bolt be Jhot at the right mar\ : Which is all thats now reqttefted ofyou % by

Your Chriftian Brother ( whether you will or no )

Richard Baxts*.

'Decmb.tf. 1657.

Tt

Richard Baxters

DISCVSSION

O F M r

fohn Tombes his Friendly, Acceptable

ANIMADVERSIONS

ONHIS Aphorifms, and other Writings.

i

About the Nature of fuftifi-cation^xA of juftifying Faith*

♦

*

LONDON, Printed by K.w. for NtvtlSimmons , Book- feller in Kc dtrmirtfttr, and are to be fold by him there, and by Natht-nitlEkins, at the Gun in T>*ult Church-yard. 1658.

pPO^ reading of the Poftfcript in your late Book, 1 have fent you thefe Ani-madve fion?. You fay Aphor. of Juftification, fag 184. £ ^/// riii^r Seriptvres which r pe4k^of Jtiflification at done in this I-ft, I nndcrfiand of fxfttfi -cation in 7 it It of Lato. So Row. J. I. and 4 2. and 5.9. fam. 2.1 1,25 ,#•*•• ] I conceiv: Juftification , being Gods Aft, Rom. ?.30, Rom.%,i^. consequent upon Faich , and calling, and importing a fcnrence oppofre to Condemnation y Rem.S, 30,33^4. and 5.1. renr hated on particular perfons, Rom. 4.2,3 Rom$.$o it mutt he more then the Vertual Juftification in Law-Title ; which K only an ad of God prt-fcribing or promifig a way of Juftification, not the fentence it feif, and is general, and indeterminate to particular perfons, and is performed before the perfon juftified believes : Yea is the fame, though none were a dually juftified : and therefore inmyapprehc-nfion, that Ad of Gods Covenanting or pro-mifing, in which I conceive you place the Juftification by Law-Title. Thtf.tf. Is not the Juftification by faith meant, Rom.\.\.e$ c. •

Befides, to be juftified notes-a Pafiion > which prefuppofeth an Adion r an Ad Tranfient, not Imminent; or only Gods purpofe to juftifie: nor can it be Gods Proraifc tojuflific:

Tt 3 For

(3^)

Tor the Aft, though it be Tranfienr, yet it is only a Declaration what he will do; his promife to juftifie upon condition, is not Juftifying, and therefore a man is not by the Covenant, wthuuta further Aft, Denominated Juftified, though he be made juftifyable by it. I conceive Juftification is a Court term, Importing an Ad of God as Judge, whereas his promifing is not his Act as Judge,but ReBor y thef.^z. you mention the Angels judging us Righteous, and Rejoycing therein ; which whence ic (hould be>but by a fentence parted in Heaven,I know not. Confticutive Juftification, different from Declarative by fentence, I do not find exprefled under the term [Juftification] It would beconfidered whether any other Ad befides the fentence, doth make a man juft,buc giving of faith; notwitbftand-ingChrifts Death,and the conditional Covenant before faith,a pcrfon is only juftifyable ; Cond tiontlu nihil ponitinejfe. A per-fon is upon giving ofFaithjuftified; but not by giving of faith (thats anaft of Sanftification) but by afentence ofCod,T^r/'. 59.Youmake juftification a continued aftjnow it being a tran-iient aft,l fuppofe it may not be well called a continued Aft, which imports a fucceffive motion between the ternrnns a quo % and terminus *l quern \ whereas the aft,whether by fenteme,oc Covenants notfuch a Motion. Its not to be deny cd,tbat the Benefit and Vertue of it is continued, but I think not the Aft, If it be notfemel, but fiepejet it (hould be rathtr celled Aft*** Renovattu^RcpetitiuJterattu ,then continued I incline to think there is but one Juftification of a perfonin this life, though there be frequent remiflions of fin. Of this you may Cpnfider, lt[thtS^\vn%Evtrhfling Reft,pag.i i. Doubrlefs the Coi pel takes faith for our obedience to All Gofpel Preceprs, Be* lieving doth not produce fubjeftionro Chrift as King, as a finite, but contains it as anEffential part, &c. Aphor. p. 25.5. Faith doth as Really .and Immediately Receive Chrift as King (as Saviour,or Prieft) and fo Juftifie^n*/:^. Scripture doth not take the word [ Faith ] for any one fingle Aft; nor yet for various Afts of one only faculty ; but for a compieat entire motion of the whole foul to Chrift its Object, M'/.57* It is the Act of faith which juftifies men at Age, and not the

Habit.

Againft

Againft this I object •, I. Faith toorketh by Lcve, Gal. ?. 16. Jf one bean effential part of the other, and faith a com-pleat entire motion ofthe fou!,thcn when it is faid,Faith work-eth by Love, it might be faid,it worketh by Faith.

a. Gofpel Prccepti are many, if not all, the fame with the Moral Law; if Jaft'fied then by obedience to them, are we not juftified by the works of the Law ? You' conceive the Juftifl -cation, f*m>2* to be by works in a proper fence and that before God i and R+habs act was a work of Hofpiraliry, w.25. commanded in the Law; and Ahrzhwtt work was a facnti-cingjor offering a work ofthe Ceremonial Law, ver.zi .

3. Repentancei?obedience to one Gofpel Precept, yet Faith and Repentance are diftingnifhed, Mar. 1.15.6,1. Love, Faith, Hope, art three, I Cor . 13.13. I Ti0. 1.5. 1 The/. 1.3. ftith and Love have different Objects,Ca/. i^.T^hil.%. 1 The/, 1*?, Therefore not the fame j nor one an Effential part ofthe other.

4. Obedience is a fi^n to prove faith,]am. 2.1%. and chere-fore not an E Hernial parr.

5. if Faith include obedience to all Gofpel Precepts as an Effential part,then actual faith includes actual obedience to all Gofpel Precepts as an effential jjart;and if the Act of faith Ju-.ftific men at Age, not the H*bit • and receiving Chrift as King, as irnmediady J uftifie, as believing m drift as Saviour, then a per/on of Age is not J unified without actual obedience to all Gofpel Precepts, and this may be nor till Death ,i( the n , and fo, no Justification in this Life.

tf.If Faith juftirie^s immediatly by receiving Chrift as King, asbv-receivinghim asSaviour, then it juftiries by receiving Cbrift as Judge, Mattb.2% 54. as 'Lawgiver, Avenger of his cnefeies,andfoa man is jaftified By receiving Chriftj Judging, Punithing, Condemning, Commanding, Avenging, as well ft* having by his Death ; which is contrary to #0^.3 25. & 5.9* 7. The Scriptnfe makes the object of jnftifying fairh Ctoifo X)eath, Refurrection, Blood, K^.3.2^.&* oo.'(5V.2.20,-21. Nowhere Chrifis dominion. Ergo. *S .objection toGhrift <as King i*noMnefiemial,part. S. The object of Taith is -nowhere Ttfafte ro be a Gofpel

Pr^cepr ? ,

Precept, fuchlis forgiving others, ufing Sacraments,^, nor Chrift as commanding; buc the Declaration of the Accora-pli{hmentsofChrift,andthecounfelofGodinhim, i CV.15. i.&c.Rcm,i 16,17. 64/. 3.8. Ergo Obedience is not an Ef-fential part.

9, If itbeaneffcntial pirt, then cither Genus or Difference ; for no other Efllntial parts belong to a quality or Action : nottheGenus,that'sA(Tent. ^£.^254. 274. whenthe objeft is a Proposition,: when it is an Incomplex term, Truft is the Genus: not the Difference, thats chiefly taken from the obfed. Keker.fyft. Logic. /. 1. feci.i.e. 2. can. Dtfin. Acrid* 5.7. Obedience may make known Fa th as a fi gn, but not as a part, its at leaft in order of Nature after- the caufe is afore the effc d: : the Antecedent before the Confequent; and faith is fcch>Hefr.ii.8.&c.

10. If Faith beacompleatentire motion of the whole foul to Chrift, then it faould be Love, Joy, Hope, Urtderftanding, Will, Memory, Fear; But this is not to be faid. Ergo.

Itisalleadgcd, 1. Faith muft be the Aft of the wholefoul-rife part fhould receive him, part nor.

Anpto. Faith is exprefled by the Metaphor of Receivings Jok.i. 12. Col.1,6. And he is Received by the Receiving of his Word, fob. 12.48. 1 Tloef.i. 13. which is Received by Affent. 2. The whole foul receives Chrift,though by other Grace: be-fides faith.

2. v4#j 8.37. ,&?/». 10. io. Ahfo.Tht term[ wbch ]notes not every inward faculty ; but (as after) fincerely, not feign-edly, as Simon Magm. So Illjricw.

3. Faith is called Obeying the Gofpel, Rom.10. 16- 1 Pit. 1.22. & 4.17. zTbtf.\%.Gali.\.&%.7. Heb.$.9. Butthe Gofpel commandeth All thus to obey Chrift as Lord,forgive others,Iove his people, bear what fuffcrings are Impofed, diligently ufehis Means and Ordinances^onfefiing^bewailing (ins, praying for pardon fincerely and to the end.

Anpto. Htb.%9* fpeaks of obeyng Chrift,but doth not call faith obeying Chrift: but be it granted,Faith is called obeying of Chrift, or the Gofpel; doth it follow that it is obedience in doing thole named Acts ? It may be obedience by Affent to

the

the Doctrine of Chrift, that he is the Aftjflah£\ti for fins, &c. commanded i Cor. 15.3. 1 fob. 3. 23. which the terms mtfr&u and <&axvHr do rather Import, then the other Afts mentioned. The Gofpel and Truth arc reftrained to the Doctrine of drifts coming, dying, &c, nowhere applyed, that I know, to the Precepts of forgiving others ,fuffering death, receiving the Lords Supper,^.

4. The fulfilling the condition of the new Covenant is called liilhfiaLi. 12,23,25.

esfnfaer. Neither of thefe places make faith the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant, nor anyplace t\k, In Cy <?/. 3.12,. Its faid,the Law,thatis the Covenant of the Law, is not of FaitruVdofch not aflign Life to Faith in drift.Faith Ga/.}, 23, 25. is put , faith Ptfcat. for the time of the Gofpel, or drift, fay others, or the Dodrine of Faith. By Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Juftifi-cation in this life is fulfilled, not concerning every Benefit of the new Covenant. Repentance is the condi:ion of Remifli-onof fins;forgivingothers,doinggood to the Saints, of entering into Life.

J. The Gofpel reveals not Chrifts offices as feparate. Ergo. They mnft be fo believed.

Anfw. The conclufion is granted , but proves not faith to juftifie in receiving Thrift as KinS. 6. It offers Chrift as King,and fo rauft be received. Anfwer the fame.

7.Scripture nowhere tieth Juftification to the rcceit of bira as prieftonly. ^r.Tbe contrary is proved from Rom. 3.25.& 5.9.

8. Commonly Chrift is called our Lord and Saviour. Anjw. True ; But we arejuftified by his blood.

9. If we receive him not as a King, then not as an entire Saviour. ^«/ft».True; Yet Juftification is by his death,2 Cor. 5.2I.C74/.2.2I. Rem-'} 25 and 5 9.

10. Chrift is not received truly,tf not entirely as Kin:. ^«-/w.True^But this proves not that obedience is an efler.tjal part of faith j orthat fubjcAion to Chrift as King, juftifies as im-mediatety,as receiving him as Saviour.

it. The exalting of his proper Kingly office, is a Principal End of Chrifts dying. TV*/-2. flow, 14.9.

Uu Anfw.

^»/W,True \ But it follows not that cither Obedience is Effentiat part of faith , or fubjeftion to Chrift as King

»n JblieriLicll pan. vm raii.ii , vl juujv:y.uv/u tu vyuiiii as iving

juftifieth as immediately as receiving him as Saviour or

Prieft.

Tows in theTruth I. T.

Sir, 1 Ts to be eonfidered, i. Whether thefe words, answer to Va-•*ledict.orat at 2?.jug. ipi. [ Nothing but thefaufaUionof Chrift % u th*t which aar Divhes call the matter of our fuftifica-tian , or the Right eoufnefs which ti?« mzft pit ad to Acquit tu it Ju>jlgeinc*t.~\ And it is faid Rom, 3.2,5 through faith in his Blood, and /^fj.5.9. by his Blood, Do noc prove Chrift* Death either the fole or chief Objeccof faith as Juftifying- and bowthisltandswithAphorifcn of Julification, Thef66. and its Explication.

2 Whether the words, Lul^ii. 14. impart not a dif-daiming or denial of a Title to judge , and fo your anfwer be not inefficient pag,7,j6, which feems to fuppofr a

Title,and only a Sufpenfion of Exercife in that ft ite of H'umi--

liation.

3. Whether if Magiftrates be Officers of Chrift as King, by Office they be no: in his Kingdom, and fo Infidel Magistrates in Chrifts Kingdom,contrary toC0Z.1-.14.

4. If it be maintained, Thtf Chrift died for every Child of Adam conditionally, It would be well proved from Scripture, that the procuring of fuch a conditional Law or Covenant, was the End or Efre<S' , of Chrifts death •, and whether the fo Interpreting Texts that fpeak of his dying for all, will no* ferve for Eva(So£S to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Chrifts Satisfaction aid Merit, proper to the Eled. For if they may be Interpreted fo>ffe died to procure the condition* I Covenant for every one ,this miy be alltdged jjftly ; thcnyou can prove no more thence, for that is the fenfc ; and* then we cannot prove tbence,,hedied/^0«(3y?^e^Itisamatter of much mQfflcnc,aad needs great CircumfpecHi on * Toms.

Cj?0

Sir,

ID Eddes] what hitb been formerly fuggefted to you, theft ^ words in your Scripture proofs, f^.323. ^^ »&fr* £* next faith, that in the aged fever al difpofittons art required to fit a man to receive p*r don,(and [e juftification)y'a Cathode faith, kept of pardon fear 0fpumjhment,grief for fin >a purpofe againfl fining hereafter, axdapurpofe of a new life,all which difpofe the Ke-celver ; ami I agree to him, though all do not ] are fo like the Dodrine of die Trent Council, fcff.6x.6- thatic will be expected you declare, whether by avowing that fpeech of Dr. Ward, you do not join with the Papifts, contrary to Bi-(hop DoVrnam of J unification, /. 6x.y.§.i.z.\U. Vemble vim-dil?.lfidei.f.2.c.$.

And when you make Juftification a continued Ad upon condition of obedience, its to be confidercd how you will avoid Tompfom opinion of the Intercifioft of Juftification, upon the committing of a fin that wads the confciencc,refuted by Dr.Rob. Abbot, but vented after by Montague in his appeal, and oppofed by Dt.Prefton, and others.

As for JuftificatioB by Law-Title, by the Covenant upon adual Believing, without any other ad of God, confequent on Faith ; if it were fo; 1. Then it (hould be by necefTary Refnltancy ; B ut Judication is an Ad of Will,and no ad of Will is by neceflary Refultarcy.

2. If the Covenant juftifie without any other Ad of God, then it Adops 5 GlorifieSjSanctifics, ^.without any other Ace, which is not to be fa id. The reafon of the Sequel is, becaufc the Covenant of it felf doth in the fame manner produce the one as well as the other.

3- The Juftification of the Covenant is only conditional, therefore not Actual- Actual Juftification is not till Faith be put: and then Psfita condittcne , it is Actual : A conditional, is only a poffiblc Juftification ; its only in fountia^ till the Condition be in act; Now the Covenant doth only affare it 00 condition, asafuture thirig.not therefore as actual, or prefer^. Uo 31 4. The

(?}>>

4 TheCovenantisanActpaft,7VM.2. (W.3.7,8. fonoe condoned •, and confequently, the Juftifict:ion barely by it, without any other Act, muft be part long fince, and not continued ; and then either Justification Actual, and in purpopfe; or virtual, will be confounded, or an ef%: (hall be continued, without the caufe. fan.17, 1651. Tours.

J.T .

Reverend Sir,

I AM more thankfull to you for thefefree, candid, rational 1 Animadverfions, then I can no w cxprefs to you : yet being ftill contained to diffent from you,by the evidence of Truth I give you thefe Rcafons of my diffent.

i.Firft, You think that [the Scriptures cited, are not to be in* Upreted of ? unification in Title of Lm y becaufe this it only an N .AS of Qod preferring or promifing a way of fuftipCation j not the fentence it felf ^ and isgeneral } and indeterminate to particular perfons, &c. ] To which I arifwer. 1 .That I am paft doubt that you build all this on a great miftake about the nature of Gods Law or Covcnant d & Promife,& the moral aftion thereof. Foryou.muft know that this Promife of God, 1. is not a bare Afiertio explicatss de futuro animum qui nunc eft ; ( as G><?tf*# fpeaks; ) Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitation cum voluntas feipfam pro futuro tempore determinate cumfigno fujficitnte ad judicandamperfevcrandi neceffitatem. But it is 'Perfefta Tromijfio % ubi ad determinationem ta'em accedit fignum volendijus prdprium alteri conferre, qua ftmilem habet ejfettum qualem alienatio Domimi. Eft enim aut via ad alienor tionem rei y aut alter)dtio particuU cujufdam noflra liber tat it > &c. Vid % ultra Qroi.de jure BelliIJ.z.c. 11.§ .2.3,4.

2. This Promife or Covenant Of God,is zlfo bis Teftament : and who knoweth not that a Teftament is an ^nftrSlmentot properltonatiov, and not only a PredtlUon ? 3. Moreover this fame which in one refped is a Covenant and Promifc, aod in another a Teftament, is alfo truly part of Gods Law, even sheNew conftiiutiou of Chrift, the Law-giver and King. Bnc undoubtedly a Law which conferrcth Right either absolutely

Cm)

or conditionally,, is the true and proper raftrument of that Effect, and not only [ the prefenting orpromifing a w*y thereto ] The proper EfFeS or Product of every Law, is Dtbitum *tU quod; Et de foe debito dftermintre is its proper Aft. Now therefore this Promife being part of Chrifts Law, doth determine of and confer on us, the Debitum, or Right to fententi-al Justification, having ftrft given us an Intereft in Chrift, and foto the Benefit of his facisfaction ; and this is fufttficatio conftitmivd. You know a Deed of Gift ( though but conditional J is a moft proper Inftrumenc of conferring the Benefits therein contained. And is nor the Promife undoubtedly Gods Deed of Gift ? And doth he not thereby make over, as it were under his hand, the Lord Jefus, and all his Benefits to them that will receive him? So that when you fay, that££*/ Promife to juftifie up in condition* is not '^ftijjigg ] You may fee it is other wife by all the forementioned confiderations of the nature of the Promife. You may as well fay, a Teflament % or deed of Gift conditional-, doth not give % or a LaX> doth not confer Right and Title. And in thefc Relative benefits, to givcRight to the thing, and to give the thing it felf, or right in it, is all one : ( ftill allowing the diftance of time limited for both in the Inftrumcnt ) It is all one to give full right to fon-fhip, and to make one a Son : or at leaft they are infepa-rable. Yea, ( which weigheth moft of all with me ) it being die proper work ofGods Laws to giveDunefs of, or Right to r B*nefits % it cannot be any other way accomplifhed that is within our Knowledge ^ I think ) For Decree, Purpofe, and fo Predeftination cannot do it, they being Determination* [de eventn , and not dedebito, asfuch: And th^fenttntialdecU' mtwwprefuppofeth this Debitumt or true Right eoufnefs, an therefore doth not give it. No wonder therefore while you deny this Legale Teftamentary, Moral Donation, that you are forced alfo to deny Jftftificttion conftitutive; ( but very inconveniently andunfafety.) By what way doth God give a father Authority over his Children, and a Husband over his -Wife, and a Magiftrate over the people, and a Minifter over the Church or Flock , but only by this Moral, Legal A&ion? And even fo doth he give Power to them that receive him, to

Uu 3 becomev

become his Son?. And it is the fame Inftrument which per? formeth this, which is called a Promife, Covenant,Teftament» DifpofitionorLaw; the name being taken from different re-fpe&s or accidental confiderations.

Again, If the word of Chriftdo judge us, then that word doth juftifie and condemn • ( For judging in general contained thefc fpecial Actions. ) Rut the word doth judge us , J and (hall do at the lali day: ) therefore the word doth juftc-fie and condemn.

Again: It is a Rule in the Civil Law ( as VlfUn ) thati?jr the [ante ^ay as an Obligation is induced or can fed , it muft be removed or deftroyed: But by the curfe of the Law, or the Threatningof Penalty.was our 6bligation to puniftiment, and condemnation induced or caufed: therefore by the way of Law dtffolvirg that caufe, muft it be taken off, Now as Rea» tut eft obligatio ad Pcenam y fo pardon is the diflblving of thai Obligation, ordifchargc from it5 (Vena & Poena fmnt *4« verfa : ) And therefore the Law of Chrift, or this his Promife or Grant, is the Inflrument of Pardoning. And me-thinks, when you are convinced, that God pardoncth by Law or moral A&ion, you (hould eafily yield, that in the like way he juftificth. For if you be not of the Judgement, that Rmiflion and Justification are aH one: yet you muft needs yields that they are of fo near anatnre, that the difference is exceeding fmall, and rather notional and respective, then real. I might to thefc Arguments add fomewfcae from the Iflfue, and different tendency of this my opinion and the contrary* As that this doth give Gods Laws their honor and dignity, by afcribingto them that higher and more noble and cfTeftive Action; which the contrary opinion denying it, doth very injuripufly debafe the Scriptures or Lawa of God. Alfo that this opinion is the only expedient left, (that I can fincJJ to avoid the Amlnomian fancy of an Eternal Juftiflcation, which all they muft aflert, that fay it is an Immanent Act ( whjch you juftly and truly deny.) For your way lying in the other extream, 1. Overthroweth all tonftitutive Justification • which is not to be born. ( Whether All Tar don by the Covenant, I yet know not your mind )

2. And

ji. And it Intepretetb all Scriptwes ( char /peak of a Jufth-fication in this life ) of a f?rang« feigned Juftification, which for ought I find hath no ground in Scripture at all • and is wholly aliene to our condition ; and a: leaf* utterly unknown to us, if not known to be untrue. What doth it concern a finner to be juflified or condemned now before a Court of Angels, wheie he is not prefent,nor knows any thing of it ? nor do we know what Angels have to do infuch a bufinefs. And what Tranfient Ad is it that God then and there puts forth or pcrformeth? Carryou tell ? or doth Scripture tell you ? God fpeaketh not to Angels b-y voyce. If you think (as the Schoolmen, fome,) th it they fee our Juftification. as other things in the face of Go<f,-Chen icis aa rranfient A& Elfe why may not t-ey fee it in if felf? Arrd then either our Juftifi-cation is Gods Eflence,and they fee it in him as his Eternal Be* ing,or elfe God muft bemutable, as having fometbing to be feen in him den»vo y which was not in him from Eternity. If you fay that this Tranfient Ad is Gods Illuminating the Angelical underffanding to know us to be juftified ; then this fup-pofeth that we are juftified already by fome former A&( which can be nothing that I know but the moral Act of hi&Lawes: ) For their knowing us to be juftified is not a juftify ing us, but prefuppofeth us to be what they know us to be. I can think of nothing elfe that you can fay, except this, that Conft at man may Vocally (or by fome equivalent Tranfient Act) pronounce us Juftifled; as he will do at Judgement. Eat i. this is without Scripture. ?. and it is God-that juftifieth. 3. And then bow were all the faithful juftified before Chrtfts Incarnation and Afcenfion ? Or do you think none were juftified before ? But I will return to your Exceptions. You fay, £ This » but Virtual fuft%fie*tim 1 which is in Law Title. Anfw. I. It is tsfcluslConfkitutivt Juftification,&nd not Virtual only. 2,But it is indeed but Virtual f$»unti*J justification. But yet itisof the higheft kind of Virtually. Jt h that which makes us rt&os in-curia*(which I take to be the nature of our Juftification in this life.) And taken divipmjt. feem-etb more excellent in fome refpeel, then the fentence or decla» ration it felf j forbethatby Parchafeirf^andPardoa<writ-

ten)^

C»«)

ten ) aftcr,maketh Offenders joft in Law,) i. e. ( non obligam ad panam ,) feemcth to do more for them by that act, tben after by pronouncing them juft. Though yet this laft I know is the moft perfect Juftificationjtakenc^jawtfjw with the reft, as the end to which they tend, and as that which giveth them their full effect.

Your next Objection is, that this Gofpel Juftification. Q r/ general and indeterminate to f articular perfons ] Anfwer.lt cannot be more certain or effectual. Forwhenit is to all, no man hath reafon to think himfelf excepted ( who excludes not birafeif by non-performance of the conditions. ) Every particular man is comprized in All. And for the determination, the Description of the perfon is as certain a way as the naming of him. To give Chrift and his Righteoufnefs to All that will receive him, is as effectual a determinate Gift to each particular Receiver, as to give him to Peter, Tinl, John by name. If a Pardon be proclaimed, or given in the Laws, to all Offenders that perform fuch a condition; is it not as effectual to each perfon, as if he were named ? If a Father be. queath fuch Lands or Monies to all his Children (or a man to all the poor in the town ) on condition that they come by fuch a day to fuch a place, and fignifle their acceptance and gratitude : is not this as fure and good, as if they were all named ?

