who am thus publickly by visible Calumny traduced truly to tell you where you mistake and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more than me and if also I offer peaceably to wash my own face this is hard fronted Calumny dragging a Doctor in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot which might occasion his degrading and turning out c. This over-tenderness of your honour as to other mens words and too little care of the means of it as to your own hath a cause that it concerneth you to find out Had you the tenth part as many Books written against you as are against me by Quakers Seekers Infidels Antinomians Millenaries Anabaptists Separatists Semi-separatists Papists Pseudo-Tilenus Diocesans Conformists and many Enemies of Peace to whom it was not I but your self that joyned you it would have hardened you into some more patience If you will needs be militant you must expect replies And he that will injuriously speak to the World what he should not speak must look to hear what he would not hear But you add Sir the Name and Quality of a DOCTOR and Master of a Literate Society might have been treated more civilly by you Answ 1. I am ready to ask you forgiveness for any word that any impartial man yea or your Reverend Brethren of that Academy themselves whom I will allow to be somewhat partial for you shall notifie to me to be uncivil or any way injurious 2. But to be free with you neither Doctorship Mastership nor â—carlet will Priviledg you to fight against Truth Right and Peace and to vent gross mistakes and by gross untruths in matter of fact such as is your Omnem ludibrio habet imputationem to abuse your poor Brethren and keep the longconsuming flà mes still burning by false representing those as Popish and I know not what who speak not as unaptly as your self and all this without contradiction Were you a Bp. my Body and Estate might be in your power but Truth Justice and the Love of Christians and the Churches peace should not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretense of reverence to your Name and Quality I am heartily desirous that for ORDER-sake the Name and Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently used But if they will think that Errour Injustice and Confusion must take sanctuary under bare Ecclesiastical or Academical Names and robes they will find themselves mistaken Truth and Honesty will conquer when they pass through Smithfield flames Prisons confine them not Death kills them not No siege will force an honest Conscience by famine to give up He that cannot endure the sight of his own excrements must not dish them up to another mans Table lest they be sent him back again And more freedom is allowed against Peace-Breakers in Frays and Wars than towards men that are in a quieter sort of Controversie § XX. P. 36.37 You say For your various Definitions of Justification Constitutive Sentential Executive in Foro Dei in foro Conscientiae c. What need this heap of distinctions here when you know the question betwixt us is of no other Justification but the Constitutive in foro Dei that which maketh us righteous in the Court of Heaven I have nothing to do with you yet in any else as your own Conscience will tell you when you please If you have not more Justice and civility for your intelligent Readers I wish you would shew more Compassion to your Ignorant Homagers and not thus abuse them with your palpable Evasions Answ Doth the question Whether the several sorts of Justification will bear one and the same Definition deserve all this anger and the much greater that followeth 1. Seeing I am turned to my Reader I will crave his impartial judgment I never received and agreed on a state of the question with this Doctor He writeth against my books In those Books I over and over and over distinguish of Justification Constitutive Sentential and Executive besides those subordinate sorts by Witness Evidence Apology c. I oft open their differences He writeth against me as denying all Imputation of Christs Righteousness and holding Popish Justification by works and never tells me whether he take the word Justification in the same sense that I do or in which of those that I had opened And now he passionately appealeth to my Conscience that I knew his sence What he saith my Conscience will tell me it is not true It will tell me no such thing but the clean contrary that even after all his Disputes and Anger and these words I profess I know not what he meaneth by Justification 2. What Constitutive in foro Dei that which maketh us Righteous in the Court of Heaven meaneth with him I cannot conjecture He denyeth not my Distinctions but saith what need they I ever distinguished Making Righteous Judging Righteous Executively useing as Righteous The first is in our selves The second is by Divines said to be in foro Dei an act of Judgment the third is upon us after both now he seemeth to confound the two first and yet denyeth not their difference and saith he meaneth Constitutive in foro He that is made Righteous is such in se and as such is Justifiable in foro We are Made Righteous by God as free Donor and Imputer antecedently to judgment We are in foro sentenced Righteous by God as Judg so that this by sentence presupposeth the former God never Judgeth us Righteous and Justifieth us against Accusation till he have first Made us Righteous and Justified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and Donation Which of these meaneth he I ask not my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I but his Intelligent Reader He taketh on him to go the Commonest way of Protestants And the Commonest way is to acknowledg that a Constitutive Justification or making the man Just antecedent to the Actus forensis must need go first but that it is the second which Paul usually meaneth which is the actus forensis the sentence of the Judg in foro contrary to Condemnation And doth the Doctor think that to make Righteous and to sentence as Righteous are all one and that we are made Righteous in foro otherwise than to be just in our selves and so Justifiable in foro before the Sentence or do Protestants take the Sentence to be Constituting or Making us Righteous All this is such talk as had I read it in Mr. Bunnyan of the Covenants or any of my Ignorant Homagers I should have said the Author is a stranger to the Controversie into which he hath rashly plunged himself but I have more reverence to so learned a man and therefore blame my dull understanding 3. But what if I had known as I do not yet what sort of Justification he meaneth Doth he not know that I was then debating the Case with him whether the Logical Definitions of Justification Faith c. are not a work of Art in which a few well-studied
think I know better what they teach than his Book will truly tell me § 9. But he addeth Humane Justifying Works are in reality adverse to the free Mercy of God therefore to be accounted of no value to Righteousness Answ 1. But whose phrase is Justifying Works 2. Doth not the Holy Ghost say That a Man is justified by Works and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 3. Doth not Christ say By thy words thou shalt be justified 4. Do not I over and over tell the World That I hold Justification by Works in no sense but as signifying the same as According to Works which you own And so both Name and Thing are confessed by you to be Scriptural 5. I have before desired the Reader to turn to the words Righteous Righteousness Justification c. in his Concordance And if there he find Righteousness mentioned as consisting in some Acts of Man many hundred times let him next say if he dare that they are to be had in no price to Righteousness Or let him read the Texts cited by me in my Confession of Faith 6. Because Faith Repentance Love Obedience are that whose sincerity is to be judged in order to our Life or Death ere long I will not say that they are to be vilified as to such a Righteousness or Justification as consisteth in our vindication from the charge of Impenitency Infidelity Unholiness Hypocrisie c. The reading of Mat. 25. resolved me for this Opinion § 10. Next he noteth our detesting such Works as are against or instead of Christ's Sacrifice Righteousness Merits c. To this we have the old Cant The Papists say the like Reader I proved that the generality of Protestants are agreed in all those twenty Particulars even in all the material Doctrines about Man's Works and Justification while this warlike Doctor would set us all together by the ears still he is over-ruled to assert that the Papists also are agreed with us The more the better I am glad if it be so and will here end with so welcome a Conclusion that maketh us all herein to be Friends only adding That when he saith that such are all Works whatever even Faith it self which are called into the very least part of Justification even as a Condition or subordinate personal Evangelical Righteousness such as Christ and James and a hundred Texts of Scripture assert I answer I cannot believe him till I cease believing the Scriptures to be true which I hope will never be And am sorry that so worthy a Man can believe so gross an Opinion upon no better reasons than he giveth And yet imagine that had I the opportunity of free conference with him I could force him to manifest That he himself differeth from us but in meer words or second Notions while he hotly proclaimeth greater discord AN ANSVVER TO Dr. TULLIES Angry Letter By Rich. Baxter LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath Robinson at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard 1675. An Answer to Dr. Tullies Angry Letter Reverend Sir If I had not before perceived and lamented the great Sin of Contenders the dangerous snare for ignorant Christians and the great Calamity of the Church by making Verbal