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
earnestly presseth me with his Quem quibus who is the Man I profess I dreamed not of any particular Man But I will again tell you whom my Judgment magnifies in this Controversie above all others and who truly tell you how far Papists and Protestants agree viz. Vinc. le Blank and Guil. Forbes I meddle not with his other Subjects Placeus in Thes Salmur Davenant Dr. Field Mr. Scudder his daily Walk fit for all families Mr. Wotton Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Gataker Dr. Preston Dr. Hammond Pract. Cat. and Mr. Lawson in the main Abundance of the French and Breme Divines are also very clear And though I must not provoke him again by naming some late English men to reproach them by calling them my disciples I will venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our wrangling tediousness that Mr. Trumans Great Propit and Mr. Gibbons serm of Justif may serve him well without any more And while this worthy Doctor and I do both concord with such as Davenant and Field as to Justification by Faith or Works judg whether we differ between our selves as far as he would perswade the World who agree in tertio And whether as he hath angrily profest his concord in the two other Controversies which he raised our Guilt of nearer Parents sin and our preferring the judgment of the wisest c. it be not likely that he will do so also in this when he hath leisure to read and know what it is that I say and hold and when we both understand our selves and one another And whether it be a work worthy of Good and Learned men to allarm Christians against one another for the sake of arbitrary words and notions which one partly useth less aptly and skilfully than the other in matters wherein they really agree 2 Tim. 2. 14. Charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit but to the subverting of the Hearers yet study to shew thy self approved unto God a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of Truth Two Sparks more quenched which fled after the rest from the Forge of Dr. Tho. Tully § 1. DId I not find that some Mens Ignorance and factious Jealousie is great enough to make them combustible Recipients of such Wild-fire as those Strictures are and did not Charity oblige me to do what I have here done to save the assaulted Charity of such Persons more than to save any Reputation of my own I should repent that I had written one Line in answer to such Writings as I have here had to do with I have been so wearied with the haunts of the like Spirit in Mr. Crandon Mr. Bagshaw Mr. Danvers and others that it is a work I have not patience to be much longer in unless it were more necessary Two sheets more tell us that the Doctor is yet angry And little that 's better that I can find In the first he saith again that I am busie in smoothing my way where none can stumble in a thing never questioned by him nor by any Man else he thinks who owns the Authority of the second Commandment And have I not then good Company and Encouragement not to change my Mind But 1. He feigneth a Case stated between him and me who never had to do with him before but as with others in my Writings where I state my Case my self 2. He never so much as toucheth either of my Disputations of Original Sin in which I state my Case and defend it 3. And he falsly feigneth the Case stated in words and he supposeth in a sense that I never had do do with Saying I charge you with a new secondary Original Sin whose Pedegree is not from Adam I engage not a syllable further And pag. 8. You have asserted that this Novel Original Sin is not derived from our Original Father no line of Communication between them a sin besides that which is derived from Adam as you plainly and possitively affirm I never said that it had no Pedegree no line of Communication no kind of derivation from Adam 4. Yea if he would not touch the Disputation where I state my Case he should have noted it as stated in the very Preface which he writeth against and yet there also he totally overlooketh it though opened in divers Propositions 5. And the words in an Epistle to another Mans Book which he fasteneth still on were these Over-looking 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 Adams only And after They had more Original Sin than what they had from Adam 6. He tells me that I seem not to understand my own Question nor to know well how to set about my Work and he will teach me how to manage the Business that I have undertaken and so he tells me how I MUST state the Question hereafter see his words Reader some Reasons may put a better Title on this Learned Doctors actions but if ever I write at this rate I heartily desire thee to cast it away as utter DISHONESTY and IMPUDENCE It troubleth me to trouble thee with Repetitions I hold 1. That Adams Sin is imputed as I opened to his Posterity 2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains nature received from Adam was the dispositive enclining Cause of all his Actual Sin 3. But not a necessitating Cause of all those Acts for he might possibly have done less evil and more good than he did 4. Therefore not the Total principal Cause for Cains free-will was part of that 5 Cains actual sin increased the pravity of his nature 6. And Cains Posterity were as I opened it guilty of Cains actual sin and their Natures were the more depraved by his additional pravity than they would have been by Adams sin alone unless Grace preserved or healed any of them The Doctor in this Paper would make his Reader believe that he is for no meer Logomachies and that the difference is not in words only but the thing And do you think that he differeth from me in any of these Propositions or how this sin is derived from Adam Yet this now must be the Controversie de re Do you think for I must go by thinking that he holdeth any other Derivation than this Or did I ever deny any of this But it is vain to state the Case to him He will over look it and tell me what I should have held that he may not be thought to make all this Noise for nothing He saith pag. 8. If it derive in a direct line from the first Transgression and have its whole Root fastened there what then why then some words which he sets together are not the best sense that can be spoken It is then but words and yet it is the thing What he may mean by a direct Line and what by whole Root fastened I know not but I have told the World