Next, You objed, [ Thit id performed, before the perfon juftified believes. ] Anfwer. I have faid enough to you of this already. ( of Bapt. pag.ioO. ) I add this much : you mult diftinguifh between the Phyfical ad of making this Law, Promifc> Covenant, Grant or Teftament; and the Moral Agency of this Law, Grant or Teftament once made. The former was before we Believed : but the later was not ( properly and fully ) till after. Do not all Philofophers and Divines in the world that .meddle with it;, tell you that this is ufual with moral caufes, that they may have all their abfolute Entity and vim agendijong before they produe their effeds ? and may be Attn primo, etfi nen fecundo efeUum producenie, m being long before. The Law that determineth of your right to youf Pofleffion, Or that doth give a Reward to every man

that

l tbat kiileth a wild hurtfull beaft, or that condemneth every mantbatmurderethorcomrn«rtrth Felony, err. was in Being before thofe perfons were born perhaps; And yet it did not hoc *gere; it did not Pntmi*re> Punire, Pracipere, &c. as to this man before"; A pardon from a Prince ?o a f ray tor, on condition, doth not perform the moral act of his difcharge,till he perform the condition, though it were in being before. The like r may fay of a Teftament or Deed of Gift: But what need many words in a cafe where the Troth is fo obvious ? If fome mora! caufes may be canfes, and Agere mora-liter y or prodace their effects, even before they are naturally in Being, much more may they fufpend it, and fo produce it long after they are in Being: Camfe enim moralis ea ratio eft t ut ctiam cum non eft uElu % fit efficax, medo habe at ( mt loquun-tur in fcholti) e§e ccgnitumiinqmt RivetUS Difput.i$. de fdttf-fatt.Chrifli. pag.282.

Next you fay, [_ Tea it is the fame, though none Were a&u-ally jnftified. ] Anfwer. This requires no other anfwer, then what is given to the former. It is the fame Phjfsce conlderata f vel in Entitate ntturali: But the moral action of pardoning and juftifying is not the fame, nor is at all : A conditional ^Pardon^ Deed of Gift, Teftament, &c. doth not at all pardon, or (jive, till you perform the condition. For it is the proper nature of a condition to fufpend the ad of the Grant: fo that till it be abfolute or equal to Abfolute, it is not Atlu* */RcmifIionJaftiflcation, £-c.) The reafon of all this is,be-caufe thefe Laws, Teftaments or Proraifes, are but the Lawmakers, TeHators or Donors Inftruments, and therefore ad when and how he pleafes: and it is his pleafure that they fhould ad nootherwife then as is aforefaid,and as in the Tenor of them he (hall exprefs.

Next ycuadd \_Tohe)n^ified % notes apAJfion* Vvhkh pre-fufpifetb an AUion tranfient y not immar.ent,or onlj Gods purpofe tojnftifie : ] Anfwer 1. ^0 far as the Reception of a Relation may be called a Paflion, this is true: And no doubt you are in the right, that it is not AElus immanent. But now, What tranfitnt Ait it is, I remember very k w Divines that once tell us 5 bat only in general fay, h u aTranfient A&.

Xx Now

cm

Now you arid I that have adventured to enquire, do happen to be both lingular from others,and differing between our felves, ( only Mr. Rutherford % and fome few others I find faying oft, thai we are pardoned and juftified by the Gofpel; by which they feem to mean as I )But for your way of Jurtificati-on by a fentence before the Angels, as I never met with any that jadged that to be our Juftification by Faith, fo as I have iaid, it feems to me very groundlefs and ftrange. And then, if yours ftand not, mine only muft, for any thing that is yet difcoveredjthat I have feen/or I know of none that tells us of any third,

Your nexr Objection is the fame before anfwered , that [ Gods Tronsife to juftifit, u only a declaration what he V(>$ildo , and therefore a man is not bj Covenant without a further Act yuftifitd^ but ]ufit fable. ] Anfwer. Grotius defatisfatl. will tell you, thatPromifes give right to him to whom they arc made; and that therefore they cannot be reclaimed, though threatnings may. But if thefe were only Promifcs chat God will by another Ad do this or that for us, then it were to the purpofe that you fay : but that you cannot prove. Nor needs there any other Ad, but the moral Adion of the Inftrument itfelfto change our Relations here : Etfruftrafit proplura t &c. Indetdan Ad of our$[fBelitving]muft come in before the effed : but you and 1 arc agreed, that this is but conditio ! onal, and not effedive. Thefe Promifei therefore being alfo j Gods Law, Teftamerit ( of Chrift ) Deed of Gift, Covenant 0 c. they do not only foretell an Event to come to pafs by Tome other Action-, but they do confer a Right or make due the benefit or relation, and fo effect it; only the Author is pleafed to fufpend the tflfed of his Inftrument, till we perform the Condition. As if by a Leafe, or Deed of Sale, there be fome Office or Dignity made over to you ■ or fome command m Army or Court, or Country : or by a Law a Foraigncr be Naturalized or Enfranchized, on fuch or fuch a ConditionjThis Leafe or Deed,or Law doth not only foretel, but cried the thing.

You add that £ f unification is a C^urt-term^ importing an .Mi cf Cjo&tis fudge, whereas his fromifng is not'his Atl a$

fudge,

je, hutRetlor.] Anfwer i. If by a Court-term, you alftTmean a L*»-ttrm, ( verbum forenfe or juMciarium in the full fenfe) I agree with you. But if you confine it to the fen-tence as pronounced, I require Proof; as alfo proof of any fuch fentence before Judgement, particular or general. A Redor is either Supremus w Sub alt emus : A Judge is either fupreme above all Laws, as being the Law-giver, or fab lege. God is both Reftor and fudge, only in the firft fenfes: and by judging, he Ruleth ; and Rettor is but the Genus, whereof Judex is z [pedes. As Rcftor fupremus , God is the Legiflator, and fo actcth (and juftifieth by his Laws, Grants, tfrc. ) as Judge he fentencetb and abfolvech thofe that were firft made juft. A man is accofed for killing another in fight, at the command of the Sovereign Power. Is it not as fit and proper a faying, to fay [The La\\>dothjuftifie this man for fo doing agiinft all Accvfers, J as to fay, £ The Judge mlljufttfie hit»> ]\ Nay, Is it no: more ordinary ? And in a fort, the Suprcara or Soveraign may be faid to be ( though in a different fenfe ) /unified, as well as an Inferior ^ when yet the fard perfon to" ' uprcmacy hath no Judge, nor is to have any by Law,and fo cannot be juftificd by fentence. God will be jufti-fied in his fayings,e^.as he hath in a fort bound himfelf by his ownLaws,th;?t is,figniflcd his Refolutiontoobferve them; fo in the fenfe of thefe Laws, his works are now juft, and (ball be hereafter fo be manifeftcd : but not by any fentence of a Superior. Cut this Iconfefs differeth from our Jufttfica-tion.

Next you fay,£7** fyoft not whence itfiouldbe that Angeis Jhould juiee us righteous, and rejoice therein, but by a fentence p 'fedin H?~vol J Anfwer. If you think ( and prove ) that Angels cannot know us to be righteous then I will not affirm that they judge us fo. For I prefuppofe that that the/ know us to b* fo made by fome Act before,and therefore they judge us to be as we are. And if they may know that we are Believers, and know that th* New Law juftifieth all fuch, then they may judge us ro be juftified without any fentence rn Heaven, even as they know when a (inner is converted, and rejoice in it ^ which doubtlefs they may know without a fentcr.ee in

Xx 2 Heaven

c#°>

Heaven pronouncing us converted; and Gods making then* Inftruments in conferring his Mercies may make them know.

You fay that[ Conftitutive f unification , different from Dei clarativeb) fentence, I do not find exprefled under the term (J\x* ftification : ) it would be considered » Whether any other Atl be-fide the fentence ^ doth ma\e a man juft , but giving of faith. 3 Anfwer. Thefe two things I fhall prove to convince you : (be-caufe this is of fome moment.) i • That Tome Ad there muft be to conHitute us juft,before or befides the fentence. 2. That neither the fentence nor the givingof Faith doth firft and properly conftitute us Juft.

1. If we be not juft before we arejudged as juft,then God* Judgement Gvould not be according to Truth.Rut Gods Judgment is according to Truth : therefore we are juft before we arefo judged. 2. Hethat hath Chrift,and the Benefits of his fatisfa&ory Righteoufnefs given him by the New Law, Covenant, Tcftament or Grant of Chrift, is hereby conftituted righteous. But every Believer hath Chrift and the faid benefits Gh ven him in and by the Law or Covenant: therefore he is thereby made or conftituted Righteous.

And here by the way take notice, that the New Law or Covenant hath two Offices; the one to Befiow Right to the Benefit; and hereby it mak,es Righteous : The other to Declare and minifefi openly, and to be the Rule ofpublique Judgement;. and Co it doth both atlione morale proclaim believers righteous, and Virtually fentence them lb. And therefore in Rom. 10.5. itjs called £ the Righteoufnefs which U of the La® ] And if the Old Law had a power of making Righteous, if man could have performed the condition, fo alfo hath the New.

2, And that the fentence do:h not conftitute us Juft , needs no proof; It is the.work of a fudge by fentence to clear the Guiltlefs,and not to make them Guiltlefs. Pardon indeed may do fomewbac to it: but that is not the adion of a Judge as a Judge, but ( as you before diftinguilhed ) QfzReftor ( in cafe of tranfgrefling Lawes.J A Judge pronounceth men to be what they firft are according to Law ; and not makes them to. b&righteous who are not. He that faith to the wickgdjhou art

Righteous,

Righteous,Nations fall curfehtm^ pecplefhaUbhorhim: Vtol 24.24. He that jvfiifittb the Wicked , and hi that condemneth the }nft,even they both are abomination to the Lird,Trov.ij.i$. If this were not fo,then we rauft believe that no man is juftified before the day of ( particular or general ) Judgement, till you have proved that God fentenceth at a Court of Angels.

And that the Giving of Faith doth not make Righteous (that is, according to the Law of works) efe&ve, I think you confeft. If I thought you did not, it were very eafily proved : Faith being but the condition of our univerfalrighteoufnefs (which the old Law requireth in its fteadjeannot be that Righ-teoufnefsitfelf : and fome other efficient there muft be of our Justification here.

Next you fay [ NoVtolthft aniing Chrifis Deith*<d the Conditional Covenant afore faith, a per (on it only jufltfyable ' Conditionals nihil fonitejfe.'] Anf*. All this is very true : but not any thing againft me. I like well what you fay of Chrifts death, becaufe it is (as Aquino* and cur Da venavt } VJZ?er, &c.fay t ) but C'aufauniverfalU^vtlRemedium omnihtu applicabile. It is ttt prepare for and merit, & not direftly to effeft our Juftification, ( whatfocver the Aminomia>js dream: ) But the Covenant or Teftamentis the very efficient Inftrumental caufe of Juftification: and its Aftion is Gods Aftion. Yet its tiu.* that Condi* tionalis ni'ilponit in ejft: that is, till the condition be performed : but then it becometh of equal force to an Abfblute Gift, and doth ponerein ejfr.even the fame Inftrumenc doth ir,whofe Aft ion till then was ( by the Authors will) fufpended.

YOu next pafs to another Point ( about Tbef.%9) whe:her Juftification be a continued Aft. And you fay that [ be* ingaTranftent Aft , it cannot be well called acontiwtd Aft, Which imports a fucceffive motion between the Terminus a quo and ad quern, whereas thU Aft , vhttber by fintence or Covenant, i* not fuch a motion, &c] A rip*. 1. All this may be true of a proper natural Aftion .- but you know that it is only a moral Aftion-which I affirm to be continued , and of this you know your Rule de mtu holds not, except you take Afrtus

Xx 3 .Iwgcty

(34-0

largely and improperly. As paffive Justification, or the effeft of the Juftifying Aft is but a Relation, which is the weaker!: of Entities; fo doth it per nudum refultantiam arife>which is by the weakeft of Caufalities; The Act of God giving out and enaft-mg this Law or Covenant at fkft,was indeed a proper tranfient Act, and is ceafed : but the moral Action of the Law thus ena-fted is continual* The Law of the land , which condemneth Delinquents, and juftifieth the obedient, doth both by a continued moral Aft. The Leafc of your Houfc or Lands gives you Title thereto by a continued moral Aft So that this which I aiTert, is not Alius repttittu velrenovMu*.

You add that £ You incline to think, that then is but one Ju* ft ifcation of a Terf on in thiflife y though frequent Remijfion of fin*'] Anfw. In that you judge as moft of the Orthodox do: And I have faid nothing to the contrary. I think alfo, that as Scripture ufeth the phrafe of oft-forgiving, but feldom of ofc-juftifying, fo it is fafeft to fpeak as Scripture doth. Yet as to the things me thinks, that as Remiffion and Judication do but refpeftivelyorvery narrowly differ; fain this cafe, one may as truly be faid to be repeated, as the other : that is, As there is an univerfal Remiffion of all (in paft, upon our firft true Relieving • which univerfal Remiffion is never iterated, but continued : fo is there an Univerfal Juftificatton of the perfon at the fame time, by which he is made juft, ( and in Law fo eftee-med , pronounced or judged ) by being acquit from the condemning Power of the Law, which ( for his (ins paft only) was before in force againft him. And fo if you look to fuch a Remiffion or Juftification as wholly changeth the Mate of the perfon, making him Pardoned who was before wholly unpardoned* and fqlly under guilt of all former fins; or making him ju-ftified who was before unjuftified, and condemned (in Law ; ) neither of thefe I think, are iterated. But chen , as you con-fefs a frequently renewed pardon for following fins, fo I know no reafon, but in the fame fence there muft be a frequent Juftifying : For as our Divines well conclude, that (in cannot be pardoned before it be committed (for then there fhould be pardon without Quill •, for no man is Guilty of fm to come formally ;) fo is it as neccflary to conclude, that no man is ju»

ftified

ftified from fin before it be committed • that is,from that which is not •, and fo is not fin; For then Juftincation fhould go before and without Legal Accuftcion and Condemnation : For the Law accufeth and condemneth no man for a fin which is not committed, and fo is no fin. It is faidv/tf/ 13.59. that (by Chrift)w# arc Jmfttfifdfrem all things jrom Which \X>e could r,$ihc juftifiedby thi Laft efMofts. Where,asI defit e you co obfervc that phrafe of being ?*ftifi*dby the Law,to (Lew it is tnA&oftheLaw ( though fin rnaketh tranfgreffors unca-pablej fo you fee it is a Scripture phrafe to fay, we are f*fti-fitd from fin : And then either there muit befomekind ofpar-ticular Juftification from particular (ins after faith , of the na« ture of our renewed particular Pardon ; orelfe what will become of us for them ? For fure if the Law be (o far in force againft the actions of Believers as to mike and conclude them Guilty and Obliged to Punifhment (as much as ink lycth) and fo to need a frequent ptrdon ( for pardon is a difcharge from Guile, which is an Obligation to punifhment; ) then it mu t needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation, and fo to Accufe f and as much as in it lyes to condemn) them ,• and fo they muft need alfo a particular J unification. But then according tomy Judgement, 1. There is a fure Ground laid of both in the Gofpel or new Law or Covenant. 2. And the faid New Law doth perform it, by the fame Power by which it did univerfally juftifie and pardon them at the firft. There needech no addition to the Law. The change is in them : And the Law is laid Mora/iter aftrt quid ante anon afttimerat , becaufe of their new Capacity, neceftity and Relation. As if your Fathers Teftament do give you a thoufand pound at his Death, snd twenty fhillingsa week as long as you live after, and fo much at your marriage, &c. here this Tettament giveth you thefe new fums (after the firft) without any change in it • and yet by a new moral A& ; for it was not a proper Life, nil rh? Term cxpreffcd,or the condition performed .* and if that tei m hid never come, nor the .condition been performed , you had uever had right to it: (o 1 conceive, Gods Gofpel Grant or Terlament doth renew both our Rcmiffion and particular Juftification > If Satan fay, Tkk mm hnihdtftrvtddtAih by fin-

C 34-4)

■tng face y Believed (as David) muft WCnotbe juftifiedfrom that Accufation?

And here let me ask you one Queftion , which I forgot before about the fit ft Point. Seeing you think (truly) that Pardon is iterated as oft as tve fin,by what Transient A& of God is this done ? Doth God every moment at a Court of Angels Declare each (inner in the world,remitted of his particular fin? (Tor every moment we commit them. ) If you once-fec a ne» cefficyof judging the New Covenant or PromifeGods Par-doning Injlrument^ I doubt not but you will foon acknowledge as much about Jttftification. And fure a Legal or written In-ftrument is fo proper for this work, that we ufe to call it [ A P*rdo»,] which a Prince writes for the acquitting of an often-dor.

Be(ides,the Gofpel daily juftifieth by continuing our Juftifi-cation, as your Leafeftill giveth you Title to your Land.

(Mat. i*. 37. is of more then the continuance of Juftificati-on, even of J uftification at Judgement.)

THe next Point you come to about the Nature and Object of Faith,you are larger upon, through a miftake of my words and meaning. I know not therefore how to Anfwer your Arguments till I have firft told you my fence, and better ftated the Queftion.

Indeed that in pag.i 1. of Reft,I apprehended my felf,fo ob-vio us to mifconftruclion, that I have corrected it in the fecond EdVjon (which is now printed. ) Yet 1. I fpoke not of faith as Juftifjing, but as the condition of Salvation, which contains more then that which is the condition of our firit juftifkation. 2. I ncuer termed tho k-Gofpel-Precepts t whkh are not in fome way proper to the Gofpel. And for the next words £ That fufyfticn to Chrift u an EffentiaJ part offaith. ] I confefs I do not only take it for a certain Truth, but alfo of fo great moment, that I am glad you have bent your ftrength again!! it, and thereby occafioned me to fearch more throughly. But then, if you think (as you fc*m to do ) that by •£ Subjeflion ] I meanQ AftnalObtdmct J you quite miftake me: for I have

fully

Wi)

fatly opened my mind to you about this in myAphorif. tha E fpeak only of the fubjtttion of the Hearty and not of the ^tf*tf/0^i>*rr,whichisthepra&ifcof it. I fpeak but of the Acceptation of Chrift for our Lord, or the Conftnt thereto, and fo giving upourfelves to be his Difciples, Servants or Subje&s. This I maintain to be an Effential part of juftifying Faith,in the ftrict and proper fenfe of that word.

Its true that dejure Chrift is King of Unbelievers, and fo of them that acknowledge him not to be their King. But in order of nature, the acknowledging of his Dominion, and confent thereto, and fo receiving him to be our Kin£, doth go before our obeying him as our King. As a woman in marriage-Covenant , taketb ber Husband, as one whom (he muft obey add be faithfull to : But that taking or confenring. goes before the faid Obedience, as every Covenant before the performance of it. Yea though the fame act fhould be both an acknowledgement of, and confent to the Authority, and alfo an obeying of it; yet it is Quatenut a confent and acceptance of that Authority, and not as it is an obeying of ir, that I fpeak of ie when I afcribe Juftifkation to it: as faith in the common fenfe is certainly an act of Obedience to God : and yet Divines fay, it justifies not as ic is Obedience, but as an jnftrumtnt. So that by Heart'ftih\tttion to Chrift, I metfn that act by which we give upourfelves to Chrift as his Subjects to be ruled by him •, and by which we take him for our Soveraign on his Redemption.title. But when 1 judge the word Faith to bz taken yet in a larger fenfe, comprehending obediencej never faid or thought that fo it is the condition of our firft Juftifka :ion,norwi!l I contend with any that thinks the word is never taken fo largely, it being to me a matter of fraal moment. Now to your Objections.

I, ^OU fay, [ Faith Vorkethbj Uvt, &c.s^ Anfw. I I. Faith is fometimc taken ftrictly for a Belie-.'of Gods word* or an Aflent to its Truth. 2. Sometime more largely for the wills embracing alfo of the objec as an offered good, befides the uoderftandings AfTcnt to the Truth of the

Y y word

C3+0

word which offereth if.The former if by the A poftie ofc diftin-gutfoed from Love, and is faid to work by Love; as cbe lively acts of the understanding produce anfwcrable motions in the will. Bat the later is that faith which juft.fieth • to wit, The Receiving of an of end Chrift. And this comprfczeth both the Act of the Undcrftanding and Will ( as almoft ail Protc-ftant Divines affirm. ) Bat bo:h tbefe acts together are called Faith hom the former, which is moftftrictly fo called: be-caofe the great difficulty then lay in Befoeving the Truth of the Gofpel, ( and would do ftM, if it were not for the advantages of Credit, Education, Cuftom r c^ ^ therefore the whole work is thence denominated : though yet the corn-pleating of the work be in the Will, and the Underftandings Act but preparatory thereto. 2. You srtuft alfo diftinguilh between Love to Cbrijl the Mediator, and the Grace of Charity i* general, as it is extended alfotoGod as Creator, to Saints, to all men, &e. And between that firft act of Love, which is in our firft receiving of Cbrift, and the love which wc afterwards exercife on him: and fo I anfwer you, 1. That as the Apoftle diftingui&eth between Faith, Hope and Love, fodol. a. Faith taken ftrictly foraffenc ro Divine Teftio raony, producetb love in every one of the foreraentioned &nfes ( of the word Love : J 3. Jnftifying faith (comprizing ffhe wills acceptance ) produceth both the grace of Charity, as ic is excrcifed on other objects, and alfo the following acts of it towards Cbrift the Mediator: And fo I acknowledge that Faith workcthby Love, and that Love is not faith. But yet whether Love be not in fome fenfe eflential to juftifying faith, if you fpeak only of Love to Chrift, and that not as a diftinct grace, but as it is comprized in our Acceptanct of him at firft, I (hall leave to your consideration, when you have firft refolded the fe things. 1. Whether jaftifying faith be not an act of the Will as wdi as the Underftanding ? Few but Papifts deny it, and not all of them. 2. Whether Chrift himfeif be not tie object of it? Few Proteftants will deny it. 3. Whether Qoii be notthc^jf^of the Will, and fo Cbrift be not willed as Good? None doubts of it. 4. Whether this willing Sbe not the feme as Loving, as love is found in the rational ap-

petkc?

(?47)

petite ? Sore Aqutnts faith fo, ro man that I knew contra dieting it. 5. Whether ycu can call affiance, oranyotber arc of the will jufiifjirg faitb 9 excluding tbiswi/AVg, ornot principally irxkiding it? For 1. Tbi$i$ the W-ills firft ace towards it object; and will ycu fay that Love goes before jufti-fying faith, and fo before Juftification ? ard futh a Love is is diftinct from juftify ing faith a* being ro part of it ? How then is Love the fruit of faith, and as Divines fay, a confequent of Juftification? Yet it is beyond all doubt, that this VeiU or Love to Chrifl goes before Affiance on him, or any other act of iht WWlvidi A quirt. 1.2. ^23.^.33. £m 2&o.*.i Et Tolet it amma, /. 3. cap.g. ^27,28 Et Amef contra Qrsvin-chov.pag.i6. 2. And can it be imagined that preceding aflent, and fubfequent Affiance, in Cbrift (hould be conditions of our Jmtification • and yet the Vefle Chriflvm ibUtnmshtx. willing which we call Conft*t % Election or Acceptance^ which goeth between aflent and Affiance,fhould be excluded as no part of this condition ? s.Efpecially confidering that Affiance contains divers a&s,whereof one is of the Irafcible of the fenfuive,and fo is but an imperate ad of the Will, and lefs noble then that elf-cite Aft ( which I plead for,) a s well as Pofttrier to it: and if Aqstin. be not out in his Philofophy, when he fo oft faitb that jMticis is fpes roforataythen our Divines make Hope to juftific. Yet for all this, I have not efpoufed this faying, that Love U Cbrift is EJfential to jtfftfying faitb ' nor will contend with any man that thinksnt unmeet; if we agree in the things of moment,! hate fo quarrel about words.

Nor do I think it a meet phrafe to fay, we are juftifiedbj Lcv9 % (though in thefenfe before mentioned, I think it true,; becaufeitis wit a part, oraffeclion as it were of that rccep* tin, by which we are juftified, and ftands not in fo full a relation tothe objeA received.

And yetp if I bad faid none of all this, I fee not that I need anymore then to deny your confequence, as being wholly ungrounded: For it followeth not, that £ it be an clTen-tsal part, that therefore it muft have the DcFomination of the whole : yea, though the whole be faid to work bf that part. The Brain and Heart are effential pans of the

Yy2 Body:

Body: and yet not to be called the Body; and it is more proper to fay that the body works by the Brain or Heart ; ot that the vegetative foal doth work by the natural heat and Spirits; then to fay, the Body worketh by the Body, or the vegetative foul by it felf. I will explain all together in my ufual Similitude, which is Dr. Preftons ( or rather Pauls ) A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon, and alfo to be made a Queen, if (he will but take the Prince for her Husband. Now here put your Queftions. i. h Love Any part cftke Conditim of her Pardon and Dignit) ? Anfwer, Yes : An effential parr^for Confent is of the EiTencc of it: and Love is eiTentiai to true confent, to receive any offered good: Not love as it is a Pajfton, but as it is an a& of the rational Appe-! cite; which is but Velle^ And £hgere t Con/entire^Acetftare are nothing elfe but a refpettive willing. 2. But it is qoc Love as a Venue in general, or as exercifed on any other obje&,iwhich isjthis effential part of the Condition : but only love to him whom (he married. And fo her firft love is neceffary to her Pardon anjd Dignity as begun; and her continued love ( and marriage-faitbfulnefs ) is neceffary to them as they are robe continued : ( fuppofing the Prince to know the heart as Chrift doth. ) Qu.2. lsittbenameetpbrafetofayfhat (he is pardon^ tdand dignified b} loving ftrch a Prince} Anfw.. it hath fome Truth m it, but it is not a fit fpeech ; but rather that it is by marrying him, becaufe Love is but a part, or as it were an Afr feSion of that CM arriage Covenant ot confent , which indeed doth dignifie her. Love may be without marriage, but not Marriage ( cordially) without Love. So in our prefent cafe, juftifying faith is the very Marriage Confent or Covenant with Chrift ^ It is therfore fitter to fay, we are jufcified by it^ then by love; becaufe the former expretfeth the full conditU on : the latter not. £>u. 3. ■ // love be an effential part of the Marr\agi-confent , then may wt not as.. rrellfay i Marriage cauf-gth Marriage, as tofay , OWarriagecaufethLwe. Anfwer NoJ for 1 -., That Love which it caufeth, is the following ads 0$ Love. 2. An#thej name of Love is moft ufually given only so the Paflion which is in the fenfitive ; but not ufually to the jneei Vtllt % tjic elicite ad of the rational appetite. I have

feera

(ftp)

been the more prolix on this, becaufe itferves rifo for ati-fwer to other of your Objeftions.efpecially the third.