Differences seem Material and variety of some Arbitrary Logical Notions to seem tantum non a variety of Religions and by frightning Men out of their Charity Peace and Communion by Bugbear-Names of this or that Heresie or dangerous Opinion which is indeed but a Spectrum or Fantasm of a dreaming or melancholy Brain your Justificatio Paulina and your Letter to me might be sufficient means of my full Conviction And if once reading of your Writings do not yet more increase my love of the Christian simplicity and plain old Divinity and the amicable Communion of practical Christians upon those terms and not medling with Controversies in a militant way till by â—ong impartial studies they are well understood I must confess my non-proficience is very unexcusable With your self I have no great business I am not so vain as to think my self able to understand you or to be understood by you and I must not be so bold as to tell you why much less will I be so injurious to the Reader as by a particular examining all your words to extort a confession that their sense is less or worse than I could wish For cui bono What would this do but more offend you And idle words are as great a fault in writing as in talk If I have been guilty of too many I must not so much add to my fault as a too particular examination of such Books would be But for the sake of your Academical Youth whom you thought meet to allarm by your Caution I have answered so much of your Treatise as I thought necessary to help even Novices to answer the rest themselves For their sakes though I delight not to offend you I must say That if they would not be deceived by such Books as yours it is not an Answer to them that must be their preservative but an orderly studying of the Doctrines handled Let them but learn truly the several senses of the word Justificaâ—ion and the several sorts and what they are and still constrain ambiguous words to confess their sense and they will need no other Answer to such Writings And as to your Letter passing by the spume and passion I think these few Animadversions may suffice § 1. Between twenty and thirty years ago I did in a private Disputation prove our guilt of the sins of our nearer Parents and because many doubted of it I have oft since in other writings mentioned it About three years ago having two Books of Mr. William Allens in my hand to peruse in order to a Publication a Perswasive to Vnity and a Treatise of the Two Covenants in a Preface to the latter I said That most Writers if not most Christians do greatly darken the Sacred Doctrine by overlooking the Interest of Children in the Actions of their nearer Parents and think that they participate of no guilt and suffer for no original sin but Adam ' s only c. You fastened on this and warned seriously the Juniors not rashly to believe one that brings forth such Paradoxes of his or that Theologie which you added to your O caecos ante Theologos quicunque unquam fuistis The charge was expressed by aliud invenisse peccatum Originale multo citerius quam quod ab Adamo traductum est Hereupon I thought it enough to publish that old private Disputation which many before had seen with various Censures Now you send me in your Letter the strange tidings of the success You that deterred your Juniors by so frighful a warning seem now not only to agree with me that we are guilty of our nearer Parents sin and contract additional pravity from them as such which was my Assertion but over-do all others and Truth it self in your Agreement Now you take it for
him hereafter to use it in no other sense than the Scripture useth it 3. If that will not serve if the Masters of Language will agree yea to pass by our Lexicons if the Doctors of that University will give it us under their hands that the word ORIGINAL is unaptly and dangerously applyed to that sinful Guilt and Pravity which is in us ab Origine Nostrae existentiae and is the internal Radix vel Origo of all our Actual Sin in part of Causality I will use that Epithete so no more 4. If all this will not serve if he himself will give me a fitter Epithete I will use it And now we over-agree in Doctrine a word shall not divide us unless he will be angry because we are agreed as Jonas was that the Ninivites were spared because it seemed to disgrace his Word § II. pag. 4 5 c. You invite me to a full entire retractation of my Doctrine of Justification you add By Works and the secondary Original Sin 1. Will you take it well if I retract that which you profess now to hold and know none that denyeth then there is no pleasing you If I must be thought to wrong you for seeming to differ from you and yet must retract all What yours and all Mens 2. Do you mean the words or the sense of Justification as you call it by Works For the words I take you for a subscriber to the 39 Articles and therefore that you reject not the Epistle of St. James And for the sense I confess it is a motion suitable to the Interest of your Treatise though not of the Truth He that cannot confute the Truth would more easily do his Work if he could perswade the Defenders of it to an Entire Retractation Hereupon pag. 5. you recite my words of the difficulty of bringing some Militant Divines to yield Your Admonition for Self-Application of them is useful and I thank you for it But is it not a streight that such as I am in between two contrary sorts of Accusers When Mr. Danvers and Multitudes on that side Reproach me daily for Retractations and you for want of them How natural is it now to Mankind to desire to be the Oracles of the World and that all should be Silenced or Retracted which is against their Minds How many call on me for Retractation Mr. Tombes and Mr. Danvers for what I have Written for Infants-Baptism The Papists for what I have Written against them And how many more And as to what I have Retracted One reproached me for it and another either knoweth not of it or perswadeth others that it is not done You say pag. 6. A great out-cry you have made of me as charging you with things you have Retracted And pag. 7. What 's the reason you have not hitherto directed us to the particulars of your Recantation what when where You direct one indeed to a small Book above Twenty years a-go retracted All I can pick up of any seeming Retractation is that you say that Works are necessary at least to the continuation of our Justification Answ Either this is Written by a Wilful or a Heedless mistaking of my words The first I will not suspect it must therefore be the second for I must not judg you Vnable to understand plain English And is it any wonder if you have many such Mistakes in your disputes of Justification when you are so heedless about a matter of Fact Where did I ever say that I had Recanted Or that I Retracted any of the Doctrine of Justification which I had laid down Cannot you distinguish between Suspending or Revoking or Retracting a particular Book for the sake of several Crude and Incongruous Expressions and Retracting or Recanting that Doctrine of Justification Or can you not understand words that plainly thus Distinguish Why talk you of what and when and where and conjecture at the words as if you would make the Reader believe that indeed it is some confessed Errors of mine which you Confuted and that I take it for an Injury because I Retracted them And so you think you salve your Confutation whatever you do by your Candour and Justice But you have not so much as Fig-leaves for either It was the Aphorisms or Book that I said was above Twenty years a go Revoked When in my Treatise of Infant-Baptism I had craved Animadversions on it and promised a better Edition if I Published it any more I forbad the Reprinting it till I had time to Correct it and when many called for it I still deny'd them And when the Cambridg Printer Printed it a second time he did it by Stealth pretending it was done beyond Sea In my Confession Twenty years ago I gave the Reasons Preface pag. 35. I find that there are some Incautelous Passages in my Aphorisms not fitted to their Reading that come to suck Poyson and seek for a Word to be Matter of Accusation and Food for their Censuring opinionative Zeal And pag. 42. If any Brother understand not any word in my Aphorisms which is here Interpreted or mistake my sense about the Matter of that Book which is here more fully opened I must expect that they interpret that by this And if any one have so little to do as to write against that Book which is not unlikely if he take the Sense contrary to what I have here and else-where since then Published I shall but neglect him as a Contentious Vain Wrangler if not a Calumniator I Wrote this sharply to forwarn the Contentious not knowing then that above Twenty years after Dr. Tully would be the Man Pag. 43. If any will needs take any thing in this Book to be rather a Retractation than an Explication of what I have before said though I should best know my own Meaning yet do such commend me while they seem to blame me I never look to write that which shall have no need of Correction And Cap. 1. pag. 2. Lest I should prove a further Offence to my Brethren and a Wrong to the Church I desired those who thought it worth their Labour to vouchsafe me their Animadversions which I have spent much of these Three last years in considering that I might Correct what-ever was discovered to be Erroneous and give them an account of my Reasons of the rest I have not only since SVPPRESSED that Book which did offend them but also laid by those Papers of Vniversal Redemption which I had written lest I should be further offensive c. In my Apologie else-where I have such-like Passages ever telling Men that It was the first Book I wrote in my Vnexperienced Youth that I take the Doctrines of it to be sound and needful save that in divers places they are unskilfully and incautelously worded As the Word Covenant is oft put for Law c. And that I wrote my Confession and Disputes of Justification as an Exposition of it and that I Retracted or Suspended or Revoked not