OF THE IMPUTATION OF Christ's Righteousness TO BELIEVERS In what sence sound Protestants hold it And Of the false devised sence by which Libertines subvert the Gospel With an Answer to some common Objections especially of Dr. Thomas Tully whose Justif Paulina occasioneth the publication of this By RICHARD BAXTER A compassionate Lamenter of the Churches wounds caused by hasty judging and undigested concâ—ptions and by the Theological Wars which are hereby raised and managed by perswading the World that meer verbal or notional Differences are material and such as our Faith Love Concord and Communion must be measured by for want of an exact discussion of the ambiguity of words London Printed for Nevil Simons and Jonathan Robinson at the Kings-Arms and Golden-Lion in St. Pauls Church-yard 1675. The Preface Reader IF thou blame me for writing again on a Subject which I have written on so oft and so lately specially in my Life of Faith and Disputations of Justification I shall not blame thee for so doing but I shall excuse my self by telling thee my reasons 1. The occasion is many loud accusations of my self of which I have before given an account I publish it because I see the Contention still so hot in the Church of Christ and mens Charity destroyed against each other one side calling the other Socinians and the other Libertines who are neither of them Christians and if I mistake not for the most part in the dark about one Phrase and that of mens devising rather than about the sence But if indeed it be the sence that they differ about it 's time to do our best to rectifie such Fundamental Errours I find that all of us agree in all the Phrases of Scripture And a Mans Sence is no way known but by his expressions The question is then Which is the necessary Phrase which we must express our sence by We all say that to Believers Christ is made our Righteousness We are made the Righteousness of God in him He hath ransomed redeemed us as a Sacrifice for our sins a price He hath merited and obtained eternal Redemption for us that Sin is remitted covered not imputed that Righteousness is Reckoned or Imputed to us that Faith is Imputed to us for Righteousness and any thing else that is in the Scripture But all this will not serve to make us Christians What is wanting Why we must say that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to us as ours and that Christ satisfied for our sins Well The thing signified seemeth to us true and good and needful though the Scripture hath as good words for it as any of us can invent We consent therefore to use these Phrases so be it you put no false and wicked sence on them by other words of your own Though we will not allow them to be necessary because not in Scripture And we are more against adding new Fundamental Articles of Faith to the Scripture than against adding new Orders Forms or Ceremonies But yet it will not serve what is yet wanting why we must hold these words in a right sense What yet are not your own devised words a sufficient expression of the matter When we have opened those words by other words how will you know that we use those other words in a right sence and so in infinitum Our sence is that Righteousness is Imputed to us that is we are accounted Righteous because for the Merits of Christs total fulfilling the Conditions of his Mediatorial Covenant with the Father by his Habitual Holiness his Actual Perfect Obedience and his Sacrifice or satisfactory Suffering for our sins in our stead freely without any merit or Conditional act of mans God hath made an Act of Oblivion and Deed of Gift pardoning all sin justifying and adopting and giving Right to the Spirit and Life eternally to every one that believingly accepteth Christ and the Gifts with and by and from him And when we accept them they are all ours by virtue of this purchased Covenant-Gift This is our short and plain explication But yet this will not serve Christianity is yet another thing What is wanting Why we must say that Christ was habitually and actually perfectly Holy and Obedient Imputatively in our particular Persons and that each one of us did perfectly fulfil that Law which requireth perfect Habits and Acts in and by Christ imputatively and yet did also in and by him suffer our selves Imputatively for not fulfilling it and Imputatively did our selves both satisfy God's Justice and merit Heaven and that we have our selves Imputatively a Righteousness of perfect Holiness and Obedience as sinless and must be justified by the Law of Innocency or Works as having our selves imputatively fulfilled it in Christ And that this is our sole Righteousness and that Faith it self is not imputed to us for Righteousness no not a meer particular subordinate Righteousness answering the Conditional part of the new Justifying Covenant as necessary to our participation of Christ and his freely given Righteousness And must all this go into our Christianity But where is it written who devised it was it in the ancient Creeds and Baptism Or known in the Church for five thousand years from the Creation I profess I take the Pope to be no more to be blamed for making a new Church-Government than for making us so many new Articles of Faith And I will not justifie those that Symbolize with him or imitate him in either But yet many of the men that do this are good men in other respects and I love their zeal that doth all this evil as it is for God and the honour of Jesus Christ though I love it not as blind nor their Errour or their Evil. But how hard is it to know what Spirit we are of But it is the doleful mischief which their blind zeal doth that maketh me speak That three or four of them have made it their practice to backbite my self and tell People He holdeth dangerous opinions He is erroneous in the point of Justification And his Books are unsound and have dangerous Doctrines He leaveth the old way of Justification he favoureth Socinianism and such-like this is a small matter comparatively Back-biting and false reports are the ordinary fruits of bitter contentious Zeal and the Spirit of a Sect as such doth usually so work yea to confusion and every evil work when it hath banished the Zeal of Love and of Good Works Jam. 3.14 15 16. Tit. 2.14 And I never counted it any great loss to their followers that they disswade them from the reading of my writings as the Papists do their Proselytes as long as God hath blest our Land with so many better But there are other effects that command me once again to speak to them 1. One is that I have good proof of the lamentable Scandal of some very hopeful Persons of quality who by hearing such language from these men have bin ready to turn away from Religion and say If they thus set