3. You objc&[ Cjofpel-Precepts are many, if not all, the fame Veith the *soral L*W: ifj«ft*fied then bj obedience to tbenr % art toe net jttftified by the workj of the Law > &c. Anfwer. i, fumes yields the whole. 2. If youfpeak of our Juftifi* cation at firft, by which, of gaiicy and lyable to condemnation, we become recli in carta, or are acquit, I then yield aH chat you feek here, viz. that we are not juftified by works; jv This objection is grounded on your forraentioned raiftake of ray meaning, as if I thought that juftifying faith contained cffentiaily iuch ofodience or works. 4. We are not juftified by works of the Law, if you mean the Law of works, or by any works which ma^e the reward ro be not of Grace, but of Debt, which are the works that 7>4«/fpeaks of. 5. That which you call the moral Law, viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue, taken Divifim, without th^ fanSion, vfc. the Promife or the Commination , is not the Law, but one part cf the Law : and the-.other part, viz. the fan&ion adjoined, if diverfified,nakesittw<>diftinA Laws, though the Duty conr-raanded be the fame, The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cictttam, is not the fame with that which fhould com* mand a fick man to drink fome for a cure. 6. That our J unification is continued, on condition of our fincere obedience; added to our faith, I mantain with fames. 7. Will you anfwer your own obje&i )n, and you rell me what to anfa/er : Faith 35 a duty of trie moral Law : if we are juftified by faith, then we are juftified by a work of the Law. I know you will not evaJe asthofethat fay,Fa th is not a work>buc a Paffion nor as thofe that fay, we are juftified by it nDt as a work, butasanlnftm* merit: for I have heard you difdaim that.If you fay it is notas a work,but as a condition by the free Law giver appointed to this end, then you fay as I do,both of fauh,and fecondarilyof works. For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation, or of the final Justification r'orefourprefent Jufti* ficaticn as continued, vtinanamittendi fuftificMtionemjaa^e* ceft/tm, as CW. 'Begins faith ; I know but one other evafion leftin the world; which I once thought none wouldhava ad*

Yy 3 ?eoftr

(3*°)

ventured on; but lately an acute Difputant (with me) maintains , that faith u not conditio moralis , vol ex volmtate conjh* tktntisjbut Conditio phyfica vel ex natter* rts.Bttt I chink I (hall cafily and quickly difprove this opinion.

Rihabs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law of Grace, and not of the old Law of works.

In a word, As there is a twofold Law, fo there is a twofold Accufation and Juftification : when we are accufed as breakers oftheLawof works,thatis,asjfo/wj in common fort, and fo as lyable to the penalty thereof, then we plead only Chrifts fatisfadion as our Righteoufnefs, and no work of our own: But when we are Accufed of final non- performance of the conditions of the New Law, that is of being RejeftorsofChriftthc UWediator, we are juftified by producing our faith and finccre obedience to bim. The former Paul fpeaks of, and James of the latter. You may fee Divines of great Name faying as I in this, as UWead, Deodtfe on James the a. butmoft fully Tla-caw inThef. SalmurienfThef.de fuftific.&c.

To your third Obje&ion, That Faith, Repentance, Hope and Love (as before explained) are diftwguijhed, I eaflly yield you. But where youfayf Faith and Love have different Objeftstherefore one U no ejfential part of the other ) I anfwer, That faith in Chrift, and Love to thcSaints (which your Texts mention ) have different Objefts, I foon confefs. But faith in Chrift (as it is the firft Ad of the Will) and Ipve to Chrift, have one and the fame Objeft,beyond all doubt.

Your fourth I wholly yield, if you fpeak of faith ftrifily, or as it Juftifieth,and not in a large improper fence.

Your fifth is grounded on the foremencioned miftake of my meaning. And there needs no further anfwer, but only to tell you, that though finccre obedience to all Chrifts Lawes be a part of the condition of our Juftification a* continued and con-fummate at Judgement; yet it follows not that every particular duty mart be dooe.no more then that Adam muft obey eve-ry particular Law before he were adually juft. It is fufficfent that there be no other defed in our Obedience, but what may (land with fincenty. The fame Precept may command , or make Duty to one, and not to another, and fo be no Precept

as

as to him. A rain that lives bat an hour after his converfion, 1 is bound fincerely to obey Chr ift according to his Law • bat be is not bound to build Churches, nor to do the work of twenty years. Chrift may be received as King, (and is) in the fame moment in which he is received as J uftiher 9 and in that reception we covenant to obey him, and take him for eair lord to , the death ; but not to obey him on earth when we are dead ; for w* arc then freed from thefeLawes, and come under the Lawes of the Glorified.

To your fixth I anfwer, The Texts alledged have no (hew of contradiding the Point you oppofe. One faith,*/ are ju-ftifiid by his Bitot; But doth it thence follow/* herefore nrtbj BtUtving in him or receiving him as King , 4re we m*de part a-k?rs of it.) His Blood is the Porchafing caufe , but We enquire after the condition on our part. The other Text faitb, {through fakh in hu Blood.) But i. it faith notonlj in his Blood. 2»An4 his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of bis fufti* fyingus : for by his blood he bought ail into his own band*: For to this end he Died, Rofe and Revrved, that he might be Lord ofDeadandLiving.Rom.i4*9+ It may be therefore through faith in hie Blooi, as the chief part of the fatisfadion, and yet ncccfTarily alfo through faith in himfelf , or the Reception of kimfe/fis the Chrift. $. Yec doth the Apoftlcmoft conveniently fay, {throughfaith in his blood) rather then (through faith in his Dominion or Government,) becaofe when he fpeaks of Faith, he fpeaks Relatively : not ( as fome underftand it) by Faith meaning Chrift , butufing trie name of that Ad which fklicft and fulheft relates to its Objed; and fo intending the Object more principally then the Ad. And as it is fitter to fay, that (we are ?#ftfi>dby Chrift j blood,) then that (we art fuft$fiedby his Kingly Power J therefore the Apoftle rather fpeaks of faith t* hx bloody asneerlicft relating to the Objcd. Yet, as heexdudes not Chrifts obedience, (Tor by hU cbedunce many are made Righteous) nm faith in his cbtdience, and in his whole humiliation as well as his blood; and in hir Rrfurrelli* en,and Intercefftou and Exaltation • fo not in his iCfcgly Office. Look back on the former Example to make this plain. A poor condemned woman is delivered and Dignified by marrying a

Prince

cm

Prince that hath redeemed her on that condition. When ftie fpeaksof her Deliver ance^t will fay, [7 am delivered by the J$otint)/t Goodnefs or Redemption of my Trince, and fob)marry '. ing him that in mercy Redeemed me*"^ rather then [Iam delivered by marrying a Prince to Rule me.\ Becaufe in the former (he more fkly .& fully expreflkh more of the caufc of her Deliverance : Much kfs will (he think it a fit fpecco to fay, / am delivered by marrying an Avenger of his enemies ', a Condemner, a Tttnijher&c.) as you are p'.eafed to fpeak in this our cafe. And yet who doubts, but her marrying or taking him for her Huf-ba*d hereafter to Rule her, as well as prefently to Deliver her, is the very true Condition on her pare of her Deliverance ? Yea, and if you fpeak not only of her "Deliverance, but of her Dignity (being enriched, Honoured and made a Queen,) it is the fittcft phrafe to fay (tt was by her marrying a ^Prince.) And fo if you freak not only of Pardon and Juftification (which import our Deliverance inftatum quo frius t )but alfo of our A-doption to be fons,and Kings,and Heirs with Chrift,itisno unfit phrafe to fay, This is by our marrying King Jeftu • or by receiving Chrifl as the King by Redemption.

All the Benefits which we Receive from Chrift(which follow Union) fuch as are Pardon, Juftification and Adoption, do flow from our Union with bimfelf which precedes them. 'This Union is by Faith : We arc united to him as to a Head, Huf-band and Prince, and not only as a Juftifier ? therefore from him received as a Head, Hufband and Prince, do thefe Benefits of Juftification and Adoption flow.

To your feventh Objection I anfwer, by denying the kttcr part of your Antccdent \that Scripture nowhere »M^j(Chrifts Dominion you fay,but) jfhriftum r Dommttm (you (hould fay,) the Objett 'fjuftifying Faith/] I never thought that thrifts Dominion, nor yet his Redemption was the proper Objedt of the chiefeft ad of Juftifying Faith. But Chrift himfelf as Lord and as Redeemer is. I prove it, i. Chrift is the proper Objed of juftifying Faith (as I (hall anon prove.) But the name Chrift (igntfieth asdiredly and fully his Kingly Office as bis Juftifying. If you include not his being King, you Receive him noc as Chrift.

C3T0

2. To Receive him as Redeemer is to Receive him as King; For his very Redeeming was a Purchafing them into his own hands, (Job.i^.l. Manb.i2.iS.fob.iJ V & 3.3*. Luh 10. 22. Efhef.l.21,11* 7*6.5.26,27. /fotf.14.9 ehr.) though not only fo.

3. T/f/w 2. *T*/j rfcf Jtfii /*/? 6*4* <^7,&c. Killing, or fubmictingto,and Receiving the Son a* King;for fo ; he whole Pfalm expounds it) is the condition of efcaping wrath • there fore of Pardon ( for Tax* fr Veniafunt advtrfa :) therefore of our Juftification.

4. Matth. 11.17. Corns unto me ak ye that Uhater and are heavy laden % f Guilt is the great load : ) But under what Notion will Cfarift be come to? Take my joke and b**thtn$L<i Learn of me fez. and ye JhaQ find reft to year fouls. Reft I from what ? from that they were burdened with; and tha was Guilt,among other things: and to remove the burden of the Guile of fin or curfe of the Law, is to Pardon and Juftifie. ( I hope you will not fay, that the only Burden that Chrift offers here to eafc thesn of, was the Pharifes rigorous Interpretation of the Law, as I was told you expound it.)

5. Luke 19.27. Tloefe mine enemies thnt would not I fhcnld Reign over themficc. I f Reje&ing Chrift as King be the con* demning fin according to the tenor of the New Law; then Accepting him as King is part of the condition of Juftification. The Gonfequence is plain, becaufe the faid Rejection condemned!, as it is the non performance of that condition whith muft be performed to the avoiding of condemnation. More Scriptures might be brought; butthe firft Argument alone is fo/ficient, rf there were no more.

To your eighth Obje&ion I anfwer. TheObje&of justifying Faith is Chrift himfelf principally ^ and the word as both Reveal ng, Offering him.Promifing,Threatning : but it is not Chrift commanding^ firft, but Chrift as King to Command. This is anfweredinthe former.

To your ninth Objedion I anfwer; when I fay tfut [Rgcei-ving Chrift ** Lord U one part of Juftifying Faith f] I fpeak not of the Act morally, as if it had two parts where i: is entire : Ilisbut one moral Act to Accept of whole Chrift fir you fpeak

Zz fimply

limply of Accepting, as diftinct from preceding Affent and fub-fequent Affiance. J But I call it (ptrt) in reference to the Ob-ject.whence you fay arifeththe Difference: Though Chrtfts Office of Mediator be but one; yet from the works of chat of-* fice we look on his Governmg,and Pardoning or Juflifying as cfiftinct parts: and thence I call this act of faith ( a fart.) For that you fay of obedience following faLh and as an effect and fign, I eafily yield it.

But where you fay, that [Trttft is the Genu* tohere the Ob-jetlis an incomplex term] I anfwer- if you take faith as it is juftifying (or the condition of our Juftificatton ) and not in ihe ftri&eft fenfe, foit hath more Ads then one about the incomplex term. And Affiance is the Genus of one only. To accept ( an offered Saviour, ) is an Ad precedent in order of Nature before any other ad of the Willi that is, the elicite Ads are before the Imperate : and Truft is not the Genus of this. Befides, Truft is no one ad, but many, and that of both faculcies,and a Negation of feveral ads befides. A certaia Argument that ins no one fingle Ait that juftifieth , even in their Judgement that fay Affiance is the juftifying Ad ^ when the Scripture fpeaks of faith as Affiance, it includes Acceptance or confent,which go before Affiance in order of nature 9 Yea fome of our moft Learned, Accurate Divines, when they fay Affiance is the juftifying faith,do either by Affiance mean only that elicite ad of the Will, which I call Acceprance.Con-fent or Election, or elfe ( rather ) they mean feveral acts, whereof this is one. So Ameftus Me Jul. 1.1 .cap. 5. $.15, Fides iftaqttacredimus non td*tum c 'Deum % dut Deo, fed in Deum % eft vera ac propria fiducia : non qua hat: voce tiotatur cert a & abfoluta perjuafiode bono ftitttro, fed quafigmficat Electionera & Apprehenponem ftiffictentu ac idonei med'i, ac in quo perfua-fio & expect at io talts fundattsr. Quo fen fa dicuntur homines fiduciaw habere in fapientia,votentid,Amicii ac opibusfuis, Pfal. 78.22. If therefore you underftand by Affiance many Acts, of which velleChriftum obla turn, (called Acceptation jut a vol/tmusobjetlumset oblatum ; and EletlioA^itiavolHmns medium hoc > rejeclis alii/; or Confisnt, quiavolumut ex alter itss Promotionequiprius vohie, ) is the firft and chief • (ofthofe

of

(355)

of the Will Jas Amefius doth,tben I am of your mind. If you fay thai Felle vel Acceptare is not creAtrevel fidem habere ia the common notation of the word; I anfwer i. t includes Vdle as its principal Act in the common ufe ofthe word, when its object is an Incomplex term : but indeed it incluc'eth more alfo. 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affection we fay : but *T*V/much more. ?. I anfwer in the words of Amefius ^A.fedul.\.1x^.^.2^ Credere vulgo ftgnificataftum intellecttsr Affenfum teftimonio pr&ber.tis : Jed quoviam confe-quenter volantas movers folet, G eXtenderefefe a J amplttlendu bonum itaprobatum, idcrco fides etiam hunc Voluntatis actum deft gnat fa is apte , quomodobocin loco neceffano intelligitur, £jl enim receptio bonifub ra'ione bonier inttma unio cum eode t John 1.12. Hincfides fertur in bonum ; quod fer iftamfit no* ftrum 9 eft actus Electionis: eft actus Totius hominis; qu& acini Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt.] ohn 6.55.

Yea further, I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in fincerity, there is Juftification certainly confequent: but the term Afliar.ce contains fome acts which Divines fay, do only follow Juftification: which alfo Amefi. feems to acknowledge, ibid. §.21. Quod veto fid net a diet t u r fructus fidei, verum eft de fijuaa front refpicit Deum infutnrnm^ eft [pes firm a, fed pre ut reJpicitDeumin Chriftoin prarfentia fe ofterentem, 'ft iff* files.

Yea the fame Amtfins tells us MeduKHb 2. cap. 5. That five things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divixa ; viz 1 ,2(otttia ret a Deo teftata.2 (<ffctlio pia erga Deum qua fa-cit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipfms Tefttrtonium* 3, Affevfus qui prtbetur veritati teftat<epropttr bare ajfeflionem erga Deum qui eft ejtss ttftis.q* Aqmefte*tia in Deum ad illud quodprtpmi-tur conjequendum, 5. Eletlio vel apprehenfio rei ipfius t qnt in Teftimonio nobis exhibetur. So that even this faith hath many ads. Yea, and he adds, Primum horumefl in irtelleDu : fed non c on ft it hit fid em t dec. fecunduw^quartum & quintu^ funt in voluntatc.&conflituunt fidem, prout eft virtus & alius religio-nis.Ttrtixm (viz,, ajfenfut) eft in intelletlu y fed prottt movetur a vdun'ate; neqae eft proprie fiiei virtus, fed effttlum . So that chis DoSrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very

Z z 2 Wil

.(««)

will, 2. and makes the intellectual acts ( even aflent)to b e but sntrfect of faich, and not the vertue, is far from your 5 ( chough i fcruple not Co take in P a[Tent wkh the : eft. (or all i c is in the Intellect J and if the fe be all in.hu faith which is a holy vertue , much moremuft that which juftifies contain as much. And indeed to place juftifyirg faith only in the intellect, is fomewhat ftrange for thofc that make it the principal Grace,when Philofophers will not give it the name of a moral Vertue.For in the underftanding are only intellectual Habits ; but moral vertues are all placed in the Will, or fenfitive appetite ( for that quarrel I will pafs by i whether they be only in the fenfitive as 'BurgtrfMcitiS&c.) if any therefore wonder tbatl place faith in fo many acts, and yet make one the chief eompleative Act, I have yet further this moft accurate Divine faying the very fame as I. VerfeUio autemfidei eft in Etectione aut afprehenjione illa^a bonum Propofitttmfit noflrum.Hinc fi-del natPtra eptimi explicatur in Scripture cum fideles dicuntur aJharere Deo, Jof» 23.6.A&.1 1.23. &viamvorittis cligtre^ Pfal. 119 30,31. Where you fee alio that by Affiance and Adhtfion, Amefttis principally means the very Elicit act of the Will as Election is. And indeed he that obferveth but how the Scripture throughout doth hang mans falvatkmor damnation on his Will mainly, ((o far as it may be faid to depend on our own act^ ) rather then on any acts of the underftanding ( but only as they refer and lead to thofe of the Will ) might well wonder r that juftifying faving faitb,the great rteedfull ad*, Should be only intellectual, and not chiefly in or by the Will,as well as all the reft. Te W#7/ not come to me that je may have life : How oft would I, andj/e would not} Thtfe mine enemies that yvouti not 1 fhouU reign over them % &c. Whoever &UIJet him takje or buy freely ,&c. Still akioft all is laid on the Will : and yet is not Faith in the Will ? Affentmty be compelled by evidence of Truth, and fo be uovoluntary. And fo a man may be a Behever thus againft his WjJJ.- and if this will ferve,men may be feved againft their Wilis, I know fome think it enough that the Will commands the underftanding to believe. But even thus faith esfmefiw^ \4edul. 1.2. c. they place the firft principle mxht Will* £**i ftd**> collocant iu intelltctH x necejfartam tamen

fatentur

c

fatcntur ejfe aliqtum moticnem voluntatis ad affenfum iliumpr<t* bendum : quemadmodum i* fide human a volantarium ejfe did' tur adhibere fidgm aliCui-,fivtro a voluntatt pendeac fides , neceffe eftut primu principium fideifit in voluntaie,) .20 Bin this is only commanding the performance^ fo it is thus no elicit act(foc Aquinas and others conclude, that Voluntai eft Principium de-terrainans aflat humanos quoad exerciuum acisty* intellect us au-tern qne-ad actus fpecifcatimem* ) But it is moreover the Wills Elicite Ad that I affert. And as I faid, this imperium voluntatis may poffibly be wanting, and belief be involuntary for the ratio. Let me add but one more confideration, ( for I perceive ray tedioufnefs ) If Infidelity as it is a Privation of faving faith ,and fo is the condemning fin ,be in the Will as well as in the Intellect, then faith muft be in the Will too : But Infidelity is in both. Ergot &c. That Infidelity which is the Privation of meer affent, is rather faid to be willing,then m the Will-, but that which is oppofite to juftifying faith, is in the Will. Z>*J^. 10.27. Thoje mi«e enemies th it Would not I Should raign over them, bring them father, &c. faith Amefius Medul. 1 2.cap.j.§48. Opponunturijia{ Jnfidelitas dec.fides, non tantumqua tollunt Affenfum ilium Intellectus qui eft ad fidem nectjfarius : fedetiam qua inferunt & includunt privatio-nem if litis Electionis & apprehenftonis. fidei qtta eft in Voltin-tate.

Surely an unwillingnefs to accept Chrift for our Lord and Saviour, is no fro all part of the condemning fin , which we therefore call the rejecting of Chrift ; The treading him under foot •, Neglecting fo great Salvation • Not willing to come to Chrift for life • Making light of him, when they are invited to the marriage/ Mat.22.) and making excufes: Not-lejjfiing thefon y ( PfaL 2.) with many the like,which import the Wills refufal of Chrift himfelf, and not only its unwillingnefs to believe the Truth of the Promife or Declaration of the Gof-

To your tenth Objection I anlwer by denying the confe-quence •, we fpeak of the foul as rational, and not as fenfitive or vegetative. When the undemanding & Will receive Chrift, the whole foul doth it: that is, every faculty, or the foul by a

Zz 3 full

C?f8)

full entire motion in its feveral Agings to thcObjed patented, both as true and good. Your Joy, Hope, Fear, are in (he fenfieive : And Love as a Patfion, and as commonly taken. And for cftfow^take it for an ad of che U nderftand-ing ^ or of Unkrftandingand Imagination conjund ; or foe a third faculty as pieafe your fclf, it will not breed any difficulty in the cafe. But whether Fear be properly a Receiving of Chrift, or any Objed as Good ,1 much queftion. I take it rather for the fhunning of an evil, then the Reception of Good. So much for your Oojedions.

I will next, as impartially as f can,consider your Anfwers to what 1 laid down for the proof of the Point in Queftion. But firft I muft acknowledge , that I have given you and others great advantage again ft the Doctrine of that ftook,by the ira-methodicalnefs,and neglect of ArRand not giving the Arguments in form, which I then thought not lo neccflary as now I perceive it is : ( for I was ready to yield wholly to Gir>. becufs reafons againft formal arguing, Prafa. Ante lib. z. de Li* bertate.) The prefent expectation of death caufed me to make that hafte, which I now repent .yet, though I fee fomeover-fights in the manner of expreflion, I fee no caufe to change my mind in the Doctrine of it.

Alfo I muft defire you to remember here , that the proof ly-cth on your part,and not on mine : *A§,rm<wti inevmbit pro-bath. It is acknowledged by almoft all, that fides qn* Juftifi-c*t, yuftifjiig faith is a Receiving of Chrift as Lord, and not only as Saviour or Juftifier : And you and I are agreed on it, that Faith juftifieth not as an Inftrument, but as a Condition ; fo that they who will go further here, and maintain that yet Faith juftirleth only As it Receiveth Chrift as Juftifier,or as Saviour, and not as King, muft prove what they fay. If I prove i. that Faith juftifiech as the Condition , on performance whereof the Gift is conferred. 2. And that this Faith which rs the Condition, is the Accepting of Chrift as Chrift, or the Anointed King and Saviour: ( both which are yielded me; ) I muft needs think that I have proved that the Receiving Chrift as King, doth as truly Juftifie, as the Receiving him as Prieft or Juftifier : ( Yet I had rather not fay that either Juftifies,

(becaufe

C3TS0

(becaufc i. it is no Scripture phrafe, 2. and feemcth ro import an Efficiency») but rather, chat [we are jvjitfied by i>,1 which imports here but a conditionally, and is the Scripture phrafe.) Till you have proved your exclufion of faith in one refpece from the Juftifying Office, and your confinement of it to the other, my proof (lands good.- J give you the entire condition: and Ptbi Lex non diftir.guit^ non eft dijiinquendum ; multo minus dividend™. And though thofe that afTert the proper Inftru-mentalityof faith in Juftifying, or elfe the meer natural conditionally , may have fomething to fay for their Divilion; (though with foul abfurdiries) Yet what you can fay, (who have efcaped thofe conceits^ 1 cannot imagine. Me thinks, if faith J uftirie, as the condition of rhe Grant or Covenant, and this condition be the Receiving of Chrift as Lord and Saviour, it fhouid be impoffible to exclude the receiving Chrift as King, from Juftifying, till you firft exclude it from the faid conditionally, ex* J$H*texuj ad omne valet cen r tque'tia. To Juftifie therefore As the condition (on which the Promife gives Chrift, and with him Juftiflcation, ) muft needs infer that we are jufti-fkd by all whatf ever hath fuch a conditionally. Yet (as I (aid before ) when we intend toexprefs, not only or principally the Ad of the Receiver, but alfo, or principally, the Grace of the Giver, then it is a fitter phrafe to fay, we are Juftified by fa ; th in his Blood, or by Receiving Chrift the Saviour and Juflifier: becaofeitfullieftand fulieft expreffeth that Grace which we intend, (and thus Paul oh doth. ) So that they who diftinguifli between fides qu* Juflificat , and Fides qua Juftift-cat and admit that Ad into the former, which they exclude from the latter, muft prove what they fay. ( Files qua pftift-cat % non Recipit Chriftum vel ttt Regent vel facer detent, fed tan-turn fuftificat. i. e. Qua eft Conditio^ non eft Receptio : Nee qua Recipit fuftificat ; i.e. jQu* Receftio.non eft Conditio : Materia & forma non f**tconfunde*da. Act*- ft lei eft qua ft ma-teria, vel Aptitudo tantum ad offtcium conaitionalitatis : Difttn-tlio iptur ipfa eft inepta.) Now to your Anfoers : (Pardon this prolixity.)