words to jeer away Conviction you tell me We must have some better account of you quem quibus than what you have given us yet I shall take leave to present our indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and truer state of the Question far more suitable both to my plain meaning and the clear purport of your Direction Let the Case be this There is One who of late hath raised much dust among us about the grand Article of Justification Whether it be by Faith without Works or by Faith and Works too All our old Renowned Divines on this side and beyond the Seas are unanimously agreed that Justification is by Faith alone i. e. without Works This one Person hath often published his Judgment to the contrary so that a poor Academical Doctor may very rationally enquire of you Who in this case is to be preferred That one or those many Answ There was a Disputant who would undertake to conquer any Adversary When he was asked How He said he would pour out upon him so many and so gross untruths as should leave him nothing to answer congruously but a Mentiris and then all the World would judg him uncivil and condemn him for giving such an unreverent answer But you shall not so prevail with me but I will call your Reader to answer these Questions 1. Whether it be any truer that This is the clear purport of my Direction than it is that I say There is but one Star in the Firmament because I say that one Star is more Luminous than many Candles 2. Whether if a diseased Reader will put such a Sense upon my words his Forgery be a true stating of the Question between him and me with out my consent 3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is either Vnicus or Primus or Singular in the definition of Justification or the interest of Works be any truer than that he is the only ejected Minister in England While the writings of Bucer Ludov. Crocius Joh. Bergius Conrad Bergius Calixtus Placeus le Blank Dave Gatak Wott Prest Ball and multitudes such are visible still among us 4. Whether he deals truly wisely or friendly with the holy Scripures and the Protestants who would perswade the Ignorant that this is the true state of the Controversie Whether it be by Faith without Works or by Faith and Works too that we are justified While the Scripture speaketh both and all Protestants hold both in several senses And whether this easie stating of Controversies without more Explication or Distinction be worthy an Academical Disputant 5. Whether it be true or notoriously false that All our Renowned Divines on this side and beyond the Seas are agreed of that in this Question of the interest of Works which this one contradicteth 6. Whether this Doctors naked Affirmation hereof be better proof than that one Mans citation of the words of above an Hundred yea many Hundred as giving as much to Works as he doth is of the Contrary 7. Whether it be an ingenuous way beseeming Academics to talk at this rate and assert such a stating of the Question and such consent without one word of notice or mention of the Books in which I state the Question and bring all this evidence of consent 8. If such a Doctor will needs enquire whether the secret thoughts of the Writer meant not himself when he pretendeth but to accuse the Rule there given and should enquire but of the meaning of the words whether it savour more of Rationality or a presumptuous usurping the Prerogative of God § XVI Pag. 27. Though your approach be wrathful you are constrained to come nearer yet and you cannot deny my Rule of Direct in other Points but only those of High and difficult speculation And do you deny it there You will deal with it but as the application of that Rule to the Definition of Justification And shall we lose your favour by forcing you to lay by your Opposition as to all the rest But here you say you exceedingly differ from me Or else you would be ashamed of so much Combating in the dark Exceeding oft signifieth some extream Your Reasons are 1. You hold not the Doctrine of Justification to be properly of Speculative concern but wholly Practical Where yet you confess that in all Practical knowledg there be some antecedent contemplations of the Nature Properties End Object and that to know the certain number of Paces bâ—me-ward is a Speculative nicety Answ And can you find no fairer a shift for disagreement I would such as you made not the Doctrine of Justification too little Practical I am far from thinking that it is not Practical But is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature Properties End Object or some of these which you call Contemplations Make not plain things dark Sir The use of Art is not to shut the Windows and confound Mens Minds I take all Theologie to be together Scientia-affectiva-practica for our Intellect Will and Practice must be possest or ruled by it But it is first Scientia and we must know before we can will and practise And though all right knowledg tend to Practice yet forgive me for telling you that I think that many holy Persons in Scripture and Primitive times loved and practised more than you or I who knew not how to form an exact Logical Definition And that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit spiritually by Scripture Notions may practise them as fully as he that knoweth and speaketh them in the Notions of Aristotle or else the School-Men excel the Apostles Though ambling be an easie Pace which Horses are taught by Gives and Fetters it followeth not that a Horse cannot travel as far in his natural pace When you have said all Logical defining shall be a work of Art and the Church should not be torn and Souls shall not be damned for want of it He that Loveth Believeth Hopeth Obeyeth and by doing them hath a reflecting perception what they are and hath but such a knowledg of the Gospel as may be had without a proper Definition shall be saved Pag. 28 29. you say Nor is the Doctrine of Justification so high and difficult but that the meanest Christian may understand it sufficiently to Salvation so far as words can make it intelligible Answ Your own blows seem not to hurt you I thank you for granting so much hope to the meanest Christians But what 's this to your Case 1. Do the meanest Christians know how to define Justification and all the Grace which they have 2. Are they acquainted with all the Words that should make it intelligible Pag. 29. you add You have done little service to your weaker Christians to perswade them otherwise as well as to the great blessed Charter of Salvation and to lead them out of the plain road into Woods and Mazes to that one Man of extraordinary Judgment and Clearness no body must know what his Name is or where he dwells and
ex seipsis presumendo Israel vero persequens legem justitiae in legem justitiae non pervenit Quare Quia non ex fide sed tanquam ex operibus id est tanquam eam per seipsos operantes non in se credentes operari Deum Deus est enim qui operatur in nobis Finis enim legis Christus est omni credenti Et adhuc dubitamus quae sint opera legis quibus homo non justificatur si ea tanquam sua credederit sine adjutorio dono Dei quod est ex fide Jesu Christi Vt possit homo facere bona Sancta Deus operatur in homine per fidem Jesu Christi qui finis ad Justitiam omni credenti id est per Spiritum incorporatus factusque membrum ejus potest quisque illo incrementum intrinsecus dante operari justitiam Justificatio autem ex fide impetratur In tantum justus in quantum salvus Per hanc enim fidem credemus quod etiam nos Deus a mortuis excitet interim Spiritu ut in novitate ejus gratioe temperanter juste pie vivamus in hoc seculo qui in Resurrectione sibi congrua hoc est in Justificatione precedit c. 30. Fides impetrat gratiam qua Lex impleatur Cap. 28. pag. 315. Ibi Lex Dei non ex omni parte delata per injustitiam profecto scribitur renovata per gratiam Nec istam inscriptionem quae Justificatio est poterat efficere in Judaeis Lex in tabulis scripta Ibid. Cap. 9. pag. 307 308. Justitia Dei manifestata est non dixit Justitia hominis vel justitia propriae voluntatis sed justitia Dei Non qua Deus justus est sed qua induit hominem cum justificat impium Haec testificatur per Legem Prophetas Huic quippe testimonium perhibent Lex Prophetae Lex quidem hoc ipso quod jubendo minando neminem justificando satis indicat dono Dei justificari hominem per Adjutorium Spiritus Justitia autem Dei per fidem Jesu Christi hoc est per fidem qua Creditur in Christum sicut autem ista fides Christi dicta non est qua Credit Christus sic illa Justitia Dei non qua Justus est Deus Vtrumque enim Nostrum est sed ideo Dei Christi dicitur quod ejus nobis largitate donatur Justitia Dei sine lege est quam Deus per Spiritum Gratiae Credenti confert sine adjutorio legis Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius non quod sine voluntate nostra fiat sed voluntas nostra ostenditur infirma per legem ut sanet Gratia Voluntatem sanata voluntas impleat Legem Et cap. 10. Confugiant per fidem ad Justificantem Gratiam per donum Spiritus suavitate justitiae delectati poenam literae minantis evadant Vid. Ep. 89. q. 2. Et lib. 3. ad Bonifac. c. 7. Et Tract 3. in Joan. when he saith that Omnes qui per Christum Justificati justi non in se sed in illo he expoundeth it of Regeneration by Christ Et Serm. 15. de verb. Apost Sine voluntate tua non erit in te Justitia Dei Voluntas non est nisi tua Justitia non est nisi Dei he expounds it of Holiness Traditus est propter delicta nostra resurrexit propter justificationem nostram Quid est Propter Justificationem nostram Vt justificet nos justos faciat nos Eris opus Dei non solum quia homo es sed quia Justus es Qui fecit te sine te non te justificat sine te