Firft I rauft tell you, that by that phrafe [ the fthole foul J I mean the entire motion oj the foal by Underftanding and Willing,

ftng to it* Objed both as True and Good : For I know the whole foul may be laid to underftand in every Jnteiledual Adion, and to will in every ad of wilting. But when it only underftands or A {Tents, and not wiileth,it doth not Ad fully according to its Power, nor according ro the nature of itsOb-jed, when the Goodnefs is negleded, and the Tru h only apprehended, And it is not a compleat motion, feeing (he Ads of the underftand ing.are but introdudory or preparatory to thofeof the Will, where the motion of the Rational foul « compleat. And fo my Argument ftandsthus: If Justifying faith be the Ad both of the underftanding and the Wvll, then it is not one Angle act only : But &c. Ergo. &c. Proh. Amend. juftifying faith i> the Receiving of Cbrift; but Chnft is Received by the Underftanding and Will; ( by the former incom-pfeatly, by the latter compleatly : ) therefore Juftifying faith is the Acting both of the Underftanding and Will. Prob«t*r Minor. Chrift mud be Received as Good , and not only his Word (or himfelf) as true: therefore he muft be Received by the Will as well as the Underftanding: for Goodnefs is the object of the Will.

Here you anfwer i. by confe fling, that Faith is called a Receiving of Chriit : 2. by interpreting that fpcech [He is Received by the receiving his Word,which is received by AiTent.] This is worth a fuller enquiry ,becaufe the difcovery of the proper Object of Faith, will (hew the proper Act. The Intellectual Act [AfTenfJ hath for its ohjtBum formalt the Veracity of God, or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Teftifying: This is not it that we enquire after. The material Object (for we muft ufe the Schools oermes in this diftinction, though perhaps fitter might be found,) is 2. Proximixs •, that is,the moral Verity of the Teftimony or Word. 2. Vlttriw, the Metaphyseal Verity of the Things fignified ( as Chrifts Pcrfop, Godhead, Incarnation, Refurrection,^.) The former is but the means to the latter, and for its fake, and not for its felf. In regard of this act of AiTent, you may fay as you do, that Chrrft is Received by receiving his Word : becaufe the Belief of the Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the truth of the Thing propounded. But then 1. Thefe are yet

two

two diftinct Acts, as the Objects are diftinct. 2. And this Intellectual Act iscalkd a Receiving of the Truth believed but imperfectly , becaufe it Jcads to that Act of the Will which (in woralityjis more fitly and fully called a Receiving: and therefore if Affent produce not that Acceptation or confenc of the Will, it cannot fitly it felf be called a Receiving of Chrift.(For of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Specks, [ fuppofe we neither of us fpzakj The material Object of Juftifying faith asitts in the Will, is 1. Principal, and Adaequate, which h Chrift himfelf. 2. Subfervienc or Inftrumental, which is the Covenant,Proroife,or teftamentary Gifr,in & by which Chrift is offered and Given. Thefe are two diftinct Acts, as the Accepting of a Teftamenr,and of the Legacy : • of a Pardon written, and the real Pardon thereby fignified : or of the Oath of Allegiance ,«nd of the Prince to whom we fwear. But becaufe of the Relation between the one and the other, Faith may be called a receiving of Chrift, or a receiving of the Gofpel, Yet fo, as ftill the proper principal Object is Chrift, and the Gofpel but mediate, as to hicn. Thefe are ray thoughts. Now fif I am able to underftand you)your words import,that in your Judgement, Chrift is received two wayes s 1. by Faith, and that fs only by Affent : and this is only by receiving his Word : that is,in Believing it to be True. 2. By other Graces ; and thofe I think,you refer to the Wills receiving. Againft this opinion I further aliedge, 1. Almoft all Proteftant Divines acknowledge faith co be the Act ( or rather Acts) of both faculties, even Dr. Downtime not excepted (and Camera himfelf fpeaks fometime darkly) infomuch that AUlanblhon, Joan. Cncitu and many more make it the judgement of Proteftan f s in oppo-fi tion to Popery. And fo doth •Amefisuin Be Harm. Entry. though he judge it (as Corner 0) not accurate, in AfedaU.i.c.3. feSi*. Yea be that though it muft be but in one faculty, choofeth co place it only in the Will, and excludes Affent, as being called faith ^tmparit fidtnt. Excellent Dtvenaxt faith, in-altufidci jifiifoantts Tohi Animafe csnveriii adcai*fr<m ju-jhficantefrt.Deteimin. Q^.38. pag.174. And again, Fides Ma fjitam firivtnr*. j*(Iific*xtem agn'afeit, hubtt in fe complicatum *&*m¥clant*iu&ln\tilell*s. Deterrain. Q^ 37'pag1 ^,

Aaa Again

A gain, N*% nobU abfurdnm fed valde confentaneum videtur* aflu/a ilium quo tot a anima purificatur & Juftificatur , ad 2V tarn animam pertinere : it a nt in nudo intellettu babeat inxtium ; in Volttntatecomplementum ibidem. Again, Quod Pbitofophan*-tnr Voluntaten & Utettetlnm e(fe duos potential• reipfa diftin* ft as, dogma pbrfofopbicum eft , ab omnibus bandreceptum; & Theologies \dogmattbui firmandu ant infirmtndu fundamertnm minime idoneum' Idem ibid.

2. Affent is not any full moral Receiving of Chrift: But

faith (whicji Juftifieth) is a full moral Receivingof Chrift,

(fob 1.12.) therefore A (Tent alone is not the faith that julti-

rietb. 1 know there is a Mctonymie in the word Receive (be-

caufe fn ftrict fpeech in Phyficks, Reapere eft pati) But it is fo

ufual and near, that in morality it is taken for a proper fpeecb^

to call the Acceptation of an offered good £ A Receiving, ]

3 Ther e is fuch a thing as the proper accenting of Chrift,requi-

red as of flat neceflity to Juftification and Salvation : But this

acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other

Grace;therefore it is taken for an Act of faith,The Maj.I hope

no Chriftian will deny. For when Chrift is offered to the world

as their Saviour,Redeemer,Teacher a King,Husband; who can

think that the accepting of him is not required,yea evenin the

offer? Not a phyfkal Reception which fome abfurdly and dan-

geroufly dream of , but a moral; as when a people take a

man for their King or Teacher; or a woman takes a man for

her Husband. And for the Minor: Receiving Chrift offered is

not ufually cxpreffed in the term, Hope, Joy,Charity,Repen-

tance ; therefore it t> included in the word Faith ( unlefs

you can name fome other Grace which it is ufually expreffed

byi j

4. The Grace by which we are united to Chrift is Faitb; But it is receiving Chrift by which we are fo united to him; therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Chrift. I fup-pofe none will deny that it is Chrift himfelf that we muftbe united to by believing, and not the Word or Promife ; and that it is receiving Chrift which unites us to him, is obvious both from the language of Scripture, and the nature of the thing. A People is united Co their Prince, as the head of the

Repub-

Republique, and a Church to their Teacher, and a woman to her Husband, by the Wills confent or acceptance,and not properly ( but only initially, preparatorily, imperfectly and im-properly,and if it be alone.not at all)by believing the Truth of their word?. *y4mefttu faith, c34W»/.l.i.c.;.$. 18 Tiiesetiam cum fit primus actus vita noftra^ qua. Deo in Cbr ftovivimus t confiftat necefe eft in umone cum Deo ^ exunn nullomodoficert foteft Affenfns adWxbitns veriuti qua eft dt Deo.

5. By faith it is that we give up our felves to be Chrifts Di-fciples,Subjects,Members; ( For Scrpture afcribes not this to other Graces ufually or chiefly. And to take him for our Saviour 2nd Head,and give up our felves as his redeemed and Member?, is all one work. ) But it is not by AfTent only,chief-ly or fully at all, that we give up our felves to Chrift as Difci-p!es,Members, &c. Therefore it is not by AfTent properly or fully that we receive Chriit. So Amefius ubi /upra, }. 19. Cre-diturus etiam porro cum ex miferiafenfu, & cmnimoc.a liberations, cum wje y turn inaliis defeflu % necejfe htbeat fededere Deo in ^Jeriftotanquam Servatori fnfflcienti & fideli , Dedi.i-onem iftam facer e non pot eft ullo modo per ^jfetifum Jntelletlus, fed per Confenfum Voluntatis. And indeed I think this Dediti-on or ftJf delivery to be part of Faith; and that the covenanting in heart with God in Chrift, is the very juftifying faith, taking him for ours.and giving up our felves to him as his: and the external Covenanting is the profeflion of Fa th .• and that Baptifm is the rmrriage-lolemnzation, and engsgTigfignand mean?.

6.Thac Ad which cannot be difecrned in a Saint (hit felf) from what may be in the wicked, is not the receiving of Chrift ( fully or properly ) which juftifies: But the Ad of AlT'n: to the Truth of the Gofpel, as it is in a Saint, cannot in it felf be difcerned from what may be in the wrked. Therefore the A3 of AfTent is not the Receiving of Chriftwh certifies.

The Major is hence evident; In that ju(Vf\inp fairh fce'ng the condition of our Juft-ficstion, muft needs b theg'en Mark to know by, whether we are jufrified or no : But if c could not be known to be fincere it felf, in vain is it nude a

Aaa 2 Mirk

(W

Mark to know our ftate by : yea or a Condition, almoft I when a roan can never tell when he performeth it. The Minor 1 have endeavoured co prove in an Additional Chap, to the third part.of rp, Book of Reft, to which for brevity, I refer you.X)t.Stoughto»,\ have there (hewed you,faithas h Ameftns iitih,MtdHL\.l.Z. ' .§'4« quavU fides prafttpptnat femper notitid EvangtliifiHlla tamtn datur in qnqtta cognitio falt4tifera,& ah ilia qit* in qmb#f:<'am nonfalvandisreperitvr, diverfa t ni(i confe-qtiwter adaftftm iflii voluntatis, & ab ipfo dependent.J .oh. 7.17. and8. 31.32. ifobni.^, I doubt not but/ in the Intenf-vefs of Degree ) there is a difference between the Intellectual a&s (as Knowledge and Affent J in a Saint and a wicked man : but if any think that they are in themfelvcs difcerhabie,I would foe would tell roe one Mark of the d flference. In their different Effects on the Will,! know they arc difcernable,

7. If you acknowledge that other Graces receive Chrift as well as Faith, and receiving of Chrift doth make him ours, andfo juftifie; then youmuft acknowledge that other Graces juftifie as well as faith/yea not fecondarilyonly, but as Principally as Faith \) But that you will be loth to do. Thccon-fequence will not be avoided , but by (hewing thac there is a twofold receiving of Chrilt, and that one juftifieth, and the other not: which when you have proved from Scripture, I will yield : but then at leaft I fhali gain this, that receiving Chrift juftifics not properly ex natura aftnsjed ex volmtate Ordinan-tis\ and if I get that,I get the main part of thecaufein contrq-ve;fieo

8. Affiance is judged by Divines to be an Aft of the Will.° But Affiance is judged by the fame Divines to be the juftifying 5 Aft : Therefore they judge that the juftifying Aft ( and consequently the Reception of Cbrift ) belongs to the Will.

9. The Velle or Elicite aft of the Will which I infift on, fa-ihe very firft Act, and goes before Affiance ( as it denotes anyy other Act of the. Wity: ) Therefore either this Velle muft be -the juftifying Faith and Reception of Chrift, or elfe they_ muft (ay,that there s a faving reception of Chrift that goes before the juftifyang faith or Reception: which fure they will not granuhat make that Faith the uttus primus viu/piritvatit.

10, Laftly,

(s*ft

io.taftly,The opinion fceras to rac fo Improbable,without and againftreafon, and fo dangerous £ that God doth aflfign one only Act of the foul to the Office of juftifying, efpecially the ad ofaffent^tbat I dare not entertain it wichour proof I: is im-probible that in a Moral, Political, Theological Matter, the Holy tjhoft (hould fpeak,as if ic were in the flricceftdifcourfeof Ph } ficksJt is improbable that God fhould fpeak to man in fuch a Moral difcourfe, fo as no men ufe to fpeak, and therefore fo as'men could not, without a further explication underfhnd. Doth he thatfpeaks of receiving a man to be our Husband, ? King.Maiier, &c. mean it of one only Act ? (though I know Confent is the chief. ) Or he that gives any gteit matter on Condition of fuch Receiving, Doth he-mean that anyone fingle Act is that Condition ? Much lefs AfTent. Oris there anylikelyhood, that when other Acts do receive the fame Object, Chrift, in a way of as high honouring mm, that yet God fhould confine Juftificanon to one Act, fetting by all the reft ? Yea when the reft are acknowledged to be part of the Cond ; tion ? ( and Receiving as Lord , to ba the fides qui ? ) I know God is net bound to give man a Rea-fon of his Laws: but yet he ufually doth it; and we mu ; t take heed of aflerting that to be Gods Law, which appears unrca-fomble,tlU we can prove what we fay. Yea what a dangerous lofs willChrhlians then be tt, who will hardly eferbeable to find out this fingle Act, whatitis c and when they have it ? And he.that knows how quck Spi its are in their acting?; and wkhall how little able we are to obferve and difcern them , - perhaps many doubt,whether you can find a name for any fingle act of a foul, or know when it is one Acr,tnd/when many. In the foreroentioned Inftance , A woman is condemned for Trcafon • the Prince writeth toher , that hehatb dearly paid-her Ranfom, & will not only deliver her,but alfo make ner his Queen, if (he will Believe thir, and Receive hrm accordingly ; If now the Lawyers fhould difpute the cafe, what fingle ad it vrjts that (he was Delivered and Dignified by, whether an ad: ofthc Intellect only,or of the Will only ? whether Aflent only, or Affiance? Yea whether agtnA* vcl patiemi»(i$ many here do.) would not men think that learning made themxlote ? And I would entreat you to confidcr, whether it were Gods Aaa 3 Defigo.

&*)

Defignin the Gofpel, to advance sny one AS of mans foul above the reft, and fo to honour it ? or rather to advance the Lcrdfe/tu whom raith Receiveth ? as Mr. Gather c Is Salt-■ Mt<r[b , Mm] fpeak^dangeroufl)in over-magnifying their own fauh t when they fbould magmfie Chr'fi whom it relates to* I know the great thing that Kicks with fome, is that the Scripture ofc feemsto defcribe faith bv the Act of Ajfenting. But coiifider f< it doth in other places by 7 ruftwgiRefting y Taking % RaceiAvg) Comings Sating&nd Driving. ( which LMetapbors muft needs fignifie acts of the fVill,) &c which (hew that it is not any fingle A&. Again, as I faid, the "tohole is denominated from the firft leading and moft difficult Ad; the Language of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the pcr-fons co whom it was fpoken. Now the Jews did generally and gladly acknowledge that the Meflias or Mediator muft be Received, Welcomed, Honoured, Loved , fubmitted to; but they could not Believe that Chrijf was lot ; And this was fooliflincfs to the Gentiles alfo, as well as a ftumbling-block to the Jews• that one that lived and walked among them , and feemed a poor contemptible man, and at laft was crucified, fhould be God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world. I tremble fometimes to think, if we had lived our felves in thofe times, how hard it would have been even to us to believe ; fo that when the great Difficult act is named, the other ( Confcnt and Affiance; are ftill implyed,and included. I will end with Ame-fiw true obfervation to this purpofe,^^«/. /. i. e. 3. fguam-vis in fcriptmis aliquando Afcenfm veritatiaua eft de Deo & Cbriftoi Joh. 1.50. hubetftr fro vera fide ; induditHr tamen femper fpiciafo fiducia : at£ adeo omnibtu in I eels ubi fermo eft de faint art fide, vel prafupponitar fiducia in Mefftam, & indicate 1 antuw determination velapplicAtio ejtu adperfonam Cbrifti ; vil per Afitnfum ilium dejignatur, tanquam effttlum per [nam cau/amjoh.i 1.25,26,27* ( §. 20. )

The fecond Argument which you anfwer, Iyeth thus. If Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart, then it is notonlyintheUndcrftanding, but in the Will alfo. But the former is the words of Scripture, Att. 8.37. Rem. 1.0.10. Ergo, &c. \ Here

(1*7)

Here you anfwer that [jhe whole heart nous not every inward faculty but (as often) fincentj. ] To which I Reply, i. The word [ypbole] I yield to Illyriau fignifies the finceritj, which is ufually exprcfTed by Integrity , but the word [_Hean~] fignifies the fubjeti; and is commonly taken for the trill 9 andofc for the whole foul , Vndtr[landing and Will, ( as moft Fathers, Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point, though the two former placed too much of it in the Aflent: ) buc where and how oft do you find the word [He*rt~] ufed for the fole Intellect? I pray (hew the place, 2. The proverbial fpeech ,£ with all the Hearrt is not ufed in Rom, 10. iO. but only the fubjecc barely cxprefted : w'jh the Heart man believeth to Righteonf-Kefs.

My third Argument (as you place it) was to another ufe, which is of lefs moment. As I judge Faith to be taken, i.fome-times more ftrictly for meer AfTent to a Teftimory: (fo fames takes it when he faith, the Devils believe J 2. And fometimes more fully for AfTent and Acceptance, or Confent : (fo Paul takes it; and foitjuftifieth.) So 3. I fuppofeit is fometime taken moft largely and improperly, for the full performance of theconditionsoftheNew Covenant. If any deny this,! have no mind to contend for it, becaufe it is but about a word and not the thing. Your anfwer is twofold : 1. that Heb. 5 9. ffeakj &f obeying Chrift) but doth not call faith obeying Ch?ift. I Reply. That Obedience which containeth the Condit on of falvation by Chrift ( whereof Juftification is a partj mult needs include Faith : But the word Obedience Heb.% 9 contakieth the condition of falvation by Chrift; ther fore it includes faith. He i6 become toe Author of Eternal falvation to all them that obe) him.

Your fecond anfwer is, [It may be obedience by sljfent, that Chrift id the Mtffu\ died.rofe.&cc.'] RepL 1. If Obedience of meer AfTent be not made the condition of Eternal falvation in Scripture , then it is not that obedience which is here mentioned: But the former is true : therefore the latter. 2.The % firft AfTent to thefe Gofpel Truths is not in a full proper fence * called Obedience to Chrift at all : therefore not here to be fo imderftood. As fubjection, fo obedience is a term of Relation .1

on fupptffing the Authority of a Superior, the acknowledgement of that Authority, A command from thac r *uperior,and that the a&.on be therefore done becaufe fo com ma tided .Now the ftrft Affent to,or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Office and Soveraignty,mult needs in order of Nature precede all obedience to him as a .S'pveraign. I confefs improperly a man may befaid to obey, when be yields to the Reafon and pcrfwa-fion of another; but this wants the very form of obedience pro■ perly fo called. If it be true that the firft Acceptance of Chrift for our Soveraign as Redeemer, by the Wills confent, may be both the Reception of bita for King, and Obedience to him ; Yet in order of Nature it is respectively a Reception firft ; though in time it is both at once. But the firft Affent to Chrtfts Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign. And for the undemanding the Text, when I find Chrift give the world, a fyfteme of Precepts, and tell them that he is become the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him, I dare notwithout Reafon reftrain thac obedience (in the fence of it) to fome one or two acts: Efpecially when I find that he hath made the like promife on condition of other acts of ours be-fides Believing : as in many Text I have (hewed in thofe A-phor. Take my yoke and burden, &c. Learn of me to be mttk. and lowly y 6cc. and IWilleafe Jou t and ye (ball'find rift : For. give and ye /ball be forgiven. He that eonfejfeth and forfakjth hi* fin /ball have mercy,with multitudes of the like. And Rom. f o. that is called Faith, vcr. 14,17. which is called obeying the tjotfeli ver.16. And if the Gofpel do as directly and urgently command Qonfent as j4fent;yca. if it command love to Chrift as of eqaal neceilicy with both, I have reafon to think that in this large fence, Faith inclades it. Why (h6nld obeying the tjoffel, and obeying the Trmh % be made /Synonima's with Believing as it is one (ingle Act* when the Gofpel commands many other Acts as of aequal ncceffiry and excellency ? Let me argue thus exconcejfis, from your felf and others. Moft Divines affirm that the proper Reafon why Faith juftifleth, is \t$ Relation to Chrift ; becaufe it is a Receiving of him (it juftifie*/?*-lativeLe. A Chrift received Jnftifies: ) but Mr. Tombes confeffetb that other Graces receive Chrift as well as Faith: therefore

Wrt

fore other Graces juftifie as well as Fakh. The Confequence is a Q*Atert*j aaOmtte.

What : mport in their firft fign'fica-Ti-

on, is nottoourbufinefs fo much as in what fenfe the mfcmty uicd : No doubt they may figmfle properly oar

dObeying; but cba: tnty it proper Obeying ufuaily in Scripture, moft In-

: -ay therefore as weH draw to purp lit (jufifioba-

Inde> to a Teacher ( z r to Chrift and bis Mi-

riifter< 2 and of Scholars to theiv Matter ) who ufeth both Ar--\ is fully and-fitly expreffed in thoi'c fc. Tfte wer* r i principallyfpokeuof theDoc-

of Good tidirgs o*t Mercy by Cfcrift ( bat fare no: ofrfc? Hiftoricri or D / part, but alfo, yea principally

omife or Off r: ) but the whole New Covenant or of Chrift ( for f d fo the Ancients uniminoufly

I Precepts and Tbreatnings alfo, i? called his Teft lant, Gofpel, being fo denomi»ia:edfrom

tr>c more excellent p;rr, ^£.7.18,19,22; TbeTefttwe Jeftts \s oppofed.to the Commandments of the Law, and called Better: therefore it comprizeth Chrfts Commands, proper to him. And is it not Chrifts whole Law which is of force when he is dead,and called his Tefl*ment I H.b.9. 17. And wher aith, They sere rr,de able iMmijktrsof the

JYrw Vejixmeit, doth he mean only of thcHiflerj, or the nd not of Love 9 Hope x ;Kepentznce y &c. Lfet hrs preaching wirnefs, as the Expofitors, (1 Or 3 .6.) Or let C mtheir Comn.iffion teUyoap--h.it

NtwTeft ti.tS.GvDiftiplj \&~ fetch-

ing th i at! tkingiVehfit ever I commA*&* AtvJ" not

to ftrive abou: words, you know that N?w Lawot Cbnft, d hisTcftament, royenant,Gofpel,Grr. bath all the Precepts fa it which you menton. "sit not Precepts as well 5 which Mat ^ c lis rhe Cjofpel^ Mar. 1.1. ?

If not & 1 which Chrift*and the Ap cach-

ed? And they preached Hefininne* and Faiths *»J fo om-Jcd Duty : If a Aran loofe his Ufe for publishing or obey.

(?7

\

°)

ing Chrifts Precepts, doth not the Prornife belong to him, J^r.8.35. and id 29? Or is that Promife to them only that fuffer for t e Declarative part only ? (sthe Gofpei that muft bepublifhed mong all Nations, the Hiflory only ? CMar.15. 10. Was the Precept of Accepting Chrifts loving him in fin-cerity and obeying him &c. no part of that Gofpei to which Paul was feparated ?/?ow.i.i .in which he ferved in Spiritist. 9. of which he was not afhimed, ver. 16. and which he was pHtintruft With, i The \f 2.2^. Was it only the "Declaration of Chrifts Deat^Refurrection,^. which is the Gofpei according to which mensfecrets muft be judged} Rom.2.16. or accotding to whiihthe^wj are enemies , Rom,u. 28. compared with £«t-T 9-27. Is not it larfclyer taken,i Cor.%. 18 fr And fubjection to the Gofpei implies it preceptive, 2 Or. p. i?« Tetert withdrawing and feparating from the uncircum-cifion, and fearing the Jews,and diffembling, and 'Barnabas With him, was A not wilkw% according to theTruth of the Qof-pel, GW.2.14. The falfe Apoftlcs preached another Gofpei, and the Galath'ans turned to another Gofpei, when the former preached* and the later received the Doctrine of the Necefii-ty of being circumcifed, and keeping Mofes Larv, Gal, 1.6,7. fo that the word [ Teftament ] and [ Gofpei J includes Laws or Precepts of Duty.

4. Tothatof chefenfeof Qal.i. 1223. about the largeft extent of the word Faith, it being as I faid, of fofmall moment, I intend not to infift on it. My meaning is but this ; that fome other Graces arc intended rcdu&ively,and the chief named for all. But by your anfwer I underftand, 1. That you take not faith to be the whole fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant .• which conceflion (hall fatisfieme, what ever you think of the fenfe of the Word, or thefe Texts. 2.but the reft of your Anf.l am unfatisfied in. You fay[£/ Faith onlj the condition of the Covenant concerning fuftificatton in thu Life it fulfilled: not concerning every benefit of the ltie)fr Covenant : Repentance is the condition of Remiffion of ftns : forgive-ing others, doing good to the Saints , of entering into Life. ] Rfpl. i/You know that not Wotton ind many great Divines of > Engjandonly, but of the moft famous Tranfmarine, do take

(370

fuftificAticn and Remffiw to be one and the fame thing 1 have received Animadverdons from divers learned Divines lately onthefe Aphorifms, and three or four of them blame rae for making any difference between Juftification and Remifiion ; though I make as little as may be. And can you think then that Remiffion and juftification havefeveral conditions? If they are not wholly the fame, yet doubclefs the difference is exceeding fmall, and rather notional then real. The fame ComminationoftheLaw doth both condemn and oblige to pjnifhment Remiflion is a difcharge from the o Dn g atlon to Punifhmenr,and Juftification is a difcharge from the condemnation. So much then as that Obligation .to Punifhmenc, differs from the Laws condemnation, ( which is nothing,or fo little as it is not obvious to bedifcerned,) fo much doth Remiflion differ from Juftificatibn. Yea even thofe Divines that in pleading for thcintereftof the active Righteoufnefs to Juftification, do to that end make Juftification to have two parts; yet one of them, they fay, is Remifsion of fin ; as the other is the Imputation of Rtgloteoufrefs. And I pray how then can thefe two parts of the fame Juftification have two di -vers conditions, fo as one is appropriated to one, and excluded from the other? I remember no reformed Divines, but they either make Juftification and Remifsion to be all one; or Reraifsion to be part of Juftification, orclfe to be two Relations ( or other effe&s ) immediately and at once ( in order of time, if not of nuure ) refusing or proceeding from the fame foundation ( materially ) or other caufe. Though Gar taker and Bradjha* make them to differ, it is but in this narrow ( and almoft unconceivable way ) but in time to concur. I muft therfore di Fer from you in this) thattbey have divers conditions : and wait for your proof of it. But it feems you will give us leave to fay, A man it not pardoned by faith only; And ye: he it j*fit fiedhy faith only 1 and that as a condition I Faith then it feemscando the whole, but not one half (as fome jjdge)or can do,and not do the fame thing'as others. ) 2. But do you think that Repentance is not heceffiriij Antecedent to fttflificatian, as well as to Remffton > If yon fay No ^-the current of the Gofpel-Doctrine wilt confute you:

B b b z which

which ufually putteth Repentance before Faith : and thofc Divines that fay it followeth after it, do yet make them concur in order of time. But if Repentance do ncceflariiy precede Juftification, ( as I doubt no- but you will yield ) then let me know to what purpofe,or under what notion or refped, if not as a Condition? Can you find any lower place to give it ? 3. But if you fliould mean that Faith and Repentance are the condition of our.firft Juftification an&Remifrlon, but afterwards only of ourReraifsion. I Anfwer, 1. According to your Judgement (who take Juftification to be one ad transient, once only performed, and neither a continried Ad , nor renewed* or repeated, J neither Faith nor Repentance afterwards performed/arc any conditions of our juftification in this Life* This may feem a heavy charge, but it is a plain Truth. For that juftification which we receive upon our firft believing hath only that firft Ad of faith for its condition (or as others fpeak, its Inftrumcntal caufe ) We arc not juftificd to day by that ad of Fairb, which we 'frail perform to Morrow, or a Twelvemonth hencejfo that according to your opinion,and all that go that way, it is only one (the firft) Adof Faith which juftifies; and all the following Ads through our whole life, do no more to our Juftification 5 then the works of the Law-do. I would many other Divines that go your way ( for it is common as to the difpatching of Juftification by one Ad ) would think of this foul abfurdity. ( You may add tfiis alfo to what is faid before, againft your opinion herein,) Where then is the Old Dodrine of the juft livinghj faith , as to fuftifka* mn ? I may bear with thefe men ( or at leaft, need not wonder, ) for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Juftification as continued, when they will not admit faith i t fclf. Who fpeaks more againft faith,they or I ? When I admit as neceffary that firft ad, and maintain the ne-cefsity of repeated ads, to our continued Juftification f and they exclude all fave one Inftantancous ad? 2. And what rea-fon can any man give, why Repentance ihould be admitted as a condition of our firft juftification, and yet be no condition of the continuance of it ? or what proof is therefrom Scripture for this ? I (hall prove that the continuance of our

Juftu-

Juftihcation hath more to its condition then the bf ginning; ( though learned men, I know gain-fay it: ) but furely lefs it cannot have.

4. Bat why do you fay only of Repentance that Q> U the condition of Remi/fion'] and of forgiving others* that \jt is the condition of entring into lifts* ] Have you not Chrifts exprefs words, thiz forgiving ethers is a condition of our Remiffton . ? if ye forgive men t heir trtfpajfes,your heavenly Father will forgive you ; but ifjouforgive not men^&c. Nay, is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgivexefs * 1 refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorifms : tVafhyeu, make jou clean : put away the evil of your doings fin: then if your fins be as crimfcn 9 &c. He that conftjfeth andfarfaktih hu fin^fhall hive mercy. And I would, have it confidered, if Remiftion and j u-ftificacion be either the fame, or fo neer as all Divines make them, whether it be poflible, that forgiving others , and Reformat on or new Obedience ftiould be a condition of the continuance or renewal of a pardoning Ad, and not of Juftifica-tion c Doub;lefs,the general Juftification muft be continued, as well as the general pardon : and a particular Juftification I think after particular fins, is needfull as well as particular pardon : or if the name (liould be thought improper, the thing cannot be denyed. Judicious Ball faith as much as I (yet men were not fo angry with him,) Treat, of Covenant, pag. 20,21. \A difpofitiontogood.^'orks U neceffary to fufiification^ being the qualification of an atlive lively faith. Good worlds of all forts are neceffary to our continuance in the ft ate of Junification , and fo to our final Abfolutioai/ 6odgive opportunity : bu thiy are not the ciufe of but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgivenefs and Etemalblifs.'^ And pag. 21. [This walk* ing in the light as he is in th : light, u that qualification whereby we become msmekiatly capable ofChrifis Righteoufnefs^ or acluat participants of his propitiation^ Vrhich u the fole immediate canfe of our J unification^ taken for Remijjlon of fins or afinal . (ratio* with God. ] And pag. 7$. [ tVcrkj then, or a purpofc to walk with Q°^9 jufiifis as the pxffive qualification of 1 capable of Juftification, cr at the qualficaiion ofth juflifietb.J So he.

Bbb 1 5 How

T 5. How will you ever prove.that out Entering into Life^nd our continued remffion or Juftification have not the famecon-ditions?that chofe Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other.Indeed the men that are for Faiths Inftrumcnta-lity,fay fomewhac to it •, but what you can lay , I know not. And for them, if they could prove Faith Inftrumental in jufH-fying eo nomine, becaufe it receives Chrift by whom we are ju-ftified ; they would alfo prove it the Inftrument of Glorifying, becaufe it Receives Chrift by and for whom we are faved and Glorified. And fo if the Inftrumentality of Faith muft exclude obedience from juftifyingus, it muft alfo exclude it from Glorifying us. And I marvel that they are f j loofe and eafie in admitting obedience into the work of faving, and yet not of continuing or confummacing Juftification,when the A-poftle faith, By Gracejeare faved^ by Faith % dec ; and fo excludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Juftification in particular.

6. But laftly, I take what you grant me in this Sedion, and profefs that I chink in effe& you grant me the main of the caufe that I ftandupon. For, as you grant, 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant. 2. That Repentance alfo is the condition of RemiJJion (which is near the fame with Juftification ) 3, That obedience u the condition of glorification (which bath the fame conditions with final and continued Juftification. J 4. So you feem to yield all this, as to our full juftification at judgement. For you purpofely limit the conditiona-lity of meer faith to our Juftification in this Life, But if you yield all chat I defire (as you do, if I underftand you ) as to the laft juftification at Judgement, then we are not much differing in this bufinef. For I take ( as Mr. Burges doth, Lett. ofJuftificAtion 29.jour compleateft and moft perftd juftifica-' tion to be that at Judgement. Yea, and that it is fo eminent and confiderable here, that I think all other Juftification is fo called chiefly as referring to that. And me thinks above all men, you fhould fay fo too, who make Juftification to lie only in fententit)udicu y and not in fententia Legts \ And foall that go your way (as many that I meet with do.) If then we are jufti-fied at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement, by obedience as

.the

the fecondery part of the condition of the Covenant (which yonfeemtoyieldj i. We are agreed in the main. 2. lean-not yet believe that our Juftification at that Bar bath one condition, and our Justification in Law (or in this Life , as continued) another. He that dyeth juftihed, was fo juftified in the hour of dying, on the fame conditions as he muft be at Judgement. For 1. 1 here are no conditions to be performed after death. 2. Senttntia Legit & (ertentia jttdicu do juftifie on the fame terms. Add to ali this what I grant to you, [that cur J unification Vvhen firft begun htre, is by faith (fvpptfng Repentance) before ana" without the fraftice ofobeditnee,] and then fee how near we are.

The fifth Argument which you mentionjs grounded on the common Maxim,2^0» eft diftinguendum ubi Lex nondiftingwt, and runs thus: If the Scripture in propounding to man the adaequate Objed of juftifying Faith, (Thrift) do not divide Chrift, and fay, [/* believing him to be a Prieft , jour faith us juftifying'* but not in believing him to be King , or Prophet, or Head^] but propoundeth Chrift undivided as this Objed ^ then muft not we diftinguifh or divide, but take Chrift entirely for the objed of juftifying Faith. But the Scripture doth not divide or diftinguifh in this cafe-, therefore we muft not. It is Chrift that muft be Received,and believed in : but a Saviour and not a King,is not Chrift. It is Chrilt as Chrift. Hit very Name fignifieth as diredly his Kingly office at leaft , as his Pricftly. And if you confefs that the fame ad of Faith at the fame inftant Receives Chrift both as Prieft and King, then I (hall ftay my afTent to your opinion till you bring me the Scripture that faith, it is faith in this notion ; and not in that wh'ch jufttfies. God fpeaks plainly that Vrhofoever believeth [hall be juftified from allthings &c. And you confefs this Relieving is the Receiving Ckri/lfor Kifigand Priefi; and that it juftifies as a condition; and doth not your (unproved,) diftindion overthrow this again ?

The fixth Argument which you mention, runs thus : If Scripture particularly propound Chrift as King, as the Objed of juftifying Faith, rhen Chrift as King is the objed of it: But Scripture doth fo : Ergo &c. I have named you tome places where it fo doth, a little before. The

<3*0

Thefeventhis to the fame purpofe with the Cfth. You name two Texts as proving that Scripture tyerh Juftification to the Receipt of Chrift asPrieft only : But there is not a word in the Texts to that cnd.Rom^.z^. (peaks of Faith in Chrifts blood, bat not a word for excluding Faith in his Obedience, Refurre<3ioo,Intercefiion or Power, much left excluding our confent to his full Authoricy or Office. The word L CU/}] is not in the Text- You may as well fay,tha? it is \jnly ] by faith in his N.me % and fo not whs*■ b!ooi t becaufe other Texts fay, it is by faith ink-* A 7 .? we. Se€ AUti 13.1 £. The other Text, Rcm.%.9. fpeaks neither a word of fa th, nor excludes Chrifts obedence { by which mmy are made Righecm J nor Rtfimm&i-on( for he Rofc again fir our feftjfitatiw. ) nor his Inttrctffiun, ( for who Jhall condemn m ? it u Chnft that a ed , yea rather that Rofe again, ani is even at theri^hthmdof Qod . frho alfi waketh Int treeJfion for us\ Rom.8 34.) And all thefe parts of Chrifts Prteftly Office muft be excluded, if you will affix the word [_On/y2 to the Tjtxc, which &irh , T»e are j«j}ifi*d by his bUoi. Indeed you make fo a quick difpatch in the Controver-iie about the a&ive and paflive Righteoufnefs.

The fame anfwer ferves to what you fay in the eighth, and ninth,and tenth,being the fame with that you fay here. I mar-vail how you would form an Argument from 2 CV.5 21 .Gal. 2.21 1 Where you fay , Obedience is not an effentid part of Faith, I yield st willingly, taxing raith properly and ftridiy, and not in the largeft improper fenfe, But rhat it juitifies as immediatly as it Receiveth him as King,as it doth in Receiving him asPrieft, I (hall take for proved , till you prove che law-fulnefshere of dividingChrift ,and Faith s or diftinguiiliiig^and impropriating juftifying to one refpe&, and excluding an >cher« in-the fame a& of Believing, and the fame Objed 1 -r-fr. And to whic isfaid before, let me yet add this, 1, If Chrjit be not received as a true compleat Saviour, except he be Received as King, then Faith juftifies not as it Receiveth him i only : (for you here confefs that he juflifies as he is Received as a Saviour. ) But the Antecedent is evident: for as King he faveth his people from fm~-and Satan % and all their- enemies. 8reo s & j c. & 2. If

(377)

2. If Chrift as Kingcto juftifie usi then he muft be Received as King to JuftifTcation. But the former is undcnyable, * 25. &c. Ergo, &c, The Conference ts ratfed on your own Grounds.

The eleventh Argument fas you number J doth fuppofe-fe-veral points ( very weighty with me , which I undertake to make gocdj which do overthrow the unfound grounds which the contrary minded go upon. 1. I fuppofe that Faith ju-ftifieth principally ex Vofantateordnantit, and not ex nauir* *Ehu ; though it have Aptitudmem ad officium %* ipfa ret »*-tur a . 2.I fuppofe Chrift is firft received by Faith # and his Benefits come with him, and in order of nature are after the Receiving of him. Thcfe things being fuppofedjt Wrongly perfwades me, that the entertainment of Chnft as King,was never/ntended by God to be excluded from the conditional Intereft in Juftification, when I find in Scripture that his own Dominion was an end of his Death .Refurre&ion and Reviving , and that God doth fo infift on this point, to bring the world tofubje&ion :o Chrift, Tfdlm 2. &c. And thac the honouring and advancing of God the Fa:her, and the Mediator God -man, is the rnoft Nvble excellent ufe of our faith. Is it then any whit probable that it is Gods meaning to exclude this refped of the ad from any conditionally herein } Shall I again tell you the true ground of mens m.flake fas I tb in this Point? They look on Faith as if it were a natural Re-ception, and did make the thing received theirs hnmediatly aud formally, as it is fuch a Receiving ex naturtirei % and not as it is Receptio mor*lU whofe effect depends wholly on, and its efficacy or Intereft is derived directly from the \V 11. £ ftitution or Ordination of the Leg^flator and Donor. ?r.d fe doth what it doth as a condition in Law-fence. And I pray fearch, whether in this Queftion, you do not confound your Notions ex pzrte ebjtEli, and ex parte . Let me

elude ail by the Hluftration of my former fimilitude. A **'o-man condemned forTreafon, is Ranfomed by the P ince, who Decreeth.thatif (he will Believe chat he is her Redeemer, and will take him as her Matter, Redeemer and Husband, fhe ft.a'i beDelivered and made his Princefs; elfe w>r. New

Ccc qu eft ion,

(378)

ueftion is, what is the condition of thi* womans deliverance a nd Dignity? Is the condition of her beliverance and Pardon, the taking him only under the Notion of a Pardoner or Deliverer ? And is the condition of her Dignity, only the Taking him as a Prince who is Rich and Honourable ? No: The condition on her part , is the Taking him entirely to all thefe ufes, or in all thefe Refpe&s,and more : even the marrying him, and covenanting to be his, as a faithfuil fpoufe and' Subjeft; and firft acknowledging what he hath done for her freedom and advancement, then to take him for her Husband and Lord, that bath done this to advance and free her. And while (he is faithfuil to this marriage covenant, in the performance, (he (hall enjoy thefe Benefits : but if (he forfake him and choofe another, as with him (he received her Dignity, fo with him (h: (hall lofe them all. So that tx parte attus here is no room for your quatenw and diflinguifhing* But now if the Queftion be intended not ex f*rte dttus, or, what is the condition on her part, but only what is it in him that (he re-•eives for her Husband,which doth deliver her ? Why then we fay, it is his Ranfom, his love and free mercy, &c. And if the Queftion be,what is it in him that dignifieth her ? Why I fay, it is his Dignity and Riches of which (he participateth ; together with the fame his free mercy as the Jmpulfive caufe.* And fo (he is Dignified by Receiving or marrying him quatenm a Prince,rich and Honourable, and not quatentu z. Redeemer only: and (he is delivered by taking him as a Deliverer or Redeemer, and not as an honourable Prince. The meaning of all this is no more,but that he doth not redeem her as a Prince, oordignirle her under the notion of a Redeemer.- and fo on his part you may difttnguifk. But yet as to the conditionally on her part,, there is no room for dtftinguijbing at all. For is not this all that Paul ayms at in fpeaking fo oft of Faith in Relation to Chrifts death and Righteoufnefs, rather then to his Government ? to note [what in Chrifl received doth jtifti-fie"] rather then [Xvhatrefpettofour aEtef fa : th is the condition f ] And may not this tend to an accommodation between us in this Point? efpccially with thofe Divines that fay, Faith «taken R*latively,when we arc faid to be Juftified by, it;, and

(375?)

it is faid, to be lm puted to us for RighteoEfnefs ? The Lord enlighten our dark underftandmgs, and give us love to the Truth and one another.

:

tXAving done with this, I proceed to your Additional Pa-1 per, which I lately received , and for which I am alfo really thankfull to you. But the Anfwer needs not be long. i. You think the 66.Tkef hardly reconcilable with the words cited out of ^,191. of that of 3ap:ifm,fo»». 3 .25 & 5.9-But 1 fee not the leaft appearance of a contradiction.Chrift whom juftifying Faith receives,doth Redeem us by bis blood,and not chiefly by his Principality ; and he favesus as a Saviour , and ruieth us as a Ruler,e^. But that faith which on our part is the condition of our intcreft in him & his Benefits,is the Believing in, or receiving Chrift as Cbrlft, or as he is offered to us in the Gofpelf as the AiTerably in their Catechifm well exprefs it. Davenant ^CulverVcell\ Throgmorton^lAt, T^orton of New England (Catech/pjg.19.) and many more fay as I in this: but I will not weary you with citations having been fo tedious already. But I am glad to feel you yielding to the Truth, (for it is a wcigtty Point) a9 you fcem in the next words, where you fay, that Cbrifis Death is the fole or chief ob)eU of Faith as Jn» fltfjing. • If you yield once that it and his Prieftly Office is not the fole Obje&, I will never contend with you about their Precedency, which u chief I have confeffed to you, that it is a fuller (and ordinarily fi ter) phrafe , to fay , we arejuftified bj faith in his blood, then to fay, Vte arejsflifiedbj faith in h't Government, becaufeit pointeth out Relatively the caufality in the Object, and not only the conditionally in the A&. But I think when you refpeA the faid condition efpecially, that then itisthefi:teftfpeechtofay , W* *re jufl/fird by faith ift Chrift.

2. Vf Out next are all of other Subjects. The fecond is, r*he-

X. ther Luke 12.24 import not a denial of Title in Chrift to

Judge. The anfwer is obvious, 1. He had not that deri-

cm

ved Title from men, which was neccffary to him that fhbuld* exercife the place of. a Magiftrate. 2. Chrift fpeaks not of Sovereignty (that he had: J but M*giftracy (which is diftindk from Soveraignty,. as being the Executioner of Lawes, which Soveraignty makes, and being under the Law, when the So-veraiga^f^^/^ is above them.) 3; His Interrogation may perhaps be no Negation. 4. But the plain anfwer which I ftick to is this. Chrift had not then a Title or Right to the a&ualexercifeof his power, as to divide Inheritances; The General of an Army to ranfom a Souidier that fhoukl dye for Treafon* doth agree with the Kmg, tha- he will put himfelf in the place of that common fouldier for a months time, and will dp alibis duty, and will venture his life in fome defperatefer* vice. Now during this time while he is in the fouldiers place, the Geaejralhath not title to the AttualRulefiuz, as before he had: not becaufe he hath loft it, but becaufe it will not (Jand with the ftate and duty of a fouldter which he bath voluntarily put himfelf in. Yet at the fame time, his Lieutemnt General and other Officers that have their Commiflions all from him do Govern. So here : will it follow that becaufe Chrift had not Title by himfelf to exercife the place of a Ruler and Judge, being then in the ftate of a fervant, that therefore now he hath npt the Soveraignty }

3. \/Our third 1 is from C0L1.14. I fuppofc you mean the I thirteenth. But little know I how you would thence argue with any feeming ftrength. Chrift hath a threefold King*, dpml The firft (where he moft fully Rulcth ) is the fouls of Believers, It follows not,* that a man that is not of this Kingdom, is not of Chrifts Kingdom at all. The KfngdomofGod is thus within us,. The fecond is, The Ch^^hrVifible. This the Apoflle here fpeaks of, and of this Heathens are no members, The third is, The whole world of mankind,whom he hath bought under his Dominion, and to be at his Difpofal (Rom. 24.9. &c \), who are4elivered into his hands, and over-ruled by him, ,and he is-.their Rightful King,and will Judge them as their King,, and give them the reward of Rebellious Subjects

C380

je&s that would not confcnc to his a&uil Rule, ( Dike 19.17* &c.) and not only as Rebels againft God as Creator. If h« be not their King, the/ cannot be judged Rebeis againft him. Yea the Law of Nature is now his Law , by which he in part Ruteth them though they know him no:, (many know not the true God, who yet are partly Ruled by that his Law • ) The jews crucified their King, though they werelnfidels,and knew him not to be their King. To conclude this Subject, I defire you but to confider, whether there be any inconvenience appearing in the acknowledgement of Chrifts General Domini • on?and whether ic be not the plain and frequent fpeech of Scripture } And on the other fide, whether it may not bs of dangerous confequehce, as injurious to Chrii, to deny fo great a part of his Dominion ? and excufe not Infidels from the guilt &f Rebellkm againft the Redeemer ?■ And whether it be not Introduced by Pious Divines meerly in heat of Difputation, whicn ufually carryeth men into extreams > efpecially lead ttu-y (hould yield to univerfal Redemption in any kind ? and !eaft they ihouki yield totheMagiftrates power in Religion.

4.. Your laft.Queftion is about Univerfal Redemption it he affirmed that Ghrijl djedfo* every child of Adam conditio> nalh) it Would bt well proved from Scripture that the procuring of [uch* conditional Law or £$i&mmt\ was tketndor-effsfk of Chrifts death: and Whether the fo inter pret'mgText s that fpe 1'^ of his dyingfor al/ y will net fervefor evifiens to put by the Arguments draVrn fromthem to prove Chnfts fattrf*ftio>j aid r,n-rit proper t9ths Elecl; &c. ] Anfwer. 1. Though I do not doubt much of the point, yet I have no mind to meddle with the queftion,as it concerns thofe Pagans that never heard of Chrift. Not for fear of any difadvantage thence to the xaufe, but k Becaufe ifindGod fpeaks-fparingly of thofc to whom he fpeak*not ; it concerns not us fo much to know his Counfel concerning o:her?. 2. Becaufe it is an t!l wav • f arguing to lay the ftrefs ofati on the molt obfeure poir?; ( as men do, that ftudy more how to filence anadverfary, then Co fee trie Truth ) and to prove <ob cur urn per abf $ h a point that I cannot give you rnv thoughts of in words: there needs fo much for Explication; and therefore

Ccc 3 be-

ftte)

being-but here touched, -I (ball forbear, g. I doubt not but to prove abundantly from Scripture with much evidence,whac 1 afTert in-chii. 4. Ic was not the only, nor the.firft effed of his Death, that Chrift was [ Satisfafthn-to Gods fujtice for the Vivldthn of the LaW. ] 5. That fuch a conditional Law or Covenant is granted, and exftant in Scripture, is as plain as moft points in the Gofpel: and fare no fach thing can be but upon Chrifts death as the meritorious eaufe. 6. So interpreting the fe Texts which are fo to be interpreted, isnoevafion: And no Text will prove Chrifts .fatisfa&ion and Merit wholly proper co the Eled. Much lefs thofe which fay, He died for all men. That God intcndeth only theEleft to be certainly hw^d by Chrifts death, Icaneafily prove from many other Texts : But if I (hould prove ic by thek^ it were ftrange. It is an ill confequence Q Chrift died for nil wen -, therefor* hisfatijfttthn u proper to the Efetl. J 7. Tn point of Law the Eleft have no more Title to Chrift and his Benefits, then any others ( as EleS before they believe. ; But Gods Decree hath from Eternity appropriated Salvation by Chrift only to the Eled in point of Event. He that determined <de eventu y that only the Eled (hould be faved by Chrift, did yet :hinkitthe fitceft way to his glorious ends to make Chrifts Death zfuffiei-ent fatisfa&ionfor all.Sc to make in his new Law a free deed of Gift of Chrift, and all his Benefits to alithatAvill receive him as he is offered .* yet not engaging himfelf co publifh this Law to every particular man •, though it be of univerfal extent in the Tenor. The Promifc names none as included j nor excluded any,but who do wilfully exclude chemfelves. But thefe things require fuller opening.

8. Laftly, [ Chrift djing loco noflro ] as you fay, is a term that needs as great caution for the true underftandihg it, as moft that we make ufe of. The right underftanding of it, is the main Ground of our fafety and comfort: The wrong under, ftandingit, is the vety turning point to Antinoraisnifm, and the very Primam vivens &. ultmum mwiens^ the Heart of the whole Syftem of their Doitrine. That Chrift in the per-fon of Mediator, did fuffer upon his voluntary undertaking what we (hould have elfe fuffered,and thereby made fatisfa#i-

on to Gods Juftice for the breach of his law, both Father and Son ( whofc Willis one J agreeing or refolving, that yet no man fhouldbave a&ual Reroiffion or Salvation hereby,but on condition of receiving the Redeemer for their Lord and Saviour : and thus Cbriftdied loco omnium : this is found Doctrine That at the fame time it was-thefceret Will or Eternal Decree of the Father y and the Will of the Mediator de eventu, to give erTe&ually Grace to belie vq to his Chofen only-, and confequexuly that they only fhoujd be actually ( ived and thus he died only loco Eleftortim,ha\(& found Doctrine/ But that Chrift in dying did ftndly rcprefent the per-fonof the finner, foas either naturally, or morally in Law-fenfe we may be faid to have fatisfied then^ in or by him.as the Law calls that thea&ionof the Principal, which is done per ^DeUgatum, Dtputaium ,P'\carium.&c. this is the foul of Antinomianifm, and dire&ly and unavoidably introduceth Juftiflca".before Faith,or before we are born 5 the non-necefli-ty of any other Juftifkation,but inforoconfeientia-, it certainly ovcrthrowrth all pardon of fin at all and foall Petition for Pardon,and all tbaoksgivingfor it,with the reft of their errors: yea makes man his own Redeemer, But I have been too long already. I fenfibly acknowledge the truth of what you fay That this is a matter of great moment, and needs great confi-dcration. I have beftowed more consideration about it, then about any other point in Divinity.

YOUR unfeigned Friend and Brother ( who doubt*

not ere long to meet you in our Center and Reft %

where all our Difference in Judgement

and Affection will be healed,)

Richard Baxter,

JCcderminfteri* June £..