Tamen ipse justificat ne sit justitia tua Dei justitiam dat non litera occidens sed vivificans Spiritus Vid. de Grat. Christi Cap. 13 14. Abundance such passages in Augustine fully shew that he took Justification to signifie Sanctification or the Spirits renovation of us and thinks it is called the Righteousness of God and Christ and not ours because by the Spirit he worketh it in us And when he saith that bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non precedunt Justificandum as in sence he often doth he meaneth that we are freely sanctified before we do good I would cite abundance but for swelling the writing and tiring the Reader And his followers Prosper and Fulgentius go the same way as you may easily find in their writings Johan Crocius in his copious Treatise of Justification Disp 9. p. 442. saith Augustinum Justificationis nomine utramque partem complecti id est tum Remissionem peccatorum quae proprie Justificatio dicitur tum Sanctificationem Cum quo nos sentimus quoad rem ipsam tantum dissidemus in loquendi formâ § 9. The Schoolmen being led by the Scholastick wit of Augustine fell into the same phrase of speech and opinions Lombard making Augustine his Master and the rest making him theirs till some began to look more towards the Semipelagian way § 10. And when Church-Tyranny and Ignorance had obscured the Christian Light the true sence of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ was much obscured with the rest and a world of humane inventions under the name of Good works were brought in to take up the peoples minds And the merits of man and of the Virgin Mary sounded louder than the merits of Christ in too many places And the people that were ignorant of the true Justification were filled with the noise of Pardons Indulgences Satisfactions Penances Pilgrimages and such like § 11. Luther finding the Church in this dangerous and woful state where he lived did labour to reduce mens minds and trust from humane fopperies and merits and indulgences to Christ and to help them to the Knowledg of true Righteousness But according to his temper in the heat of his Spirit he sometimes let fall some words which seemed plainly to make Christs own personal Righteousness in it self to be every Believers own by Imputation and our sins to be verily Christs own sins in themselves by Imputation Though by many other words he sheweth that he meant only that our sins were Christs in the effects and not in themselves and Christs personal Righteousness ours in the effects and not in it self § 12. But his Book on the Galatians and some other words gave occasion to the errours of some then called Antinomians and afterward Libertines when some additions were made to their errours Of these Islebius Agricola was the chief Whom Luther confuted and reduced better expounding his own words But Islebius ere long turned back to the Contrary extreme of Popery and with Sidonius and Julius Pflug three Popish Bishops made for that purpose promoted the Emperours Interim to the persecution of the Protestants § 13. The Protestant Reformers themselves spake variously of this subject Most of them rightly asserted that Christ's Righteousness was ours by the way of Meriting our Righteousness which was therefore said to be Imputed to us
if the word Justification had been found only as he affirmed If Justice Righteousness and Just be otherwise used that 's all one in the sense and almost in the word seeing it is confessed that to Justifie is 1. To make Just 2. Or to esteem Just 3. Or sentence Just 4. Or to prove Just and defend as Just 5. Or to use as Just by execution And therefore in so many senses as a Man is called Just in Scripture he is inclusively or by connotation said to be Justified and Justifiable and Justificandus And I desire no more of the Impartial Reader but to turn to his Concordances and peruse all the Texts where the words Just Justice Justly Righteous Righteousness Righteously are used and if he find not that they are many score if not hundred times used for that Righteousness which is the Persons Relation resulting from some Acts or Habits of his own as the Subject or Agent and otherwise than according to his solitary sense here let him then believe this Author § 3. But he is as unhappy in his Proofs as in his singular untrue Assertion Rom. 8.2 4. The Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed us from the Law of Sin and of Death Gal. 3.13 God sent his Son thta the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law and many more such Here is no mention of any but one legal Justification Answ 1. Reader do you believe that these two Texts are a perfect Enumeration And that if these mention but one sense or sort of Justification that it will follow that no more is mentioned in Scripture Or if many hundred other Texts have the same sense 2. Nay he hath chosen only these Texts where the word Justification or Justifie is not at all found By which I may suppose that he intendeth the Controversie here de re and not de nomine And is that so Can any Man that ever considerately opened the Bible believe that de re no such Thing is mentioned in Scripture 1. As making a Man a believing Godly Man 2. Or as performing the Conditions of Life required of us in the Covenant of Grace 3. Nor esteeming a Man such 4. Not defending or proving him to be such 5. Nor judging him such decisively 6. Nor using him as such 7. Nor as justifying a Man so far as he is Innocent and Just against all false Accusation of Satan or the World 3. The first Text cited by him Rom. 8.24 downright contradicts him Not only Augustine but divers Protestant Expositors suppose that by the Law of the Spirit of Life is meant either the quickning Spirit it self given to us that are in Christ or the Gospel as it giveth that Spirit into us And that by delivering us from the Law of Sin is meant either from that sin which is as a Law within us or Moses Law as it forbiddeth and commandeth all its peculiarities and so maketh doing or not doing them sin and as it declareth sin yea and accidentally irritateth it Yea that by the Law of Death is meant not only that Law we are cursed by and so guilty but chiefly that Law as it is said Rom. 7. to kill Paul and to occasion the abounding of sin and the Liâ—e of it And that by the fulfilling of the Law in us that walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit is meant that by the Spirit and Grace of Christ Christians do fulfil the Law as it requireth sincere Holiness Sobriety and Righteousness which God accepteth for Christ's sake which the Law of Moses without Christ's Spirit enabled no Man to fulfil Not to weary the Reader with citing Expositors I now only desire him to peruse Ludov. de Dieu on the Text. And it is certain that the Law that Paul there speaketh of was Moses Law And that he is proving all along that the observation of it was not necessary to the Gentiles to their performance or Justification and Salvation necessitate praecepti vel medii for it would not justifie the Jews themselves And sure 1. all his meaning is not The Law will not absolve Men from the sense of the Law But also its Works will give no one the just title of a Righteous Man accepted of God and saved by him as judging between the Righteous and the wicked as Christ saith Matth. 25. The Righteous shall go into Everlasting Life c. 2. And if it were only the Maledictory Sentence of Moses Law as such that Paul speaketh of Absolution from as our only Justification then none but Jews and Proselites who were under that Law could have the Justification by Faith which he mentioneth for it curseth none else For what-ever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law The rest of the World were only under the Law of lapsed Nature the relicts of Adam's Law of Innocency and the Curse for Adam's first Violation and the Law of Grace made to Adam and Noah and after perfected fullier by Christ in its second Edition 2. His other Text Christ redeemed us from the Curse of the Law proveth indeed that all Believers are redeemed from the Curse of the first Law of Innocency and the Jews from the Curse of Moses Law which is it that is directly meant But what 's that to prove that these words speak the whole and the only Justification and that the Scripture mentioneth no other § 4. He addeth Lex est quae prohibet Lex quae poenam decernit Lex quae irrogat Peccatum est transgressio Legis Poena effectus istius trangressionis Justificatio denique absolutio ab ista poena Itaque câ—m Lex nisi praestita nenimem Justificat praestitam omnes in Christo agnoscunt aut Legalis erit omnis JUstificatio coram Deo aut omnino nulla Answ 1. But doth he know but one sort of Law of God Hath every Man incurred the Curse by Moses Law that did by Adams Or every Man fallen under the peremptory irreversible condemnation which the Law of Grace passeth on them that never believe and repent Doth this Law He that believeth not shall be damned damn Believers One Law condemneth all that are not Innocent Another supposeth them under that defect and condemneth peremptorily not every Sinner but the Wicked and Unbelievers 2. Again here he saith Justification is Absolution from that Penalty But is a Man absolved properly from that which he was never guilty of Indeed if he take Absolution so loosly as to signifie the justifying a Man against a false Accusation and pronouncing him Not-Guilty So all the Angels in Heaven may possibly be capable of Absolution Justification is ordinarily so used but Absolution seldom by Divines And his words shew that this is not his senses if I understand them But if we are reputed perfect fulfillers of the Law of Innocency by Christ and yet Justification is our Absolution from the Curse then no Man is