\Sm% 71^ multitude of my Employments caufed me to delay the returning you my thoughts of jourfavourable Ani* madyer/ionSytil I received jour Addi^ tional paper y which made me fo.very fenfibleofymrl^indnefs^ that I could not but [hatch the next opportunity 7 thus truly to give you my further Thoughts, as an account of the accept tance andfuccejs of your Tains.

June 20. Sir, \7 Efterday I received your third Paper dated fane 17. to \ which I thought beft to give you this fhort Anfwer together, feeing the former were not gone out of ray hands.

You here touch (very eafily ) on two Subjects. I will begin with the lawr, viz,. Your four Arguments againft my Doc-tr>ne of Juftification by the Gofpel Grant or flslevv Law.Your firft is, that This is per refultAxtiam ; but f unification is an aft cf Will ; but no Aft of Will is by nrcejf«ty Rtfultancj ] Anfwer. As it proceedeth fram the lnftrumen{ or Foundation, it is by Refultancj : As by that Inftrumeat iVis the Ad of the Leg* fitter Ot 'Principal Agent , fo it is an A& eFi&lk h

was

uashisWiH atthe enacting of the Grant, andftiUishs that this his Qrant, or Deed of Gtft fhould mor+1 iter agert & fffecuu hot *eltliost»cd*cere, at fucb a dtftance upon fuch and iucb conditions. The Ad and Effect ot the law. menr, is the Act and Effcd of the Legiflacor and reitator, whofe Intruroent it is: But the laid Law orTefhment dorh not ejficAcittr agere, or produce thefc effects, till the time tb3t the conditions are performed: (fork is the Nature of a Moral condition to be aided for the fufpenfion of the Effect or evrnc of the <^ranr, &c. till it be performed. ) Therefore the Rector, Donor or Teftator doth r\6i*efficuciter agere till then. And therefore he acteth by Itbat his It.ft.ument then, or not at all. If you give by Deed or by Will, fuch and fuch portions to fome Children at fuch a term of Age, and to others when they marry •, The full actual Right is by a meer Reful-rancy, as from the Inflrument. but by an Act of Will > as from you, but really from neither before the Term,or condition performed.This is a moft obvious Truth. \

2. And as eafic is^N Anfwerto yourfecond. [ // the Covenant juftifi* without any other Att , tht* it adoftr, ftn&ijiethCf lorifieth », without any other, ] Anfwer. In the Propofitions againft Mr. Bedford, you might have fcen this difpelied. For Adoption, I yield the whole. But know you nor that as there is great difference between changes Relative and Qualitative 5 fo the later refults not from a meer Tunda-nre>.tum f &c. but is effected by a Phyfical Operation? It is ft* ad rem, it is R<ght or *Du»efs, which is the proper immediate product, or v q**fi) effect refulting from, and given by the Law, or the like luftrumen:; and not the natural thing it feif. Now in thefe Relations,either the Right and the thing it felf arc the fame; or elfe the difference fo fma 11, that it is next to undifcernable, and muft needs both in eodem inflanti refulr, as afore faid. But in Pbyfic#i changes,thete is a greater difference between the Right and the Benefit: The r Be>e$t cannor, as \he Right doth, proceed ptr nHdimrefultaitijirAt you gtte your Son ico. 1. by a Ltetd of Gift, this giveih him the R:ght immediately, butnot the Thing. There muft be a Phyfical Act to chic. But Pardon to a Malefactor ijs

D d d given

c?s*)

given by a written 7>*rdsn or grant, from whence the Right 10 ir, and the Benefit it felf, do immediately rcfult ( being indeed but one thing, except myunderftandingbetoo grofs todiftinguifhthem. ) If therefore you had faid as you fhould, rhat Right to Glory, and to sanctity ( fo far as that Cove* nant givcth ic ) are beftowed without any other Act, ( except iinaii Judgement,which is necefTary to full Juiiification as well as GloryJI fhould yield you all.

3. To your third, £ That the Covenant }ufit fie s but conditionally, therefore not finally. ] 2 anfwered before .• for it was one of your former Arguments. Conditio eft Lex addit/i nc-gotio qua donee praftetur eventurn fufpendit , faith Cujaciw. And as Mynfinger faith, Neq; atito, neq; obligatio ttlla eft an-tequam conditio eveniat : quia quod eft in conditioner non eft in obligation : ( Schol. in fnfttt. p,s 2$. ) So that it Is the Nature of the condition to fufpend the effect, but not to make the caufe to be no caufe. Indeed if the Condition be never performed, then it deftroyes or prevents the effect, and fo the Inftrument doth not agere : And w^? but becaufe it was the Will of the Agent that ti fhould act fo, and on fuch terms,or elfe not: fo that the non-performance doth not nndo what the Inftrument did,nor doth it difoblige the Author , but it mani-fefleth that he was never obliged: ("they arc Grotiuswords.) I conclude therefore that when the condition is performed, then the Inftrument or conditional Grant doth begin vere agere & donare ; and the Agent by it: but till then it doth not properly aet or effect at all. Is not your Teftament that gives your Legacy, becaufe it gives conditionally ? Or muft there be fome other Act,to make ic an abfolute proper Gift.

4. Your fourth alfo is one of thofe which you have in the Beginning,where I have anfwered it. The Covenant you fay, ie an All paft ; and fo not continued, andfo the Junification bj it paft,andnot continued, &c. ] Anfwer. The Phyfiea I Act of Legiflation or Covenant granting is paft • but this only makes it an Inftrument, able and fit co produce fuch and fuch effect?, and not actually to produce them at that prefent, when ic is conditional. Bnt the Moral action of this Law or Covenant is not paft, but continued. The Law or Covenant is not

(38?)

one of Date. And therefore it contiuueth ftiii to juftifie. The making of our Laws, are Acts paft by Parliaments long ago, and fo not continued. Will you therefore conclude rh; . the Moral Agency or Efficiency or thefe Laws is parf, and therefore they do not condemn or jufbfie ? I know no grouud chat can beai your concufion*, except with Rijbvrcrth ( DU/og) and fuch other of the more impudent Papitts, one fhr.uld v.li-He the Scripture, and fay, that chey were only MifceJlaneous ©ccaiional writings, and never intended to be C/ods La& y or our Rule of Faith andLfi : but I believe you will never come to that. Surely Dtvict frequently ftilerh the old Scriptures that were in his Times Gctis Laft: And why many Div nes (hould ftrike in with fome Lutherans Error in denying the Gofpel or New Scripture to be properly \_ Ckrifls Law, "] and fo inveigh againft thofe that call it the i\ew Law % I know no Reafon ; but that the ignis fatuus of contention and prejudice mifleadeth them. O happy Difputers that are not carried head-long into extreams by the fpirit of Contrad &ion ! What more proper to $he reformed Religion, as fHch,then to honour the Scriptures'? And how do thefe men vilifie them, and rob them of their higheft honor, that deny them to be the Laws of God ? yea deny this to the Gofpel it felf ? Is not Chift the Law-giver > //*. 33. iz.pfal. 60.7. and^ioS. 8. and the King? Muft not the Law go out of Zion % lfa.2.3. And is not that the Law and Teftimony to which we muft feek ? Multitudes of v crip;ures, and meft of the Fathersf that ever I readjdo call the Gofpel Chrifts Law^ or thef new law.] 2.To your fecond Exception, againft my app r ovmg a fpeech ofDr.tfVIanf.i.DoIneed to tell ycu how unlke this faying ofDr. Wards is tothst of tie Council of 7rot} Ycukncw by f unification they mean principally SancTification ? Tut the Dr. faith not that thefe are preparatives to Juftifiction. Sure you could not feriouflv fufpect me to join with the Papifts when they' fpeak of one Subject, and I of anorhcr. The ads of that Scflionwili rel you more differences between them and me, then is worth the while to repeat: and you know how largely Ckemmitint endeavours to prove that by Difpofirians and PreviradonSy The Councill mean xJMtritt . and that

Ddd 2 they

(388)

they would fabdoloufly introduce the Thmg;( Merita ie con* gruo ) by changing the name; as out of Oft'us words.and others he gathers.2. And know you not that Chemnititu pro-feflfeth to yield to the foundnefs of tfm very fixth Chapter, which you aJ'cdge, were it n >t for thefe guiles that they ufe, and cheir evil fenie to advance Merit > For faith he, Omnino certm eft five ma da* five or do in v^bo Dei nobis defignnttu & prajcriftutt <jho Dens utitur cfx*tndo vult hominem ad juftifica-ticnemdeductre, &C. El qmaamodum five ordv:em illumdi-vintus prafcriptum^ non volunt ft ductu fp ritus accemmodare, fed ntgligunt & conculcxnt ilium , hi md Juflifuationem non pro-veniunt. Vult e»'m D e us a ?{jtitia & ^ffenfu verbi fui no 5 ordiri: & ante ^(tfjttficMicKem Qportet praeedere contritionem, hoc eft> feritm agmtionem peccntorum^ pavores confckntU ag-nofcenti* iram Dei adverfus no fir a pucata , & dolentU propter peccatum : in qua contriteone nm retinetur y fed *bychw prapo-fitum per fever Andi & pergendi infederibus. ss4d hot vero ter-tores necejfe eft accederefidem, qu e agnitione & $ duel a miferi-cor did Deipromijftc propter filium me d Mar em ^ rwfui erigzx & cwfoletur an*mum , ne opprtjfi defpef*ione ruamus in dternum exitium* Sed fides accedat ad Dium^ quarat, defideretjetat, apprtbendat & accipitt Remiffionempeccatirttrn. Et hoc modo feu or dine in verba Dei deftgnato viam ptrari Domino : ut w ipfo y per &propttripfum fideconfequamur & accipiamus fuftfica-tionem, ipfa fcriptara tra<Ut % &c. this aifo he (hews Luther approved of.

Now I pray y®u teii me whether here be not full as much as Dr. Ward or I fay ? And do you think Chemnttms did join with thePapiftsof Trent y when he confuted them?

?. And if Dr.W. hadfpoak of San&ificajcion, arc there not multitudes of our ownbeft: approved Divines, that make all thefe ads to be found in men by way of preparation before San edification ? Mr. Rcgers of Dtdham in his Treat, of faith : Mr. Hooker in his Epift. before that book, snd oft in his own booJc,arlirme?h not only a common preparatory contrition, Hungring and thi-rH-ng, Hop: Love Joy, but even effe dual fpecial Vocation it ielf,and fo faith to go before San&ification and Juftification. And indeed what mandenyeth it ? excert

Mr.

Mr. FembU and a very few that with him make Samftjficttion and Vocation to be ail one ? which how far I approve my fclf, I have (hewed m Treat, of Reft, Part, i Chap. 8. fecr.

2. 3.4,

4. But look into the words, and find out what error you can ! Which of thofe acts do you think goes not before Jufti-fication? And if they go before, fare you will not deny but they do fome way or other d;ipofe or fit a man for pardon :. or elfe God would notliave prefcribed them before ft. 1. Ca« iholick faith is the Belief of the Cathol.ck Dcftr inc. I am fate you take that to go before Juitificaton. 2. If Hope of pardon go not before, then Affiance ( to which Hope isefTentia! ) gees not before : Yea, then B Jievers do defpair iu the A& of Sieving to Judication, 3. 1 never knew the man that doubted whether fear of Funfhment went before. 4. The fame I may fay of grief for lira. j. And if all the doubt be ofTxtpo/e agtinft fin, and far Amendment, I. Sure they that fay Repentance is pre-rcquifite to juftification, will not exclude *Pu>pife of Amendment. 2. And fare thofe that faySancti-fication and Vocation are all one, and go before Juftification will hardly exclude ir. 3. They that take a turning from Idols to the true God, as the end, to be in order before a Turning from Infidelity to the Mediator as the way , which is by Faith ; thefc muft needs think that fo much of Atlual Amendment goes before Juftifica ion (ye believe in God, believe alfo inner.) 4- They that ky, Fa:ib alone jufl-finb t but not the faith tobich u alene % will furely include this Parpofe as Antecedent. Dave-«^r,Mr.^rf//&c.|esprefs it.and infifton jr. Dr. Twift cal-kth works Ulfedia &tc*ufddifpofitiv& : Cut it were endlefs to cite Authors in this Point. 5 But I tell you my mind. I take tbisPurpofeof obeying Chrift de futuro to be very Fait Jelf. For faith is a Covenant reception of Chrift, 2nd to take him for Cbrift and King-Redeemer, and to Purp fe,yea Covenant to orey him,are but one thing. And therefore a Giving up our felves as Redeemed-fiibjects, and Co a purpofe or" 3 actually Object,are faith it felf. And then they rauft needs be prerequ.fite to Juftification. So that wheth r you ta Acts for common or fpecial, fcely they go before Juftifica:

D d d 3 as

a sDr. Ward faith. Dare you tell any man of yout Hearers that though tie have not f > much as a Purpofe to mend, yet he is juftified by Faith ? Truly fuch paffages bauc embittered the minds of Papifts, and many weak ones againft our Doctrine of JuOification : and given great advantage to the %s€ntino-

For what you fay of contradiding Dr. Dotoname and Mr. *Pemble; Ianfwer, i. Though they differ between them-felvcs in the point of j unification, and one hath wrote a confutation of the others Dodrine, yet you will never (hew me wherein this fpeech of Dr. Ward doth contradict eithet of them. Indeed if Dr. Ward had determined Whether he meant common Difpofitionsor fpecial, perhaps he might have contradicted one of them, they do fo far differ themfelves. For you know Mr. Temble not only in his Vindie. Grat. but even in the place you cite (rdg.42.43.) takes thofe Ads to be of fpecial Grace,or a part of Sandification, which moft Divines do judge to be preparatory thereto. And for my part, I judge as Mr. Pemble,\£ you take but that point in to qualifte it,which I have afferted Treat, of Reft, fecond Edit, part 3. cap.i i.that the finccritv of Grace as faving, Iveth not in the bare nature of the Ad, but in the prevailing degree which Morality may fpecifie.then I fay as Mr. Tenths pag.45. that thefe Vertues which are (many of them by our Div nes) reckoned as Difpo-fitions to Regeneration, are if they betrue,the main parts and fruits of Regeneration.

2. But I admrehowyouftiould think that fpeech of Dr. Wards fhould be a joining with the Papifts againft Dr. Dow-name and Mr. Temble, when Dorrxdwe tells you that the Papifts difpute of another fubjed then we do; while they mean one thing by ir, v ■'* Sandification,and we another: (upon which ground Mr. Wotton is ready to throw out the Difpute, as being abiout one Term, but different fubjeets. ) And Mr. Pemble anfaers [that the Argument of Bellarmine from that chapter of the Councils Jixth fejf. is framed on the €r>o* fthich puts out of frame the whole Difpute^ viz. that Regeneration dud Sanclification is all one thing with Juftification, aid thai to juftifie a jinner is nothing elfe but. to do aWay inherent corruption

tion by infujion of inherent Righteoufncfs. J And fo Mr. Pern-bis riifputesagainftitonly as thus meant : And Calvin Mo in his Antidot. on this 6 Seff. 6. chap, never once finds fault with them here, but only for afcribing that to free Will which they fhould afcribe to effedual Grace; and for making Jufti-fication to be Sanctification, but not a word for making thefe Acts to be preparatory to Juftification , ( Tratlat. Theo/ogic. pag.387 388.) PtL etiam tsfrticufot faCttltat. Parifienf. ,4rt. 4. defenfti Papifiito. Every man that makes Faith to contain many ads (moft Divines fay , Notitiam, Affenfum & fiduci-am, A>mfius names five J muft needs make all thofe Ads to be prc-requifice to Juftificacion, bt fides Repentanccand befides preparatory 1 As of common Grace. No man that I know doth fcem to come nearer you then Dr. Downame in placing juftifying faith in Aflent, and fo not taking it to contain fo many ads: And yet even he tells you, that \jhe aft of the Will doth concur to Faiih, and th*t faith which is a habit cfthe mind s is feat e das well in the Will as in the Under ft anding : and this is confeffedby Fathers, Schoolmen , and the modern Dotlorj of the Romifb Church.~] Treat. of]uft>f. pag. 358. 359- Yea for ought I can underftand he extended faith as far as I,and meant as 1 do herein, pag. 348.349. 352. he faith , £2?? the former which is a bare Affent, Vvc ao after a fart Credere Chriftum, acknowledge him to be the Saviour of thofe that believe in him -" By the Utter, whxh is the lively and effetlual AJfent working on the Hearty Vve do credere in Chriftum, and receive him to be our Saviour, thereupon ntcejfarily followeth Affiance in Chrift , and ,'cve of him at a Sav our. Thus then by a true Belief Vee receive and Embrace Qhrift , in our judgement by a lively AJfent: m our Hearts, defiring earneftly to be partakers of him ( which De-fire we exprefs by our Prayer,) and in our Wills refitv>ng to acknowledge and Profefs him to be our only Saviour , and to reft upon him alone for Salvation. So that a true lively and tffetlu-al faith is the WrorJ^of the whole foul ; thst is to fay, a* Well of the Heart as of the Mi*d ,Rom 10.10 Ad 16.14. Ad.8.37.] fo far Dr. 'Downame. Is not this as much as I fay t and the very fame ? I only mention him (having many more at hand ) becaufe 1. you urge him, and 2. I conjecture, you think you

go

(392.)

go his way about the nature of Faith. If this be not as much as I fay. do but add what he faith^g. 15. and I think you have as much : (in this particular. ) Q The true mtur.ing (faith he) of the Qtie/iiort ; ' whether we are jufiI fit* by Faith or by Warksf\ is net asopjfdfjxg the int&ltrd Grace of Faith to the om^a^d all's of Obedience, which indeed a?e the fruit • of Faith ; But as op-pofingthe Righteoufnefs cfChrifl app-ebended b) Faith , to the righteoujnejs Wkuh U Inherent in our felvtr^ aniperfrmed by cptr ft Ives,

And truly Sir,I ufe to charge my conference to enquire what may be the plain meaning of a Tey ? and to embrace that,and not againft Light to be carryed by 1 ' prejudice : and this confeience tells me that this Refolution of Dr. Downamebcing fo plainly agreeable to Fattl y is not to be rejected. When I impartially confider what P<i*/driveth at, my Judgement tells roe that it was never his intent to advance any one fimplc Acl of the foul into the office of juftifying,excluding all the reft ; but to.advance Chrifl againft mens own works which flood up then in competition with him: And that Paul never m^ant that Af-fent juftifies, but not Velle % Accipi*Ye^Coyifemire, Eligtre x Fidu* ciam habere, &C

Suppofe there be a mortal Difeafe that hath feized on a City, which no mm can cure but one only Phyfitian : nor he but by a Medicine that will coft him as much as the lives of the Citizens are worth : This Phyfitian comes and fends to them,and offers them ail without exception, that if they will but take him for their phyfitian and truft him with their Jives, he will not only manfeft his skill, that he is able to cure them, but he will do ir, and pay for the Phyfick, and not put them to pay a penny. Hereupon fome that are his enemies, and fome that are miftakenin the man upon fa If? reports, and fome that judge of him b. hisoucward appearance,do all conclude, [this is fome Deceive:' he is not able to do any fuch matter -, none but fooh will truft him,and venture their lives in bis h^nd .• Lee u. ftir about and labour and we fhall overcome ft, and q*o well enough.] On the contrary the Phyfitian, having great companion on the poor deluded people, knowing ct.eir cafe better then themfeives, and having already bought the remedy for

them

(390

them, doth fend to them ?ga?n, to tell them aIJ,ttat thofe thst will believe him and truft bim, he will certainly cure , and the reft (hall dye every man of them, for all they think to hbour it away. I pray you now put our Queftions here impartially: i. ]s believing and tmft ing the Phyfitjan fbme one (ingle ad", excluding all others ? Or was it ever his intent to advance fome oneadoftheir-s? 2. Would it not be a learned madnefs to dilute whether thePbyfitian make the ad of AfTent,or the aft of Willing only : ©r Accepting,^, or Affiance, or Recumbency to be the Healing ad • and of what faculty that ad was which muft heal them? 3. /sit theTrufting and Receiving him only 1. as one that hath brought 1 Remedy : 2.0rasone chat can and will cure u* by it: or 3. Alfoasone that rauft be obeyed in the ufe of that remedy for the effeding the cure; which of tbefe is it that he intends cuuft be the Ob jed of their Act ? 4. Doth £Trufting him and Believing him exclude a RefoJution to obey his Diredions and the future actual obedience ? Surely no : it includeth both : But it exdudeth borh their trufting any other PhyTitian, and their thinking to work away the Difeafe and cure themfelves. 5 Doth Trufting or Believing him cure thefe men as the Inftrument ? or is it only a condition without which be will not cure them? But this Queftioa with you I may fpare.

Laftly, Youqueftion, [_HoV? I will avoid Tompfons opinion of the Jnttrcifion of Jujiification upon the committing a fin that Wafts the conscience, when 1 make Juflif cation a continued A& ufon condition ofobedience.? J AnJVc. 1. Do you not difcern that the Queftion concerneth you and every man, as much as me ? and that it is of aequal difficulty upon your own and others opinion, as upon mine ? Dr. Dewname will teH you as well is I, that J unification is a continued Act. So will Dr. Twift\ and all that with him do take it for an Immanent Act. Yoar fclf, who take it for a tranficnt act but once performed, do yet judge (> doubt nor J that our Juftified eftate which is the effect of it is permanent: and the relations of Reconciled, Pardoned,Adopted,are continued. Alfo you and they,! hope, willconfefs, that Juftifkation paflive is continued on the condition of continued faith. Now I would Know how you will

E c c avoid

&tt)

Avoid Tcm^fons Do&rince of Imcrciiion, upon every notable defed of a Chriifrans faith , when unbelief gives him a foyL whicb is too common ? as you anfwer,fo will I. If you fay his faith « not overcome habitually, when unbelief h prevalent in the prefent A3, I will fiy fo of his obedience. 2. You know maft Divines fay as much as I, chat obedience is a condition of the continuance of Juftificacion, (only they fay that faith only is the Inftrument of jufti'-ying, ) and how will they^anfweryour 3. You know thic all fay, that obedience ka condirion of Salvation, and fo of our prefent Title to Salvation. Now how will they avoid Tompfom Doctrine of Inter-ctfion of that Title to Salvation, upon the committing of fuchfins? 4, It is not perfeft obedience which I fay is the €ondition,but fincere .• A nd by fincere I mean fo much as may cxprefsthat we unfeignedly take Chrift ftdl for our Lord and Saviour: And fo it is not every fin that I fay wrll forfeit or interrupt our Juftification and caufe ic to difcontinue,(ttoat is> lofe our Title, or change our Relation in Law: ) no nor every grofs fin : but only that.fin which is mconffftent with the continued Accepting Chriit for our Soveraign : that (in which breaks the main Covenant, (of which fee Dr. Pnfton&t large,) as Adultery or Defertion doth in marriage: A denying God to be our God, or Chriit to be our Chrift, by our works, while we confefs him in word : An a&ual explicate or implicite Renunciation of Chrift, and taking the fie(h for our mailer, and the pleafingof it for our happinefs; or as the CMtborqetAns following a falfe Chrift. Now, I hope that no juftified perfon doth ev r commit this fin • much lefs any elect and juftified man, of whom Tompfon fpeaks.You may fee through his ninth cb*p. fart 2 . that Tompfon erred through mifunderftanding wheren the fincerity of Faith as Juftifying dothconfift: (I wifli many more do not fo. ) He thought that Juftification did fo'low every act of undiffembled Faith ; but only rooted Faith would certainly pcrfevere; and therefore the unrooted (Though true Believers) mightlofe their Juftification, if they were Reprobates ( Pr^fciti as he calls (tftem^ or have it interrupted, if they were elect. But if he had fcnown(wbar I have affeteedia the aforcfaidc^.i i.part 3.

to?)

of Reft, Edit.2.) thst the very fincerity of faith as juflifying, lyeth not in the natural being of the act nueeily, but the prevalent Degree and moral J pacification tbvn be would hav* known,that his **r<w/^ ones were never juttiiied, & iherefoce never loft it. A nd if in aiTercing juftification by the only act of Faith, he had not over-looked the ufe of the hab t,hehad not fpokc fo much of Intercifionof Justification, through interruption of the acts, where the Habits remain. ( Of this L muft further explain my felf, where it is more fealonablc.) His Objections pig.z i. cap. 5. part. 1. I have anfwered in the place before cited. Yet even Tompfin denyeth that ever fins once pardoned do return, or fuftificationem dpeccatis femelremtjfit amitti. ( pag. 1 i.part. 1 cap.2.) ftd jtrUnam ($u& nhqu^da jtefta fmt)poJ[i contrakere, & aliquandoaQu contrthere \*r no-va ftccata % novum reatum ir& Vivint & mortis iter** : So that it is not the lofs of the firft justification that he aflerteth. I conclude then that as you and others anfwer Timpfon, juft fo will J, (if you do it well: ) for it concerncth my caufe no more then yours,or other mens.

But Sir, you have drawn me fo neer the difficulty which per-plexetb me, that I will now open it to you. How to avoid the Intercifion of juftification, is a queftion that hath long troubled me : not on any of thefe terms proper to my own judgement ; but how on your Grounds ? or any Orthodox Divines it will be avoided. I would know 1. whether we are Guilty (not only/atf*, [ed poena) of every fin we commit ? or of fucb fins as Davi's, before Repentance / if not guilty : then what need of Pardon, of daily praying Forgive us our Debts, or of a Chrift to procure our Pardon r> If we are Guiky , how can that confift with a juftified ftate r Reatm eft obUgatio ad l>m-nam. The lead (in unpardoned v makes obnoxious to condemnation and Hell: He that is obnoxious to them, is not at pre-fent juftified Here I am much puzled, and in the dark. In my Avhor. I { ave lightly touched it, but fo as doth not quie-t re i^ulleUuw. I deny the Intercifion of univerfal Juftification. Yet I dare not fay but that a Believers fins may be unpardoned till he R ^penc, Believe and fcek pardon. And I dare notthink, that Chrift teaoheth us to pray only for pardon in

Eee % J**

(3p<0

foro cenfcientia,or only of the temporal punifhmcnt, nor only for continuance of what we had before. Buc how to make . perfonalun.verfel unincerrupred Judication confiftwirh the Guilt of one fin, or with one fin unpardoned, here is the knot, Oar Britifh Divines in Uartfynod.AziAe Per fever. Tbefj.pag. 266. fay, that 'Believers bjfuchpns Rcatum mortis incnrrunt, PriJeaux Ltcl.6 de verftv. /ug.8o.faith, they do reattsmdam-nabilem contrahtre , ftc m fatten* aemerttone , licet non effetli-ve.fus adregnttm ctlorum yenitm amittavt: ( This diftinction doth no good : for we pray not. Forgive us our trefpaffes,/.*. that they may not deferve Death ) Mr. Barges of Juftif Lett. 27. pag.241. thinks, They have an oftttai Cjmlt obliging them to eternal wrath not abfoltstely , but conditionally till they take the means appointed of God for their pardon : for God dotkpot Veill ta them fahation while they abide m that ft ate. Mr. Rejno/ds (Life of€brift y pag.404..Mit4±l>496.) faith, that they certainly incur Gods dtfpleafure and ereate a merit cf Death , anddeferve Damnation^ but de fac:o bring it not. Now all this openeth not mine underftandmg to fee, How a man is Reus mortis, and yet perfectly juftified (and fo, non^condemnandus etitm in [en-tentiaLegis) at the fame moment of time. And were it a thing that fhould be futurism, ( which we may fufpofe ) that he (hould dye in that itate, whether he fhould be juftified at Judgement, and fo be faved,or not ? Sir, though 1 refufe not to accept your further Animadverfions on the former Point?, ytt (being indeed fatisfied pretty weH in tbem^I chiefly intreat that you would communicate to me your thoughts of this one Point as foon as you can, if you have any clear way to untye the knot: and if your Grounds conduce to it more then mine, I (halMike them better.

Sir y pardon the prolix ty here, aud Acrimony elfwhere of

TV ttr unfeigned well- Vfiilt r %

Richard Baxter.

C3'97)

H E Reader wnft underftand that fine* the. Writing tf this , / have endeavour e'eir tbu pom: tnm* e Direclions for Peace efCoxfcitnce. To which nsw I add but this, that befides a Plenary Guilt or Remifficn, there firms to be a Guilt and Remiffion that are both but imptrfetl and of a middle feart: that U , that at in Peters aft of fim % the habit of faith remained, fo with hu Guilty tfftate cf Juftipcation remained: As none of his old fins returned on him, fo the (fovtnant of Grace upon hit Habitual Faith did kinder the Guilt from being Plenary .rjixe^ by beginning a Remiffion -, ^ fear not to call it an imptrfetl Rt~ miffton : The Law doth pronounce Death on a man for every fin^ ffritis fofir in force as to determine that Death is both deferved and due to this nran for this fin. B*t at the fame inftant, though after in trder of nature, the Gofptlthatfiveth parJon to 'Believers, doth give an Imptrfetl pardon to David, Peftr and fu<h Habitual Believers as foon as they fin, before Faith and Rsper." taucefor that ftn be atlua/l; and their Pardon will become ple-nary wh*n they aVtually Repent and Believe. The 'i Sin is like the fault of a Kings Son or Subjtcljhat & a Paffion fbouid fink* the King, ftbenjet Hab.tuaily he h*th a loving Loyal heart to him* He deferveth Dtatb, and by Law it may te his due ; but he it a SonftiH, and the King wUi net take this advantage again]} him, though he will not fully pardon htm, t:R he fubmit and lament his Fault. We are fl ill the Crtiaren cf Gcd,notwiihfiadding thofifms that goag*inft the Habitualbtnt c-our Heart: thats theTryal\ ) but m*ft have actual Faith and Repentance before we fballhave full pardon: ivhether yen will call thai Pardon fthich the Promifegivtth upon metr habitual Repentance y e\ vcrtua! Pardon, and that Which it givethon actual Repentance, an a&ual Pardon ; or what nameycu will give >>, S leave t§ confederation ; but cempieat it it net tnacafe tf htjntus zAftual Repentant : Though it may be iu J ome *x-

E e e 3 kfttwm t

G?B

known, unobferved or forgotten infirmities. For tkt full condition it neee[farj to a full 'Pardon. He is near the cafe of a matt that bath a Pardon granted him for Marder, but for W*ntof feme action to be performedihe hath not jet pofejjlon ofit y and cannot yet plead it. If Jon ask. we What fhould become of fuck a man,if kefo die before Repentance; I anfwer. i, / thinkjt is a cafe thitwill never fallout: For i. God is as it were engaged by Love and^Promife* and by giving his indwelling Spirit to Believers , to bring them to Repentance. 2. The.new Nature or Diffofition of fuch a man Will not fufer him to be long with' out Actual Repentance^t leaft infome mtafure ; efpeciauy When 'Death {ball loohjoim in the face. I doubt not but David did re* pent before Nathan fpoa\ to him; but God Would not take up With jo (bort and Jecret a Repentance for Jo great and odious a Crime. 2: But if fou can frove it profitable for fucha man to be fuddenly cut of kef ore Repentance* and that fuch a thing villbe % 1 [kmld incline to thinkjhat he Will be full) pardoned at the infant of Death, and fofaved; becaufe the Lord knoweth that he repented Habitually andverty&lly , and Would have done it actually , tf he had had time for confederation. 3. Or ifwe fhould conclude thzt god hath purpofel) left men of fuch a mid' die condition , without any certainty hew he Will deal With them t that fo no man may be encouraged to fin , of din Imfudency, / think, it no dangerous Doctrine, nor injurious to the Body of fa* ving Truth. And thus f have noW ( many years fince the Writing of the foregoing Papers ) told you in brief What fatitfieth mo concerning this difficult point, for the reconciling of the guilt of every particular [in , ejpeciallj the more haynous 9 with the DoBrine of perfevering, uninterrupted']unification. Somewhat ktfo 1 have f*id of it iu my Papers expreffing my Judgement about Perfevera nee % Ut ely publijhed.

Jan. 5. 1657.

THE FOURTH

DISPVTATION.

Qu. Whether the Fa ith which Paul oppofeth to Works in the Point o£ fufiification ^ be one only Phyfical A5t of the foul ? Nee*

o .

OR,

Whether all Humane <&rf£ls> except

one Phyfical <iAB of Faith, be the

Works which are excluded by

Taul in the Point of purification 1

*0g- -

By Richard 'Baxtero

__

m ■

LONDON, Printed by it. w. for Nevil Simmons , Book-feller ia Ke-dermwfter, and are to be fold by him there, and by Nath*-»i*l Eki*s attht Gun in TmIs Church-yard. i6$8.

(4-° i)

Que/Hon. Whether the Faith which

l^aul oppofeth to Wor^s in the

Point of fu/liftcation, be one only

Phyfical Ac5l of the SouU^Qg.

0R y Whether all Human© A&s, except one Phyfical AcSt of Faith, be the Works which are excluded by Taut in the Point of Ju-ftification < Keg.

PUT thefe two Queftions together for brevity and Elucidation of the Matter in doubt; for fo in effecl they are but One. avoiding all anneceflary Explication of terms concerning which we are agreed -it is but little that I have need to fay for your underfianding of the fenfe of the Qaeftion.

i.It is here fuppofed that Paul doth maintain Juftification by Faith,and oppofeth it to JuftinVation

Fff by

by the works of the Law: and fo oppofeth Salvation by Grace and by works. 2. It is fuppofed that non datur terttum, there is no middle way of Justification befidcs thefc two, by faith , or by Work} : and therefore whatfoever Acts we are here juftified by, it mult needs follow, that thofe Acts are none of the [ Works"} that Paul here fpeaketh of as excluded : and whatsoever Acts are excluded arc none of the Faith, by which Paul telleth us here that we are juftified.This we are agreed on, and foit is often prefTcd by my Opponents that there is no third way; which I grant them. But note t^iat I do not therefore grant them that there is no tertium % or other act either im-plyed in Faith , or fubfervient to it in that way of J uftification that is by Fuith : It was never Pauls meaning to exclude all other Gracious Acts relating to Chrift, no not from this bufi* nefs of Justification, as attendants on Ftith,or modifications of it, implycd in it, or fubfervient to it, And therefore it will not follow that any third thing by which we are thus juftified, is either Faith or Works ; but only that is not Works, becaufe they are excluded.

3. I put the Phyfical Act whofe Unity we fpeak of, in con-tradiftinction to one moral Fact } which may contain many Phyfical Acts : fuch as Marriage, which is one in a civil or moral fenfe,but many Phyfical Acts: and fuch as almoft all Contracts be; as taking a man to be my Prmce ; my Commander,my Tu-tor,my Phyfician,my CounceIlor,e£r.wh!ch every one of them contain many Phyfical acrs.

4. There is a fourfold Unit y here to be difcerned,that the term [_ One ] may be underftood. 1. A genera! Unity, and this is not it in queftion.We are agreed that ingenere alius ^vA in genereaUm fecundi, and in genere aHus immanent is. Faith !sbut0#f # 2. A Unity of the lowed Genus, and the fu peri or fpecies. 3. A Unity of the fpecies fpecialiffima. 4. A Numerical Vnitj. Our Queftion is of thethircf : but yet becaufe the fecond and fourth are alfo controverted, I fhall fpeak cf them before I come to the Queftion. And concerning the feurth I AfTerr, that £ The Faith which Paul cppofeth to works in the Point of f unification, is not only one numerical AH of the Soul

My

My Opponents in this { though they are unwilling to appear in theoppofition) rnuft needs be all thofc that fay Justification is fimul& fetnel, at once and but once, and that it is a good Argument againft any ads or works after Faith that [ They txifi not till we art juftified therefore they are no condiu-ens of our fnfiification : ] and all thofe that deny and fcorn thediftinition between i. Our Juftification at the firft for putting us into a juftified ftate ) 2. And our daily Judication by the continuation of that ftate. 3. And our frequently reiterated particular Juftification from the Guilt of particular fins. 4. And our final Juftification by the fentencc of the Judge. Efpecially by denying the fecond,they muft needs deny my AiTenion, as (hali be &ew?d anon,

Argum. I. If Paul peakjiot only cf fuftif cation as begun, but as continued, then the F.tith which he oppofeth to Work* is not only one numerical ABTf K For thete muft needs go forae other Numerical A & before it, or el'e the perfon could not be jufti-jfied by faith before) But the Antecedent is true\ as I prove from Rota. 4.18,19. and Gal.i . If Paul prove Juftification by faith, from the inftance of Abrahams believing after that he was juftified,then he fpeaketh not only of Juftification as begun ( or of our ft ft Being juftified; But the Antecedent is plain in the Text compared with Gen. 12. and 13 and 14 andi$>Abra-ham was a juftified man before he believed the Promife of Sara's having a Son.

zArgum. 2 If a true ^Believer have a juftifying Faith after his fir ft Juftification, even as long as he liveth % then the Fa.th Vehich Paul opp ifeth tdworkj it not only one numerical Aft ( be-caufe that firft Numerical Ad doth not continue with us. ) But the Antecedent is true , as appeareth 1. from the faec* mentioned Inftarce of Abraham- 2, From the netej.tyof a continued Aftive juftification: For the Psffwe clft would ceafe, and we fhould be anjuftified. If God drd not continue to forgive us, and ftill actively reput: us juft,and accept us as juft and impute llighteoufnefs to us, and his oofpel Grant did not continually juftifleus, ( as every Fundamentum continually caufeth the Relation J weftiould ceafe to be juftified ; And Gods active Juftification continueth not without the con-

Fff 2 tinuancc

C4-04-)

tinuance of mans Adual or Habitual Faith : Otherwife lie fhould juftifiean Infidel , and he fhould juftifie afterwards ia another way,and on other terms then he did at firft.3.Frofn the continued Efficacy of Chrifts Merits, Inerceffion and Covenant, which daily juftirle us. So that he that faith, that he was never juftified but once atone moment,snd by one nuirje-rrierical Ad of Faith, muft fay that Chrift was his Juftifier actually but f >.r a moment,and that he will not be beholden to him to jufti fie him any more.

Ad yet that no man may have a pretence of quarrelling about meer word?, that hath a mind to it,tet it ftill be remem-bred, that as the word f Juftification "} is ufed ro fignifie the firft making a man juft that was unjuft (relatively or qualitatively ,) So I confefs that God, that Chrift, that the Covenant do juftifie us U liverfally but once (though particularly from particular fins often ) And thus it is but one Ad of Faith by which we are juftified Relatively, and not the Habit at all. But as Juftification is taken for the fame Ad continued ( though the mutation on us be not abeodem ttrmmo)fowe are juftified every moment, and have a juftifying faith continually, and sre juftified by the Habit, at lead as much as by the Act, and in fome refped more. The Sun doth as truly Illuminate our part of the world all day after,as atSunrifing, and by the fame Action or Emanation in kind : But as Illuminating is taken for turning night into day , or illuminating the dark world from its darknefs,fo it doth only illuminate it from break of day to Sun rifing. Your Leafe of your houfe or Land dor.h firft make you a Tenant of no-Tenant at the firft fealing and delivering : but it may by the fame fort of adion continue your Right till it expire , and fo continue you a Tenant; And thus we are continually juftified by God, by Chrift, by the Covenant and by Faith.

Now as to the fecond kind or matter-of Unity ( of an Inferior Genus and Superior fpecief ; ) this is two* fold. j. As the Acts of mans foul are fpeeified and denominated from the Farutf'es or Powers : or ( if any deny that realdiftinctionof faculties) from the Objects of Intellection, Volition, ^.generally confidered. 2. As the acts of the foul are fpeeified

by

(4°?)

by their fpeciaJObjeQs ( though not fpeciei fticialijfima. ) As to the former, the queflion is one of thefe v.vo ( which you wiil in terms, for they are one in fenfe ) whether the aft of Faith *hich Paul oppofetb to ^orksinjttftification^be only an aU of tbr lntilieci.or omj an att of the Will ? Or, Whether it have on!) Entity and Verity , or only Goodnefsfor its ObjeEl ? And in the fecond cafe the Qtuftion is this, Whether Gcd *W, or Chrifia<o*e, or tbe'Prooufi alone, or Par fan 0 r F.irh r onft •// alone, or Heaven alone &c. bepbeQtjefi of t VSL\l\oypofith to rvorkj m *}"'* fic:t:

Bat the thing intended in our Quett-.on is fima ) Ifhethtr it be but one fpai o

mrkj in junification. Here are tjh:ec nuvc Pi •) ac

I fhall bardie m orJer, though the Lift only be!pcce:firy co me.

* Proposition 2. The Faith rvbichVzah oppofeth to worl^tin Juftification t u not only an Act of the Jntellect t nor ok I) of the Will.

\ (hill fay hut little of this, becaufe I have among Prote-ftants* but fewAaWfaries. The Papifts indeed fea-ut in the Intellccl only : Add fpdotk£\«w*n> (calling k a Perfwafion ) and fome fiw Proteilants : fome few orhers ( as Amefius fometimes) place it only in the Wify and take Aflent to he but a prefuppofed Acl : and they call it Affiance, or (fas Amefi**)a\fo EltBUn, Acceptsnce^ or C4;^»r,o^mbracir.g > or Recumbency, or fuch like. Pemble taking Truth and Good-nefs to be all oae,and the Underftaniing and Will for all one, takes atfo Aflenr and Affiince for all one^ but I fliall £0 on the ftippoficion that &* Angular -opinion iscemmoniy difallowed ; however the Scatifis, and many other, deny the realDiftin-dion of Faculties. The common Vote of Proreftant D:-vinesis,that Faith is in both Faculties, thelnteUed and Will, and hath for its object the Entity of Chrifts pcrfon, an J the Verity of the Gofpcl,and the goodnefs of Chrift and his bene-fi:s olered, which Fakh accepteth. Btverunts Word* ire plain and true, Ibtgrm. Qu.38.pag.174. Jnacttt fJei jtsfofi-cantis totaanima fe convertit ad caufam jafnificixtun : And qu. 37. p2g. 166. Fidit UU futm Scriptura ftnefcit. ka-

(4°<0

bet in ft complication aUum Voluntatis & Intefle&u*-—' N e £ nobis abfurdumfed valde confentzneum videtur attnm ilium quo tota anima pftnfcatvr & juftifiratur adtetam animam pertine-re\ it a ut in nudo intelkttu habeat iuitium ; in voluntate com-pltmcnttm.

Argument I. The Objeft of this Faith is both Truth and goodnefs : Therefore it is the ad both of the Intellect and the Will. That Tru:h is the Object of it is evident, i. In that the Metaphy Ileal Verity of Chrifts perfon is the Object of it, or elfe Chrift were not the Ob je& of it. 2. I n that the moral Verity of the Gofpel, 1 -. as revealing Chrift, 2. as pro-railing pardon, is the object of it,as is confeft,and the Scripture doth fo plentifully declare, that it were fuperfluous to cite the words.

That goodnefs is the object of it,appearcth,i.In that Chrift as Redeemer ,Mediator,Saviour,is the object of it, and that is, Chriit as neceffary and good to us. It is Chrift for our for-givenefs Juftification and Salvation : and fo under the formal notion of good. 2. In that it is a Proraife as a Promife(Tefta ( -ment,Grant,or Deed of Gift) that is the Object by h t And it is Effential to thefe to be good to us as well as True : and the Truth is but for the good. 3. In that it is Pardon,Juftification and Life eternal finally, thai are the object of it J which as fuch, and as offered to us, are good. If I thought thefe things needed proof, I would give you more.

Argument 2. The Scripture revealeth to us that this F&th is the Ati both of the IntelleU and the fVill, therefore it isfo. That it is the actoftheIntellect,isfoplaininScripturc,thatI (houid accufe my felf of wearying you with necdiefs work, if I ftiould go about to prove it. ThePapiftsare right enough in thus much: and Dr. Dovrnawe de fttjfijic. and againft i emblem Append* to Covenant of grace, hath proved it ar large- That it is an act of the Williour Divines have fully proved againft the Papifts in many a full Difcourfe; i. From the fenfe of mtiv**

«V 3sb', x) eit 'Iwstkk Xp/r^, & *i§?J h> t« a/^r/, which figni-

fie Affiance, and fuch an Affiance as is the act of the Will as well as of the Intellect. 2. Becaufe the Scripture ofcen putteth

{willing

\jViUing\ as equipollent to Bettering-, in Revel.22.17. whofot* v*rWill> lit him ta\gt hi water of Life freely"} where Willing and 7*^ ; «g are both acts of che Will," and the faich in quefti-on^ fo in other places. 3.The Scripture calleth it by the name of RiaivingChn&Jih.i .12. CA.2.6. which is tbe Acceptance or confent of the Will. 4- 1 he Scripture often makes Faith to be the Internal covenanting and clofure of the heart with Chrift, which is the ace of the Will; and therefore it per-fwadeth wi;b the Will to this end ; and accufeth menasui-willing,and calleth them Refufers,NegIectcrs,Slighters,R ters,D«:fpifersof Chrift, thac^areUnbelievers( privatively. ) I trouble you not to cite the Texts as being needlefs. and done by many. Befides that ( as in the former Argument ) the Pro-mife,Chrift,PardonJJfe and orber good things, as good, are frequently made the Object of Faith.

Argument 3. The Veracity of God is tbe formal Object of Faith. Hut the Veracit) of Gid U hU Goodnefs ( or participate that leaf} as much of his Goodnefs as of his IVifdom and his PoVver: ) therefore the Goodnefs of God is the formal Object of Faith : and consequently it is an act of the Will. God cannot he, becanfe he is perfectly good\mfe and ? 0^0 srfull.

Objetl. But (fay fome Papifts ) AH theft acts that you mention here, are Love and not Faith'. Faith doth but affent^and Love con' fenteth or accepteth.

Anfx*. 1. Do you not your felves call it fides formata charitate ? And why then may not we call k faith ? 2. The Scripture calleth it Faith in the phrafes formentioned, ar& ** r$ cu(mlti Tnri'Jav Hfygi^v, &c. and therefore it is Faitb. 3. Though fometimes in other cafes the Apoftle diftingutfh Faith, Hope and Love; yet when be fpeaksth of Faith as justifying, and as the form of a Chriftian, he comprehendeth Love to Ghrift as Saviour in it, and a confidence in him , fuch as in common Language we call Hope. As Love iignifieth the Paflionof the foul, it may be a confequent; but as it is but thevelleChriftttm,& beneficiaoblata , fo it is faith it felf, as MaccoviHi and Cbamier have truly told the Tapitts. It was a faith in Chrift (though beginning to finkjthats exprefled Luk-

24.21.

(4-oS)

24.11. [ H'/a«* $ nhmStpiv on avive Istv o pthXai kVTtf&iu tov !*&»*• ] [ fit* "to* trttftedthat H had been hi (hit Jhould have redeemed Ifratl. ] Our 1 ranflators have put We T>ufted for We Hoped, becaufe they thought the (ignification rhe fame, or elfe they would not furc have done it* M .nd when the Apoftlefaith,thatE v 57^t$7f h^ouUmt i/*5«t5i*, Heb. 11.1. If we may denominate the a& from the Object, we may fee that he there ma&^aith and Hope to be co-eflential. And when Chrift is called Xf*f& h &*»* fowv y Chrift our Hopejt feems hope there is but an ad of Faith. And fo 2O-.u0. iTim-4* 10. To Hope in God or (*hrift, or pat our Hope ia him y feem-eth to me all one as to put our Tru/t in him for future Mercy, which is Faith. To which is oppofed 1 Tim 6 a 7. pmingour Hope in riches, fo 1 Cor. 15.19. to have Hope in Chrift tfo the Septuagint, Pfal. 42. 26. ihrno-ov \m -n\ ®ifo : £ Hope in God^\ is a Complication of Faith and Hope in one word, and tran-flatcdbyus, Trunin God.

4. Though the Willing, Gonfcnt or Acceptance of an offered Benefit, have truly fomewhat of Love ink, yet Love is not the proper name of that Act.E very Volition is not ufually called Love.

Prop. 3. his not not only God the Father , nor only Chrift the Redeemer; nor only theTromife , nor only pardon, or Right eouf-nefs, or Heaven , that is the objet? of that faith Which Paul oppo-feth to works in fuftification.

ArgumentiM many or ail thefe art fo linked together, rhat to believe one of them as revealed in Scripture, is to believe more or all, then it is not any one of them alone that is the objed of that Faith which Paul oppofeth to works. But the Antecedent is true,as is evident, e. g: To believe in Chrift js to believe the promife of the Gofpel concerning Chrift. For there is no £f/*tf/without a Word ofrevelation to believe.So that here Chrift and the Promife are neceflarily conjunct,and Chriit and the Gofpel Hiftory. And to believe the Gofyel with a Divine Faith, is to 'Believe Cjods veracity , and to believe the Gofpel becaufe of Gods Veracity : For this is the ObjsBum formale without which there isno faith. So that Believing in God is

e Hernial

C4°P)

eflencial to all Divine faith. Alfo materially . to Ttlievt in Chri;}, is to Believe to him as our Saviour , to fave tss from the Quilt of fin i even as tobtbeve in a Fhyfitian is to Truft on him ro cure us of our Difeafes. So forgivenefs of'fin ; being an end etfenrial to Chnfts Office, it is effencul to our Faith in C So alfo to belif vein ChriftasaSaviour, is to beievi n h one that U \ng to reconcile #/,aud bring us tc the/4-

vour of God : And io Qoi and bis favour and Recjnciii.ition with him are ends eflential to the otSce of a Saviour fas health isto the Payfuians and therefore they areeflentiaf to onr Belief in a Saviour . The fame may be faid of eternal Life : fo that you may feethacthefe have eiTential refpe&s to one another, and Chriftcarrno: be believed in alone wirhouc the reft asco-eflVatials refpe&iveiy in the ebjed of our faith. Nor can the Promife be believed without believing in the Promifer and Profiled.

Argument 2. TiseScripture mofl exprefifmakftk many fueh Objefr faith which Paul oppo.etb to worlds in fwj}ific*iI

therefore :ve.

Rom.;.22,24,25*26. There are exprefl»' mentioned all thefe Objects of justifying faith. 1. The Right eoufnefs of God. 2, The Perfn ofjefus Chrt,r f $ . Redemption by Chnfi , and hii pr y blood. 4. Rem ffiu of fins paft. 5. God as a

fuftspir.of Belteven • fee the Tex:.

Rom.4 3,5.6,7.8,17 20,21,24,25. There are all thefe objects of Juftifying faith exprefTed, even when the work of Ju-ftification is defcribed. 1. Godot Rcve«Lr and true : 2. God as fufi . Righteoufntfs \ imputation of tt 3 ftrgivtneft of

fm\nottmi 4. G das Omni /cent. 5. God as Om*\po-

tin:. 6 \efm t 7. The death of Chnft for our offences.

8. TheRefurreclionofChrijlforoHr ttion. ■ 9. Godas

theratfo ofChrifi from the Dead. Read the words, and you fhali find them all exprefly mentioned. I think it fuperfluous ro ci:e more Tests.

Prop.4. utk .x'r.iih Paul opTofetbtt worlejinthe hi finefs

of fuji hcjticn t !s*ot any one jingle Pkj"ical a3 in Speciefpc-cialhTima: Nor Vras it ever the meaning of Paul to exclude aS a3t exeept fome fuch one, from ftsjiificatim , under tht name of *<rk/. Ggg for

(4io)

For the proof of tins, it is done already, if any one of the three former Propofitions be proved. To which I add Argument I. from aninftance offome other particulars. If any or all the following particular Acts be fuch as are not to be reckoned with works, then it is no one act alone that Paul oppofetb to works* But all or fomeof the following acts are fuch as are not to be reckoned with works excluded. Ergoj&c.