from that Law that is from its Obligation of us to Innocency as the necessary terms of Life and from its Obligation of us to Death for want of Innocency But we are not justified by that Law either as fulfilled or as satisfied by us our selves either personally or by an Instrument substitute or proper Representative that was Vicarius Obedientiae aut poenae 3. And we grant that the Jews were delivered from the positive Jewish Law which is it that Paul calleth The Law of Works And if he please in all these respects to call Justification Legal we intend not to quarrel with the name though what I called Legal in those Aphorisms I chose ever after to call rather Justitia pro-legalis But we cannot believe him 1. That it is only Legal 2. Or that that is the only or most proper denomination § 8. He proceedeth thus And it will be vain if any argue That yet none can be saved without Evangelical Works according to which it is confessed that all men shall be judged for the distinction is easie which the Author of the Aphorisms somewhere useth between the first or Private and the last or Publick Justification In the first sense it is never said That Works justifie but contrary That God justifieth him that worketh not Rom. 4.5 In the latter we confess that Believers are to be justified according to Works but yet not Of or By Works nor that that Justification maketh men just before God but only so pronounceth them Answ 1. This is such another Consenting Adversary as once before I was put to answer who with open mouth calls himself consequentially what he calleth me if the same Cause and not the Person make the Guilt Nay let him consider whether his grand and most formidable Weapon So also saith Bellarmine with other Papists do not wound himself For they commonly say That the first Justification is not of Works or Works do not first justifie us Have I not now proved that he erreth and complyeth with the Papists If not let him use better Arguments himself 2. But why is the first Justification called Private Either he meaneth God's making us just constitutively or his judging us so and that per sententiam conceptam only or prolatam also 1. The common distinction in Politicks inter judicium Privatum Publicum is fetcht from the Judg who is either Persona privata vel publica a private Man or an authorized Judg judging as such And so the Judgment of Conscience Friends Enemies Neighbours mere Arbitrators c. is Judicium privatum and that of a Judg in foro is Judicium publicum yea or in secret before the concerned Parties only in his Closet so it be decisive If this Learned Doctor so understand it then 1. Constitutive Justification which is truly first is publick Justification being done by God the Father and by our Redeemer who sure are not herein private authorized Persons 2. And the first sentential Justification as merely Virtual and not yet Actual viz. as it 's virtually in the Justifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is publick in suo genere being the virtus of a Publick Law of God or of his Donative Promise 3. And the first Actual Justification per Deum Judicem per sententiam conceptam which is God's secret judging the Thing and Person to be as they are is secret indeed in se yet revealed by God's publick Word but publick as to the Judg. 4. And the first sententia prolata the fourth in order is someway publick as opposite to secresie for 1. it is before the Angels of Heaven 2. And in part by Executive demonstrations on Earth But it is certainly by a publick Judg that is God 5. And the first Apologetical Justification by Christ our Interceding Advocate is publick both quoad personam and as openly done in Heaven And if this worthy Person deny any Justification per sententiam Judicis upon our first Believing or before the final Judgment he would wofully fall out with the far greatest number of Protestants and especially his closest Friends who use to make a Sentence of God as Judg to be the Genus to Justification But if by Private and Publick Justification he means secret and open 1. How can he hope to be understood when he will use Political Terms unexplained out of the usual sense of Politicians But no men use to abuse words more than they that would keep the Church in flames by wordy Controversies as if they were of the terms of Life and Death 2. And even in that sense our first Justification is publick or open quoad Actum Justificancantis as being by the Donation of a publick Word of God Though quoad effectum in recipiente it must needs be secret till the Day of Judgment no Man knowing anothers Heart whether he be indeed a sound Believer And so of the rest as is intimâ—ted Concerning what I have said before some may Object 1. That there is no such thing as our Justification notified before the Angels in Heaven 2. That the Sententia Concepta is God's Immanent Acts and therefore Eternal Answ To the first I say 1. It is certain by Luk. 15.10 that the Angels know of the Conversion of a Sinner and therefore of his Justification and publickly Rejoyce therein Therefore it is notified to them 2. But I refer the Reader for this to what I have said to Mr. Tombes in my Disputation of Justification where I do give my thoughts That this is not the Justification by Faith meant by Paul as Mr. Tombes asserteth it to be To the Second I say Too many have abused Theology by the misconceiving of the distinction of Immanent and Transient Acts of God taking all for Immanent which effect nothing ad extra But none are properly Immanent quoad Objectum but such as God himself is the Object of as se intelligere se amare An Act may be called indeed immanent in any of these three respects 1. Ex parte Agentis 2. Ex parte Objecti 3. Ex parte effectus 1. Ex parte agentis all God's Acts are Immanent for they are his Essence 2. Ex parte Objecti vel Termini God's Judging a Man Just or Unjust Good or Bad is transient because it is denominated from the state of the Terminus or Object And so it may be various and mutable denominatively notwithstanding God's Simplicity and Immutability And so the Sententia Concepta is not ab Aeterno 3. As to the Effect all confess God's Acts to be Transient and Temporary But there are some that effect not as to judg a thing to be what it is 3. Either this Militant Disputer would have his Reader believe that I say That a Man is justified by Works in that which he called making just and the first Justification or not If he would such untruth and unrighteousness contrary to the full drift of many of my Books and even that which he selected to oppose is not
a congruous way of disputing for Truth and Righteousness nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modest If not then why doth he all along carry his professed agreement with me in a militant strain perswading his Reader that I savour of Socinianism or Popery or some dangerous Error by saying the very same that he saith O what thanks doth God's Church owe such contentious Disputers for supposed Orthodoxness that like noctambuli will rise in their sleep and cry Fire Fire or beat an Allarm on their Drums and cry out The Enemy The Enemy and will not let their Neighbours rest I have wearied my Readers with so oft repeating in my Writings upon such repeated importunities of others these following Assertions about Works 1. That we are never justified first or last by Works of Innocency 2. Nor by the Works of the Jewish Law which Paul pleadeth against 3. Nor by any Works of Merit in point of Commutative Justice or of distributive Governing Justice according to either of those Laws of Innocency or Jewish 4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man which are set against or instead of the least part of God's Acts Christ's Merits or any of his part or honour 5. Nor are we at first justified by any Evangelical Works of Love Gratitude or Obedience to Christ as Works are distinguished from our first Faith and Repentance 6. Nor are we justified by Repentance as by an instrumental efficient Cause or as of the same receiving Nature with Faith except as Repentance signifieth our change from Vnbelief to Faith and so is Faith it self 7. Nor are we justified by Faith as by a mere Act or moral good Work 8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Instrument of our Justification 9. Much less by such Works of Charity to Men as are without true love to God 10. And least of all by Popish bad Works called Good as Pilgrimages hurtful Austerities c. But if any Church-troubling Men will first call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS and next will call no Act by the name of Justifying Faith but the belief of the Promise as some or the accepting of Christ's Righteousness given or imputed to us as in se our own as others or the Recumbency on this Righteousness as others or all these three Acts as others and if next they will say that this Faith justifieth us only as the proper Instrumental Cause And next that to look for Justification by any other Act of Man's Soul or by this Faith in any other respect is to trust to that Justification by Works which Paul confuteth and to fall from Grace I do detest such corrupting and abusing of the Scriptures and the Church of Christ And I assert as followeth 1. That the Faith which we are justified by doth as essentially contain our belief of the Truth of Christ's Person Office Death Resurrection Intercession c. as of the Promise of Imputation 2. And also our consent to Christ's Teaching Government Intercession as to Imputation 3. And our Acceptance of Pardon Spirit and promised Glory as well as Imputed Righteousness of Christ 4. Yea that it is essentially a Faith in God the Father and the Holy Ghost 5. That it hath in it essentially somewhat of Initial Love to God to Christ to Recovery to Glory that is of Volition and so of Desire 6. That it containeth all that Faith which is necessarily requisite at Baptism to that Covenant even a