Eg. i. An Aflent to the truth of the Gofpcl in general as the Word of God. i* A belief on Gods Veracity in this expreft.

5. An Aflent to the Truth of the Word that tellcth us that Chrift is God.4. An Aflent to the truth of the Article of Cbrifts Manhood. 5. An Aflent to the Truth of the Article of his conception by the Holy Ghoft, and being born of a Virgin <

6. And to the Article of his being born without original fin in himfelf. 7. And to the Article of his finlefs holy life. 8.Andto the Article of his aftual death. 9. And that this death was for ourfini. 10. And that God hath accepted it as a fufficient Ranfora/acrifice or Attonement. 11. And that he actually rofe again from the deadend overcame death. 12. And that he is the Lord and King of the Church. 1 •*. And that he is the Prophet and Teacher of the Church. 14. And that he is a-fcended into Heaven and Glorified,God and man. 15. And that be is now our Interceflbr & Mediator with the Father. 16. And that he bath purchafed by his Ranfom and given or offered in the Gofpcl,the free pardon of fin. 17. And that he hath alfo purchafed & offered us eternal life in Glory with God. 18. And that its the members of Chrift, and of the Holy Catholick Cburch,that (hall partake of pardon and life by Chrift. 19 And that he will give us the Refurre&ion of life at 1 aft. 20. And that he will judge the world. I have omitted our fpecial Belief in God the Father as Creator,and in the Holy Ghoft, and have given you in thefc twenty A&s,no more then what is contained in this one word, Q/ believe in Chrift as Chrift'] I think there is if any, but few that are not elTemial to Faith in Jefus Chrift as the Saviour. And all thefc ads of aflent are pares of the faith that is the means of our Juftification;. and none of tfyero part of the excluded works. And befides allthefe thereireas many a&$ of the -Will: as of the Intellect; concurring; in or to this vc-

(♦»)

Ty affent, fo that there's twenty more. For its plain, that feeing the objeds of all thefe arc Good as well as True, they being all Truths concerning our benefit and Sahration, the Willie felf in the Intellects aflfenting, doth command it to affent, and alfo dotb place a certain Affiance in the Revealcr,which we call in Englith crediting or Giving crtdit to one, vnerefi our felves upon his Truth. As I fa id before .Veracity is Gods Goodneft^nd Veracity is the formal Objed in every one of the other Acts about the material Object; and therefore the Will muftact upon Veracity ^vA fo have a part in affent it felf: not as affent, but as a Voluntary ajftnt, and as an affent to Premifes or Reve -lotions of good to us. There is goodnefs in the word of Revelation fubordinate, or in order to the good Revealed. And fo there is an act of the tvill upon the good in the Word, complicated with the Intellects AlTenr,be fides the following fuller act ofthe Will,uponChriftandche benefits themft Ives. And therefore there is a twofold Affiance, i. An Affiance in Gods V$rx-> city ae the Revealer. 2. An Affiance in Cbrifl the OMcdUtor t as the beftomr , accoospli[ber andattual Saviour or Deliverer according to his Office aud Covenant. The firft is an act of the W'H concurring with AfTent. And of this Pembles opinion is ncer Truth,though not fully ic- For here A ffi^nce is as.clofc-ly joyned wich Alfcnt as Heat in the Sun with Light, thrush they are not the fame. But then the fecond fon of Affiance followeth Affent, and ha h another ace of the W1I inurce-ding,which;s Confentor accep anceof the Ptnttit crTe'cd* which alfo is clofely conjunct with the h"; ft act of the Will. And then followeth lad of all affiance in Chnft for the performance ofthe undertaken acts. And thefe latter are alfo many particular Phyfical acts, as the objects <n [fecit (fecial Jfima are many. And yet all thefe make but one object in a moral fenfe,md fo but one acr,and are done in a few moments of time of which after. Would it not be too tedious, I fliould ftay to cite feve-ral Texts, to prove that never a one of all thefe acts is excluded as works by Pan!. But of divers of them its before proved from Romr. and 4 andofmorcinH/£.u, and in (7*>.3.1,5, 7*8,9, 13,14,1*, 16,18 20,21,23. Thereare at leaft thefe Objects of Juftifyingfaith exprefTcd. i.Chrijfs Perfo* ,2.tha

Gggz

tie ttw the feedpftmifed. 3. That he WastrucifieJ. 4.That this was for mr jhs. 5. That be was made a eurfe fir us in thu his death. 6 . That hereby he Redeemed us from the curfe. 7. That he is the Afedtator, %.<~jod as the Party With Whom In is Media* ion 9. God m Relieved in his Promife. 10. God as Juftifier, 11. The gosjelfreached^nd the Promife made. 12, 'Bleffidnefs by Chrift, 13. The confirmed Covenant. 14.7 hi Inheritance* 15 Rigkteo&fnefs. 16. Adoption. 17. Thn Beliefs the means* and believers the fubje6ts ofthefe benefits. All thefe objects of Faith you will find in the Text.

1 Argument 2. Exnaturarei. If other aces of faith in Chrift' are no more works then that one (whatfoever it be) which you will fay Paul oppofeth to works, then P^w/doth not f#//&em works, or number them with works. Bu: the Antecedents true, therefore fo is the Confequent. Dqribtlefs the Scripture caih them as they are : and therefore if they arc net works, \t calls them not works. And for the Antecedent , 1. If by 'mr\t you mean the Keeping of the fit"ft Covenantbyfinlefs pbedi-e'ncejfo neither the one or the other are works. \% ffyou mean the keeping of Mofes Law, fo neither 0? them are "mrfy? 3. If you mean the performance of an act of Obedience to any Precept of God, fo thefeveral acts are works', but juftifie-nor a9 an? of obedience to the command fthatsbut their^tnatter ) but as the condition of the Promife. 4. Jfyou'me arnica? they are-A bis ofthefoulof man, fo every act 6F faith'is a-wbrft,

only

'uftifymg act; wftac reafon can you give-why our P^ievingfin Chrift incarnate, 'm Chrift obeying the Law > in Chrift'fifing r'gain, and Glorified and Interceding, inChrift actually now giving out the pardon of fin 2nd Adoption, &c. f retted vrtr\s any more then our Believing in Chrift as cWgft-rd ?• No reafon at all; nor any Scripture can-be broughtY Yea what reafon hafve you that our Believing in Chri'Tas the Phyfitian ofour fouls, to cure us of our (ins , and-clemfe our rs, and fancttfie our Natures, and in Chrift as the Teacher and Guide of our fouls to life eternal, flhould be called works

any

(4-10

any more then the other ? Or that believing m Chnfts blood for everlaftirvg Life and happinefs, fhould be any more called works then believing ip his blood for jpftificat on ? Yea that Believing in htmas the King, and Head , and Captain of his Church to fubduc tbeir enemies., and by his Government con-dud them to perfeverance and to Glory, (hould any more be called nW^then believing on hira as crucified in crder to for-gi\ench?

Argttme»t 3. All ads Eflential to fai:h in Thrift as Chrift, are oppofed to works by Paul in the point of Juftification,and are not the worksopposed fo Faith, But duny acts are cfFen -till rofaitbin<iiteftas.Ghrift ^ therefore they are many ads ireoppofeito works; and no or. fe acts is the

works escluuid.

The Mi'prA% proved thus: If faith in. Cbiift as fuch, be it thatPww/oppofeth to Works, then every eflential part of it is by T aul oppofed to works (for it is not faith-in Cbrift if it

wantan\*efTentul part ) Butthe;.^#«rc^«Mstru<r..^r^. •

b ive proved in the ficft.Difputarion : Though fomecime it is. feid to.h«. Zh f**&i* fa bfcul'] the we fcave remifiion of fto ; "*nd fometime that we are jaftified Iteve in him that raifed Ciorift from the dead , &C. Yet moft frequently it is faid to be by faith in Qmfi \ by hi n the

Lad Cbtift fffmtht Ltrd &C. Bdi%>e in the

. anirhe#-Jb\ih-fa f*ved« wr.s-tbe GorpeA j>re#«bed totfc jayk>r, But this is fuffkiently pr

marry acts areetftmialtofaith in Chrift as fuch, iftiifo proved : and particularly, that believing in him as our Teacher, Lord, ^nisp 'nterceding, and JustifyingfeytftfN* weal as believing in Mm as dying for our ju-fbfication. 'AsChoft'isnoj!CbiftV(«stohubfrlLcsnd'r.-ork) without thefe EiTentia!s,fofaitij»mKtheCrjriltiaii fettVtfith*; cutthefeads.

rnough Ifa?theferds of -fawn iff •orks whkh Parti excluded!,. J (peak of them as they are n : :.: thev are mtfvniklrftfd : tor if any ~uld

imagine that Believing in Chrift is a ^Legal -fcjieritarji and that can fuftifie him of or for it feif

he may To make another thing of faith, and fo bring it among excluded works (if it be poflible for him to believe contracts dories:) But then, this is as true of one act of Faith as another : If a man imagine that its thus Meritorious to Believe in Chrift as purchaling him Juftification, it is as much the excluded works, as to think it Meritorious to Believe in him as our Teacher, or King and Judge, that will lead us to final Abfolu-tion, and actually juftifie us by his Sentence at that Judgement.

Argument 4. Thofe afts of Faith that are ncceiTary to Juftification, are none of the works that Paul excludeth from Justification (unlcfs changed by mifunderftanding, as aforefaid.^ But other acts of faith as well as one are neceftary to Justification : Srgo —

The CMUor ( which only is worthy the labour of a proof) I* is proved before, and in the firft Difputatton. 2. And it is confeffed by my Opponents, that fay £ Faith in Chrift as Tea-cher y K*ng&c. istht tides quae Juftificat, ant the condition of Jufttfication , as Repentance alfo is , thoughit h not the Inftrsi* mtntdcaujc, as they thinly fome other A3 is. Paul iot\\ not exclude that which he makes necefTary,

Argument 5. That which makes not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace, is none of the works that 7W fets faith a gainft. But ether acts of faith in Chrift do not make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace any more then the one act which you will choofe (E.g. Believing in Chrift as King and Teacher, any more then believing in him as a Ranfora : ) therefore they are not the works that 'Pauls fets faith againft. The LMapr is proved from the Description of the excluded works,#*jw.4.4. The Minor is evident.

Argument 6. All a&s of Faith in Chrift as our fuftifer, are fuch as are oppofed to works by Paul % and are none of the works which faith is oppofed to. But they are more then one or two that are A&s o^ teth in Chrift as Juftifier:£rg*.

The Major 1 think will be granted: the Minor is plain; For

1. Chrift

<4«0

. i.Ctmft juftifiethus meritorioufly as a Sacrifice.2. And at Of beying and fulfilling the Law. 3. As tbe complement of hi fatisfa&ion, and the entrance upon his following execution' bis Refurtection juftifleth us. 4. As the Heavenly Pricft a* Gods right hand, he juftifleth us by his Incercefiion. 5. A s King aodHead, he juftifiethus by his Covenant or Law o^ Grace. 6. As King and Judge he juftifieth us byfentcncc 7, As Prophet he tcacbeth us the Doctrine of Justification* and how to attain to Juftification by fentencc. So that ac lead,none of tbefe are the excluded works.

~ Argum. 7. If the whole Eflence of Chriftian faith be op-pofed to works, and fo be none of the oppofed works in the matter of Salvation, then its fo alfo in the matter of Jaftifica-tion. But the Antecedent is true ; therefore fo is the Confe-quent.

The Minor is confefled by my Opponents. The conference of the Major I prove. 1. Becaufe Salvation is as free as Juftification, and no more of works which Z'**/excluded. 2. Salvation comprehendcth Juftification .• and Glorification hath the fame conditions as final Juftification at Judgement , it being part of Juftification to adjudge that Glory. 3. The exprefs Scripture excludes works as much from Salvation as from Juftification : Epb. 2.8,9. For by Qrace ye art faved throngh faith ; and that not of jour felves, it is the gift of God: not of works, left any man Jhould haft. Tit. 3.5,6,7. [ T^ot by works of Righteoufnefs which Vrebavt done, bnt according to Ins CMercy he faved hs % by the Vtajbing of Regeneration* and the renting of the Holy Ghoft, which he fitd en tu abundantI } j , through fefiu Chrijl our Saviour % that being jssftified by his Grace, we fhould be made Heirs according u the hope of eternal Life. ] Many fuch places are obvious to any diligent Reader. For the Minor alfo read 1 Cor. i5.i,*>3,4,

A gum. 8. If no man can name any one A& of faith that "♦oppofed to z\\the reftz%works r . or oppofed to wor&s when

the

the refrare not, then no Inch thingitto be afferted. Bat m. taan can name the Ad that is thus oppofed alone to works, i.It is not yet done that I know of. We cannot get them to tell us what Ad: it is, »"• And if they do, others will make as good a claim to the Prerogative.

Argum. 9- They that oppofeus,and a$rm the Queftion, do feign God to have a ftrange partiality to one Ad of faith above all the reft, without any reafon or aptitude in that ad to be To exalted. But this is not to be feigned ( and proved it cannot be J that God fhould annex our Juftificadon to the Belief in Chrift as a facrifice only-and to oppofe this.ro belief in him as Rifing Interceding, Teaching, Promising or ludging, is a fidion contrary to Scripture.Examme any Text you pleafe, and fee whether it will run well with fuch an Expofition, Rom. 4.4,5. [NoTvtohimthatVVQrksthJ.e. Believeth in Chrifl as Teacher ^judge,Intercejjor ,&c. is the reward not reckoned of grace but of Debt. 'But to him that workjstb not i that is, belie* veth not on Chrift as King and Teacher^ &c. but Believtth on him that juftifieth the ungodly (an ad of his Kingly office) &c\ ~—Doth this run well ? I will not trouble you wi:h fo unfa-voury a Paraphrafe upon the like Scriptures : you may try at pleafure on Rom.-$> & 4. and Gal 3. Eph.z. Phils, or any fuch Text.

Argument 10. If the Dodrine of the Opponents'^ holding the Affirmative) were true,then no man can tell Whether he be a condemned Legalift,or not: yea more, if it be not faith in Chrift as fuch {containing the whole Effencej by which we are juftifled,as oppofed to works, or which is none of the excluded works; then no man can tell but he is a condemned Le-gafiffc But ihtConfequentishlfc', therefore fo is the sArtu-cedent.

The Reafon of the Confequence is, becaufe no man is able to tell you which is the fole justifying Act, or which are the only acts, if it be not faith Effentially that is it; for among all theicts before mentioned , if a man' miftake and think one

other ( E. g. faith in Chrifts Re&rreclioi), in Chnft as King* Judge, Teacher, &c.) is irby w'hkh he rauft be juitifad, then he falls upon J unification by Works, and To falls fhorc of Grace .• for if it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace : elfc Works were no Works. And fo no man can tell but he deftroycth Grace,and expecteth Juftification by works: much Iefs can weak Chriftians teil. I never yet fawor heard from any Divine a juft Nomination ( with proof) of the one ju-ftifying act, or a juft Enumeration of the many acts, if all rouft not be taken in that are Effential. Some fay Affiance is the only act: butasthatsconfuted by themoft that take in Affentalfo > fo there are many and many acts of Affiance in Chrrft that are neceffary.and they fhould tell us which of thefe it is.

Object. Anddo you thinks that fte can any better tell when we have all that are EJfential . ? Or doth every weak C^tf*™ &*' lieve all the twenty Articles that you mentioned atfirfi *

A fifty, i, We can better know what is Revealed then whats unreveaied. The Scripture tells us what faith in Chrift is • but not what one or two acls do Juftifie, excluding all other as Works. Divines have often defined Faith • but I know not that any hath defined my fuch one.act, as thus exalted above the reft of the Effence of Faith. If we covld not tell what is efemial to Faith, we could not tell what faith is. 2.The twenty Objects of Affent before mentioned are not all Articles or materia!Objects; the fecondisthc formal Object. And of the ref, unlefs the fifth | Believing that Chrifi tyat concei-vedby the Ho/y Ghfi, and ben: of a Virgin ] may be excepted (wbtch'Idarenoratrrm ) I know not of one thats not eflen-tial toGhriftranity. And I think if we had Hereticks among us that denyed Chrift to be conceived by the Holy Ghoft, we fhould fcarce take them for Chriitians. But that man that ftnildeny or rrorbeheve that Guift is God, that be is Man, that he was no finner, that he dyed, and that for our fins,and that he was a Sacrifice or Ranfom for us, and that he Rofe

Hhh again,

(4-!B)

again, is Glorified, and will judge us: that he hath offered us a pardon of fin • that there will be a Refurrection of the body, and Hfe Everlafting by this our Redeemer i I cannot fee how he can be a Chriftian. And for the number of Articles, 1 left out much of the ancient Creed ic felf, (the Belief in God the Father, Creator, &c ; in the Holy Ghoft * the Article of theCatholickChurch , the Communion of Saints^ of Chrifts burial, Defcent into Hell, and more. ) And yet do you think this too big to be effential to Chriftian ■, Faich ? I f To, txll not any Heretick that denyeth any one of thefe, that hedenyeth an Effential Article of our faith.

Butfqrthe ignorant weak Chriftian, I fay , i. He know-eth all thefe Articles that I have named ; but 2. perhaps not with foripe a manner of apprehenfien asis formed into men* tal words) or which he can exprefs in words to others : I find my felf in ray ftudies, that I have fomtimes an apprehenfion of a Truth before I have ripened that conception for an ex* preflion. }, And perhaps they arenot Methodical atid Di-ftmct in their conceptions, and cannot fay tbat there are juft To many Articles. Every fick man can underftand what it is to defire and accept of fuch a man to be hiv Phyfitian •, and herein he firft verily defireth health, and fecondly, defireth Phyfick as a^cans to Health, and thirdly, defireth the Phy> fi'tian in order ^0 the ufe of that means, and fourthly , therein doth take him to be a Phyfitian, and fifthly, to have comr petent skill, and fixchly, to be Inforae meafure faithful, to be trufted,and feventhly, doth place Tome confidence in him,^» aU this and more is truly in his mind ; and yet perhaps they are not ripened and meafured into fuch diftinct conceptions/ as that he can distinctly tell you all this in tolerable Language, or doth obferve then as diftinct Conceptions in bimfclf (ana whether uno intuitu the eye and the Intellect may not fee ma^ ny Objects, chough abobjettis , the acts muft be called mar' nyand divers, is a Controverfie among Philofophers • and as I remember Pet.Httrtai. de MtniozM afifirmeth it.) But if you your feiveswiil form all thefe into diftinct conceptions, and ask your Catechift his judgement of them, its like

\ he

CMP)

'be can mak you perccnre at leaf* by a Tta or Nay ] that he underftands them all. The new formed body of che Infant in the Womb hath all the Integral parts of a man • and yet fo fmall that you cannot foeafilydifcern them as you may do the fame parts when he is grown up to manhood. So the knowledge of every particular Effential Article of faith is truly in the weakeft Chriftianin the very moment of his conversion • but perhaps it maybe but by a more crude imperfect Conception, that obferveth not every Article distinctly, nor any of them very dearly, but his knowledge is both too dim and too confufed. And yet I muftfay that it is not only fuch as fome Papifts call a Virtual or Implicite Faith or knowledge, As to believe only the Gcoeral Revelation and the formal Object; as that the Scripture is Gods Word, and God is true: or that whatever the Church propounds as an Article of faith is true; while they know not what the Church or Scripture doth propound: for tfiis is not actual Chriftian faith, but fuch a part as a man may have that is no Chriftian. And yet fome Papifts would perfwade us that where this much if, there is faving faith, though the perfon believe not ( yea, or deny by the probable Doctrine of feducing Doctors) fome of the forefaid Effential Articles.

Argum. 11. If the terms [ Faith in Chrififtceivi»g Ckri/}, Refting on C^rift, &c. ] are to be underftood as CivUJeli-tical and Ethical ttrms in a moral fenfe, then mud we fuppofe that they (ignifie many Phyfical a cb, and not any one only.

But thefe terms arc to be thus morally underftood. Ergo. ■

The Antecedent is proved thus. Terms are to be underftood according to the nature of the Subjed and Doclrine : But the Subject and Doctrine of the Gofpel which ufeth thefe terms, is Moral Political t therefore the terms are agreeably to be interpreted. The fame term in Phyfick, Law, Mathematickf, Soldiery , Navigation, Husbandry,e£*r. hath various figaifica*. tions : but ftill it muft be interpreted according to the nature and ufe of the doctrine, Art or Science that maketh ufe of k. The confequence or the Major is proved, becaufe it is the ufe of Ethicks and Politicks thus to interpret fuch phrafes as Hhh i containing

eonteinwig divers Phyikal Acts. Marriage is one Civil act •' but it is many r4iy(ical Ads: itcontainctbi divetsadsof the underftandmg concerning the Eflentiafs of the Relation: and divers ads of the Will in consenting thereunto- and the out? ward words or ftgns of Confent, for making the Contract. So taking a rmn to be my Kmgmy General, my Tutor,Teacber, Puftor, Phy fician, Mafter, dHri'aU tignifte the acts of the Undemanding, Will and expreffing Powers, which the feverai parts of the Objects do require.

Argument i*. If there be many Ads itfides Faith »* Cbrift, attendant on it, and [ukftrvient to it, which ar$ none of the works which /Wexcludetto, and oppofeth faith to- then the Effential Aclsof faith itfelf arenoneof thofe works. But the Antecedent is true,as I prove in feme inftan* ces:

For a man to repent of fin, to confefiit, to believe ind confefs that we are unworthy of any Mercy, and unable to juftifie our felves, or make fatisfadion for our fias.and that we are in abfolute neceflity of Chrift, having no Rjghte-oufnefs, Sandification or Sufficiency of ouroWn, to take God- for oar Father reconciled in Chrift, and to Love him accordingly : to forgive our Brethren from the fenfe of CbEffe forgiving us- to (hew our Faith by fruitful worfa and words. WhenTW faith, Rom.44,$. £ To him that vtorkjith the Reward is not of Grace ] the meaning is not [ To him that rtpenteth,to him that denieth himfelfandhis own Righ* teoufhtfs to hit Junification , to him that confejfeth hid fin, that lovethGod at a rtconci/ed Father in Chrift, &q, 1 and when he faith, [To him that ^orktsh not, but bdieveth^ the meaning hnot^tohimtbat lovtthmt Qod, to him that repentethnot , that forgiveth not others £tc.but believeth.

Objt&.'Bvt jet it majbe [ to him that thin\tth not to bejufti-fiedby or for theft , but by Faith.'} Anfwer 1. Concomtanfls and Subordinates may not be fet in oppofition,faith fuppofeth the Concomitancy anb Subferviency of thefe in and to Jufti*

Hcation

fication. 2. Believing in Chrifts Ranfom,may as well be excluded coo, if men thin* to be juftified for fo doing meritori-eofly. 3. He that chinkcth to be juftified by any work in that way which is oppofed to Juftification by Grace and Faith, muft chink to be juftified by the Merit of them, or without a Saviour, which all tb$fe Graces forementioned contradict. 4. God fakh exprefty, that we rouft [ Rtptnt and be converted^ tb«tWpis ma) be blottuL out'• and repent that \~e ma) be forgiven : and ifwe confefs our fins, be is faithfull and juft to forgive H4 our fin*: andsf vt forgive } WeJb4tt be forgiven; and that by worJy W* a^ejuftified and not by faith onlj : and that hj our words Vnfiall bejuftifiid 1 So that PanJ.x works which he oppofeth fakh to,are nektarjUa^'s workj&W any ofthefe particulars mentioned : for thefe arc made ncceflary conditions or means of pardon, and of fome fort of Juftification , fuch as Pauls works could not contribute to,whkb were falfly imagined by the doers to make the Rewacd to be not of Grace but Debt.

Objc&. There is but one faith, Eph>4*i. Anfwer. But that One faith hath many Pbyfical Acts or Articles. There is but one true Religion, but it hath many parts. There is but one Gofpel, but that one contanieth many particular Truths.

Cm)

r^Onfeft. i. To be juftified bj Paitb, is to be juftified ^ by Faith in Chrifi as Chrift 9 and not by any one part of that Faith, excluding any of its Effcntial parts.

2. To be juftified by Faith in Chrift as Chrifi , and fo as Riling, Teaching, Pardoning, Ruling, Judging, as well as fatisfying, i.e .as the Saviour that hath undertaken all this, is not in "Pauls fenfc to be juftified by works: therefore it is the true Juftification by Faith.

3. It if therefore unfound to make any one Act or part of Faith the fides qua Juftificans, and the other Eflen-tial parts 00 be the fides qua juftificat , when no more can be faid of any but that it is fidts ex qua jujiificamur, and that may be laid of all.

4. Though Faith be an Acceptance of Chrift and Life as offered in the Gofpel , fo that its very Nature or Effence is morally Receptive, which may tolerably be called its Metaphorical Pafilve Inftrumentality • yet are we not juftified by it qua talis, that isjuafide j,and fo not quattnus Inftrumentum tale Met#phoricum> vei Acceptatto, vel Receptio moralis , but qua conditio Tefiamenti vtlptdtrit fraftita.

5. There-

j. Therefore it is not only the Acceptance of Right€-oufhefs by which we are juftified, much lefs the Affiance in Chrift as dying only; but the Belief in Chrift as the Pur-chafer of Salvation,and as the Sanctifier,Guide and Teach-er of our fouls in order thereunto, hath as ttue an Intereft in our justification as the believing in him for Pardon. And fo far as any other holy act doth modifie and fubferve faith, and is part of the Condition of Juftification with it, fo far by it alfo we are juftified.

FINIS