consenting-practical-belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is our Christianity it self 7. That we are justified by this Faith as it is A moral Act of Man adapted to its proper Office made by our Redeemer the Condition of his Gift of Justification and so is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject or the Dispositio materiae vel subjecti Recipientis Where the Matter of it is An adapted moral Act of Man by Grace The Ratio formalis of its Interest in our Justification is Conditio praestita speaking politically and Aptitudo vel Dispositio moralis Receptiva speaking logically which Dr. Twiss still calleth Causa dispositiva 8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo principally 9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued as well as initially justified by its first Act. 10. That as this Faith includeth a consent to future Obedience that is Subjection so the performance of that consent in sincere Obedience is the Condition of our Justification as continued Secondarily as well as Faith or consent it self primarily And that thus James meaneth that we are Justified by Works 11. That God judging of all things truly as they are now judgeth Men just or unjust on these Terms 12. And his Law being Norma judicii now vertually judgeth us just on these terms 13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by we shall at the last Judgment also be judged and so justified thus far by or according to our sincere Love Obedience or Evangelical Works as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace which justifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified by and for the Merits perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Universal Conditional Justification and Adoption before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatsoever Reader Forgive me this troublesom oft repeating the state of the Controversie I meddle with no other If this be Justification by Works I am for it If this Doctor be against it he is against much of the Gospel If he be not he had better have kept his Bed than to have call'd us to Arms in his Dream when we have sadly warred so many Ages already about mere words For my part I think that such a short explication of our sense and rejection of ambiguities is fitter to end these quarrels than the long disputations of Confounders 4. But when be saith Works make not a Man just and yet we are at last justified according to them it is a contradiction or unsound For if he mean Works in the sence excluded by Paul we are not justified according to them viz. such as make or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt But if he take Works in the sense intended by James sincere Obedience is a secondary constitutive part of that inherent or adherent personal Righteousness required by the Law of Grace in subordination to Christ's Meritorious Righteousness And what Christian can deny this So far it maketh us Righteous as Faith doth initially And what is it to be justified according to our Works but to be judged so far as they are sincerely done to be such as have performed the secondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life 5. His According but not ex operibus at the
by him Thus he states the Controversie And doth this Doctor fight for Truth and Peace by 1. passing by all this 2. Saying I am against Imputed Righteousness 3. And against the Reformed Were not all the Divines before named Reformed Was not Camero Capellus Placeus Amyrald Dallaeus Blondel c. Reformed Were not Wotton Bradshaw Gataker c. Reformed Were not of late Mr. Gibbons Mr. Truman to pass many yet alive Reformed Must that Name be shamed by appropriating it to such as this Doctor only 2. And now let the Reader judg with what face he denieth the Consequence that it supposeth us to have been in Christ legally c. When as I put it into the Opinion opposed and opposed no other But I erred in saying that most of our ordinary Divines hold it But he more in fathering it in common on the Reformed § 2. Dr. T. 2. Such Imputation of Righteousness he saith agreeth not with Reason or Scripture But what Reason meaneth he Is it that vain blind maimed unmeasurably procacious and tumid Reason of the Cracovian Philosophers Next he saith Scripture is silent of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ what a saying is this of a Reformed Divine so also Bellarmine c. Answ Is it not a doleful case that Orthodoxness must be thus defended Is this the way of vindicating Truth 1. Reader my words were these just like Bradshaws It teaâ—heth Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in so strict a sense as will neither stand with Reason nor the Doctrine of the Scripture much less with the PHRASE of Scripture which mentioneth no Imputation of Christ or his Righteousness 1. Is this a denying of Christ's Righteousness imputed Or only of that intollerable sense of it 2. Do I say here that Scripture mentioneth not Imputed Righteousness or only that strict sense of it 3. Do I not expresly say It is the Phrase that is not to be found in Scripture and the unsound sense but not the sound 2. And as to the Phrase Doth this Doctor or can any living Man find that Phrase in Scripture Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us And when he knoweth that it is not there are not his Exclamations and his Bug-bears Cracovian Reason and Bellarmine his dishonour that hath no better Weapons to use against the Churches Peace To tell us that the sense or Doctrine is in Scripture when the question is of the Phrase or that Scripture speaketh in his rigid sense and not in ours is but to lose time and abuse the Reader the first being impertinent and the second the begging of the Question § 3. Dr. T. The Greek word answering to Imputation is ten times in Rom. 4. And what is imputed but Righteousness we have then some imputed Righteousness The Question is only what or whose it is Christ's or our own Not ours therefore Christs If ours either its the Righteousness of Works or of Faith c. Answ 1. But what 's all this to the Phrase Could you have found that Phrase Christ's Righteousness is imputed why did you not recite the words but Reason as for the sense 2. Is that your way of Disputation to prove that the Text speaketh of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness when the Question was only In what sense What kind of Readers do you expect that shall take this for rational candid and a Plea for Truth 3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced it is most plain that Paul meaneth by imputing it for Righteousness that the Person was or is accounted reckoned or judged Righteous where Righteousness is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Believer so that what-ever be the matter of it of which next the formal Relation sure is our own and so here said And if it be from the matter of Christ's Righteousness yet that must be our own by your Opinion And it must be our own in and to the proper Effects in mine But sure it is not the same numerical formal Relation of Righteousness that is in Christ's Person and in ours And it 's that formal Relation as in Abraham and not in Christ that is called Abraham's Reputed Righteousness in the Text I scarce think you will say the contrary § 4. Dr. T. But Faith is not imputed to us for Righteousness Answ Expresly against the words of the Holy Ghost there oft repeated Is this defending the Scripture expresly to deny it Should not reverence and our subscription to the Scripture sufficiently rather teach us to distinguish and tell in what sense it is imputed and in what not than thus to deny without distinction what it doth so oft assert Yea the Text nameth nothing else as so imputed but Faith § 5. If it be imputed it is either as some Virtue or Humane Work the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere or as it apprehendeth and applyeth Christ's Righteousness Not the first If Faith be imputed relatively only as it applyeth to a Sinner the Righteousness of Christ it 's manifest that it 's the Righteousness of Christ only that is imputed and that Faith doth no more to Righteousness than an empty hand to receive an Alms. Answ 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving hand and not as a mere empty hand And voluntary grateful Reception may be the Condition of a Gift 2. You and I shall shortly find that it will be the Question on which we shall be Justified or Condemned not only whether we received Christ's Righteousness but whether by Faith we received Christ in all the Essentials of his Office and to all the essential saving Uses Yea whether according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant we first believingly received and gave up our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and after performed sincerely that Covenant 3. But let me defend the Word of God Faith is imputed for Righteousness even this Faith now described 1. Remotely ex materiae aptitudine for its fitness to its formal Office And that fitness is 1. Because it is an Act of Obedience to God or morally good for a bad or indifferent Act doth not justifie 2. More specially as it is the receiving trusting and giving up our selves to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost to the proper ends of Redemption or a suitable Reception of the freely offered Gift and so connoteth Christ the Object for the Object is essential to the Act in specie 2. But proximately Faith is so reputed or imputed as it is the performance of the Condition of the Justifying Covenant or Donation And to be imputed for Righteousness includeth That It is the part required of us by the Law of Grace to make us partakers of the Benefits of Christ's Righteousness which meriteth Salvation for us instead of a legal and perfect Righteousness of our own which we have not Or Whereas we fell short of a Righteousness of Innocency Christ by such a Righteousness hath merited our Pardon and Salvation and given title to them by a New Covenant of Grace which maketh
Law 13. They all agree that no Works of Mans are to be trusted in or pleaded but all excluded and the Conceit of them abhorred 1. As they are feigned to be against or instead of the free Mercy of God 2. As they are against or feigned instead of the Sacrifice Obedience Merit or Intercession of Christ 3. Or as supposed to be done of our selves without the Grace of the Holy Ghost 4. Or as supposed falsly to be perfect 5. Or as supposed to have any of the afore-disclaimed Merit 6. Or as materially consisting in Mosaical Observances 7. Much more in any superstitious Inventions 8. Or in any Evil mistaken to be Good 9. Or as any way inconsistent with the Tenor of the freely pardoning Covenant In all these senses Justification by Works is disclaimed by all Protestants at least 14. Yet all agree that we are created to good Works in Christ Jesus which God hath ordained that we should walk therein and that he that nameth the Name of Christ must depart from iniquity or else he hath not the Seal of God and that he that is born of God sinneth not that is predominantly And that all Christ's Members are Holy Purified zealous of Good Works cleansing themselves from all filthiness of Flesh and Spirit that they might perfect Holiness in God's fear doing good to all Men as loving their Neighbours as themselves and that if any Man have not the Sanctifying Spirit of Christ he is none of his nor without Holiness can see God 15. They all judg reverently and charitably of the Ancients that used the word Merit of Good Works because they meant but a moral aptitude for the promised Reward according to the Law of Grace through Christ 16. They confess the thing thus described themselves however they like not the name of Merit lest it should countenance proud and carnal Conceits 17. They judg no Man to be Heretical for the bare use of that word who agreeth with them in the sense 18. In this sense they agree that our Gospel-Obedience is such a necessary aptitude to our Glorification as that Glory though a free Gift is yet truly a reward of this Obedience 19. And they agree that our final Justification by Sentence at the Day of Judgment doth pass upon the same Causes Reasons and Conditions as our Glorification doth 20. They all agree that all faithful Ministers must bend the labour of their Ministry in publick and private for promoting of Holiness and good Works and that they must difference by Discipline between the Obedient and the Disobedient And O! that the Papists would as zealously promote Holiness and good Works in the World as the true serious Protestants do whom they factiously and peevishly accuse as Enemies to them and that the Opinion Disputing and name of good Works did not cheat many wicked Persons into self-flattery and Perdition while they are void of that which they dispute for Then would not the Mahometans and Heathens be deterred from Christianity by the wickedness of these nominal Christians that are near them nor would the serious practice of that Christianity which themselves in general profess be hated scorned and persecuted by so many both Protestants and Papists nor would so many contend that they are of the True Religion while they are really of no Religion at all any further than the Hypocrites Picture and Carcass may be called Religion Were Men but resolved to be serious Learners serious Lovers serious Practisers according to their knowledg and did not live like mockers of God and such as look toward the Life to come in jest or unbelief God would vouchsafe them better acquaintance with the True Religion than most Men have § 3. One would think now that this should meet with no sharp Opposition from any Learned lover of Peace and that it should answer for it self and need no defence But this Learned Man for all that among the rest of his Military Exploits must here find some Matter for a Triumph And 1. Pag. 18. he assaulteth the third Propos They all detest the Conceit that God should aver and repute a Man to have done that which he never did And is not this true Do any sober Men deny it and charge God with Error or Untruth Will not this Man of Truth and Peace give us leave to be thus far agreed when we are so indeed But saith he Yea the Orthodox abhor the contrary if to have done it be taken in sensu forensi for in a Physical and Personal they abhor it not but deride it Doth the Aphorist abhor these and such-like sayings We are dead buried risen from the Dead with Christ Answ 1. Take notice Reader that it is but the Words and not the Matter that he here assaulteth so that all here seemeth but lis de nomine He before pag. 84. extolleth Chrysostom for thus expounding He made him sin for us that is to be condemned as an Offender and to die as a Blasphemer And this sense of Imputation we all admit But Chrysostom in that place oft telleth us That by Sin he meaneth both one counted a wicked Man by his Persecutors not by God and one that suffered that cursed Death which was due to wicked cursed Men And which of us deny not Justification by Works as Chrysostom doth I subscribe to his words It is God s Righteousness seeing it is not of Works for in them it were necessary that there be found no blot but of Grace which blotteth out and extinguisheth all sin And this begetteth us a double benefit for it suffereth us not to be lift up in mind because it is all the Gift of God and it sheweth the greatness of the benefit This is as apt an Expression of my Judgment of Works and Grace as I could chuse But it 's given to some Men to extol that in one Man which they fervently revile in others How frequently is Chrysostom by many accused as favouring Free-Will and Man's Merits and smelling of Pelagianism And he that is acquainted with Chrysostom must know That he includeth all these things in Justification 1. Remission of the Sin as to the Punishment 2. Remission of it by Mortification for so he calleth it in Rom. 3. p. mihi 63. 3. Right to Life freely given for Christ's sake 4. And Inherent Righteousness through Faith And he oft saith That this is called the Righteousness of God because as God who is living quickeneth the dead and as he that is strong giveth strength to the weak so he that is Righteous doth suddenly make them Righteous that were lapsed into sin as he there also speaketh And he oft tells us It is Faith it self and not only Christ believed in that is imputed for Righteousness or Justifieth And in Rom. 4. p. 80. he calleth the Reward the Retribution of Faith And pag. 89. he thus conjoyneth Faith and Christ's Death to the Question How Men obnoxious to so much sin are justified he sheweth that he blotted
Take your selves to be neither of Roman or any other Church as Vniversal which is less than the Vniversality of all Christians headed by Christ alone 9. Make this Love of all Christians the second part of your Religion and the Love of God of Christ of Holiness and Heaven the first and live thus in the serious practice of your Covenant even of Simple Christianity For it 's this that will be your Peace in Life and at Death 10. And if Men of various degrees of Learning or Speaking-skill and of various degrees of Holiness Humility and Love shall quarrel about Words and forms of Speech and shall hereticate and revile and damn each other while the Essentials are held fast and practised discern Right from Wrong as well as you can but take heed that none of them make Words a snare to draw you injuriously to think hatefully of your Brother or to divide the Churches or Servants of Christ And suspect such a Snare because of the great ambiguity of Words and imperfection of Mans Skill and Honesty in all Matters of debate And never dispute seriously without first agreeing of the Sense of every doubtful term with him that you Dispute with Dr. Tully's Allarm and other Mens militant Course perswaded me as a Preservative to commend this Counsel to you § XI Pag. 19. You next very justly commend Method ordering and expressing our Conceptions of which you say I seem to make little account in Comparison Answ 1. Had you said that I had been unhappy in my Endeavours your Authority might have gone for Proof with many But you could scarce have spoken a more incredible word of me than that I seem to make little account of Method I look for no sharper Censure from the Theological Tribe than that I Over-do in my Endeavours after Method You shall not tempt me here unseasonably to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accusation 2. But yet I will still say that it is not so necessary either to Salvation or to the Churches Peace that we all agree in Methods and Expressions as that we agree in the hearty reception of Christ and obedience to His Commands So much Method all must know as to know the Beginning and the End from the Effects and Means God from the Creature and as our true consent to the Baptismal Covenant doth require and I will thankfully use all the help which you give me to go further But I never yet saw that Scheme of Theologie or of any of its Heads which was any whit large and I have seen many which was so exact in Order as that it was dangerous in any thing to forsake it But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method with a Man that talketh as you do of Distinguishing and handleth the Doctrine of Justification no more Methodically than you do § XII But pag. 19. you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists about the Necessity of Good works which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification the other not but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness where it ought to keep Answ Wonderful Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification brought your own and as you say the Protestants difference to this Will none of your Readers see now who cometh nearer them you or I 1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method and Order and Expression What meaneth a distinction between First-Justification and Inherent Holiness Do you difference them Quoad ordinem as First and Second But here is no Second mentioned Is it in the nature of the things Justification and Inherent Holiness What signifieth the First then But Sir how many Readers do you expect who know not 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all but to that which they call the Second or Increase that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works See what I have fully cited out of them for this Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer 13. pag. 267. c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity and as our English Divines do constantly preach for and the Synod of Dort at large assert though they disown the name of Merit as many of the Papists do They ordinarily say with Austine Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non praecedunt Justificandum 2. But I hope the word First here overslipt your your Pen instead of Second But suppose it did so What 's the difference between the Papists first or second Justification and the Protestants Inherent Holiness None that ever I heard or read of Who knoweth not that the Papists take Justification for Inherent Holiness And is this the great difference between Papists and Protestants which I am so loudly accused for not acknowledging viz. The Papists place Good-Works before Justification that is Inherent Holiness and the Protestants more rightly place them before Inherent Holiness Are you serious or do you prevaricate The Papists and Protestants hold that there are some Duties and common Grace usually preparatory to Conversion or Sanctification which some Papists de nomine call Merit of Congruity and some will not The Papists and Protestants say that Faith is in order of nature at least before that Habitual Love which is called Holiness and before the Works thereof The Papists and Protestants say that Works of Love and Obedience follow our First Sanctification and make up but the Second part of it which consisteth in the Works of Holiness If you speak not of Works in the same sense in each part of your Assignation the Equivocation would be too gross viz. If you should mean Papists rank the necessity of preparatory Common Works or the Internal act of Faith or Love stretching it to the First Justification and Protestants rank other Works viz. The fruits of Faith and Love with Inherent Holiness All agree 1. That Common Works go before Sanctification 2. That Internal Love and other Grace do constitute Sanctification in the First part of it 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace are the effects of the First Part and the constitutive Causes of the Second Part of Sanctification as the word extendeth also to Holiness of Life And whilst Papists take Justâ—fication for Sanctification in all this there is De re no difference But your accurate Explications by such terms as Stretching Confirming Province c. are fitter for Tully than for Aristotle And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of that we must in this take heed of joyning with the Papists Do you mean Rank Good-Works with Inherent Holiness and not with the First Sanctification and you then do widely differ from the Papists Will not your Reader say 1. What doth Inherent Holiness differ from the First
so to p. 80. l. 17. r. if you will sontes p. 91. l. 20. dele the. p. 94. l. 2. for but r. as l. 11. dele and. p. 102. l. 1. r. per. p. 104. l. antipen r. Albericus p. 135. l. 20. r. praeditus l. 23. r. aliquem p. 112. l. 28. r. relatione p. 116. l. 21. r. fulfillers p. 120. l. 11. r. Vasquez p. 150. l. 26. r. indebitae p. 167. l. 29. for if r. is p. 184. l. penult for as r. and. In a Cursory view of some Pages I since see these faults PReface Page 8. Line 22. for and r. as Book 1. P. 172. l. 1. r. is it true Answer to the Letter P. 93. l. ult for Conformists r. Nonconformists Book 2. Part 3. P. 16. l. 20. for tum r. tu P. 54. l. 14. for apt r. yet l. 28. for produceth r. proceedeth P. 56. l. 13. for still r. not P. 65. l. 13. for Guilt r. Gift Book 2. Part 1. P. 259. l. 8. r. Causas P. 268. l. 4. for first r. full P. 269. l. 28 fore Jure r. iu re And I must tell the Reader that it is so long since the Papers to Mr. Cartwright were written that if there be any passage which in my later Writings I correct I must desire him to take the latter as my Judgment For I am none of those that pretend my Youthful Writings to be sufficiently Accurate much less Faultless or that to avoid the Imputation of Mutability profess to be no wiser than I was between twenty and thirty Years ago I find somewhat Book 2. Part 3. P. 51 52. which needeth this Explication viz. God as Judg of lapsed Man when He was judging him added an Act of Grace which in several respects is 1. A Promise 2. A Deed of Gift 3. An Act of Oblivion or universal conditional Pardon 4. A Law 5. And as it hath respect to Christs absolutely promised and foreseen Merits it may be said to be like or Equivolent to an universal conditional Sentence But taking the word Sentence strictly as it is a Sentence of the Individuals according to the Rule of a Law as kept or broken so it is not properly a Sentence as to us as is after proved A POSTSCRIPT ABOUT Mr. DANVERS ' s Last BOOK WHen this Book was coming out of the Press I received another Book of Mr. Danvers against Infants Baptism in which he mentioneth Dr. Tullies proving what a Papist I am in his Justif Paul with Dr. Pierces former Charges and lamenting that no more yet but one Dr. Tully hath come forth to Encounter me Epist and Pag. 224. The perusal of that Book with Mr. Tombs short Reflections directeth me to say but this instead of any further Confutation That it is as the former so full of false Allegations set off with the greatest Audacity even a few Lines of my own about our meeting at Saint James's left with the Clerk grosly falsified and former falsifications partly justified and partly past over and his most passionate Charges grounded upon Mistakes and managed by Misreports sometime of Words sometime of the Sense and sometime of Matters of Fact in short it is such a bundle of Mistake Fierceness and Confidence that I take it for too useless and unpleasant a Work to give the World a particular Detection of these Evils If I had so little to do with my Time as to write it I suppose that few would find leisure to read it And I desire no more of the willing Reader then seriously to peruse my Book More Reasons for Infants Church-membership with his and to examine the Authors about whose Words or Sense we differ Or if any would be Informed at a cheaper rate he may read Mr. Barrets Fifty Queries in two sheets And if Mr. Tombes revile me for not transcribing or answering more of his Great Book when I tell the Reader that I suppose him to have the Book before him and am not bound to transcribe such a Volume already in Print and that I answer as much as I think needs an Answer leaving the rest as I found it to the Judgment of each Reader he may himself take this for a Reply but I must judg of it as it is I find but one thing in the Book that needeth any other Answer than to peruse what is already Writtâ—n And that is about Baptizing Naked My Book was written 1649. A little before common uncontrolled Fame was that not far from us in one place many of them were Baptized naked reproving the Cloathing way as Antiscriptural I never heard 〈◊〉 deny this Report I conversed with divers of 〈…〉 Church who denied it not As 〈…〉 denied it to me so I never read one that did 〈…〉 to my knowledg He now tells me Mr. Fisher Mr. Haggar and Mr. Tombes did Let any Man read Mr. Tombes Answer to me yea and that Passage by him now cited and see whether there be a word of denial Mr. Fisher or Haggar I never saw Their Books I had seen but never read two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. Fishers though I numbered it with those that were written on that Subject as well I might I knew his Education and his Friends and I saw the Great Volume before he turned Quaker but I thought it enough to read Mr. Tombes and others that wrote before him but I read not him nor all Mr. Haggars If I had I had not taken them for competent Judges of a fact far from them and that three years after Could they say that no one ever did so The truth is that three years after mistaking my words as if I had affirmed it to be their ordinary practice as you may read in them which I never did nor thought they vehemently deny this And such heedless reading occasioneth many of Mr. Danvers Accusations I never said that no Man ever denied it for I have not read all that ever was written nor spoken with all the World But no Man ever denied it to me nor did I ever read any that denied it And in a matter of Fact if that Fame be not credible which is of things Late and Near and not Contradicted by any one of the most interessed Persons themselves no not by Mr. Tombes himself we must surcease humane Converse Yet do I not thence undertake that the same was true either of those Persons or such as other Writers beyond Sea have said it off I saw not any one Baptized by Mr. Tombes or any other in River or elsewhere by Dipping at Age If you do no such thing I am sorry that I believed it and will recant it Had I not seen a Quaker go naked through Worcester at the Assizes and read the Ranters Letters full of Oathes I could have proved neither of them And yet I know not where so long after to find my Witnesses I abhor Slanders and receiving ill Reports unwarrantably I well know that this is not their ordinary Practice The Quakers do not