Controversie is about a Civil personating 3. That God judgeth not falsly 4. That Christ was not our Delegate and Instrument sent by us to do this in our stead as a man payeth his debt by a Servant whom he sendeth with the money 5. That therefore Christs Righteousness is not Imputed to us as if we had done it by him as our Instrument 6. That all the fruits of Christs Merits and Satisfaction are not ours upon our first believing much less before But we receive them by degrees we have new pardon daily of new sins We bear castigatory punishments even Death and Denials or loss of the greater assistance of the Spirit Our Grace is all imperfect c. 7. That we are under a Law and not left ungoverned and lawless and that Christ is our King and Judge And this Law is the Law or Covenant of Grace containing besides the Precepts of perfect Obedience to the Law natural and superadded a Gift of Christ with Pardon and Life but only on Condition that we thankfully and believingly accept the Gift And threatning non-liberation and a far sorer punishment to all that unbelievingly and unthankfully reject it 8. That therefore this Testament or Covenant-Gift is God's Instrument by which he giveth us our Right to Christ and Pardon and Life And no man hath such Right but by this Testament-Gift 9. That this called a Testament Covenant Promise and Law in several respects doth besides the Conditions of our first Right impose on us Continuance in the Faith with sincere Holiness as the necessary Condition of our continued Justification and our actual Glorification And that Heaven is the Reward of this keeping of the new Covenant as to the order of Gods Collation though as to the value of the Benefit it is a Free Gift purchased merited and given by Christ 10. That we shall all be judged by this Law of Christ 11. That we shall all be judged according to our deeds and those that have done good not according to the Law of Innocency or Works but according to the Law of Grace shall go into everlasting life and those that have done evil not by meer sin as sin against the Law of Innocency but by not keeping the Conditions of the Law of Grace shall go into everlasting punishment The sober reading of these following texts may end all our Controversie with men that dare not grosly make void the Word of God Rev. 20.12 13.22.12 2.23 12. That to be Justified at the day of Judgment is to be adjudged to Life Eternal and not condemned to Hell And therefore to be the cause or condition that we are Judged to Glory and the Cause or Condition that we are Justified then will be all one 13. That to be Judged according to our deeds is to be Justified or Condemned according to them 14. That the great tryal of that day as I have after said will not be whether Christ hath done his part but whether we have part in him and so whether we have believed and performed the Condition of that Covenant which giveth Christ and Life 15. That the whole scope of Christ's Sermons and all the Gospel calleth us from sin on the motive of avoiding Hell after we are reputed Righteous and calleth us to Holiness Perseverance and overcoming on the motive of laying up a good Foundation and having a Treasure in Heaven and getting the Crown of Righteousness 16. That the after-sins of men imputed Righteous deserve Hell or at least temporal punishments and abatements of Grace and Glory 17. That after such sins especially hainous we must pray for Pardon and repent that we may be pardoned and not say I fulfilled the Law in Christ as from my birth to my death and therefore have no more need of Pardon 18. That he that saith he hath no sin deceiveth himself and is a lyar 19. That Magistrates must punish sin as God s Officers and Pastors by Censure in Christs name and Parents also in their Children 20. That if Christs Holiness and perfect Obedience and Satisfaction and Merit had bin Ours in Right and Imputation as simply and absolutely and fully as it was his own we could have no Guilt no need of Pardon no suspension or detention of the proper fruits of it no punishment for sin specially not so great as the with-holding of degrees of Grace and Glory And many of the consequents aforesaid could not have followed All this I think we are all agreed on and none of it can with any face be denied by a Christian And if so 1. Then whether Christs perfect Holiness and Obedience and Sufferings Merit and Satisfaction be all given us and imputed unto us at our first believing as Our own in the very thing it self by a full and proper Title to the thing Or only so imputed to us as to be judged a just cause of giving us all the effects in the degrees and time forementioned as God pleaseth let all judge as evidence shall convince them 2. And then whether they do well that thrust their devised sence on the Churches as an Article of Faith let the more impartial judge I conclude with this confession to the Reader that though the matter of these Papers hath been thought on these thirty years yet the Script is hasty and defective in order and fulness I could not have leisure so much as to affix in the margin all the texts which say what I assert And several things especially the state of the Case are oft repeated But that is lest once reading suffice not to make them observed and understood which if many times will do I have my end If any say that I should take time to do things more accurately I tell him that I know my straights of time and quantity of business better than he doth and I will rather be defective in the mode of one work than leave undone the substance of another as great July 20. 1672. Richard Baxter The Contents CHap. 1. The History of the Controversie In the Apostles days In the following Ages Augustine and his followers Opinion The Schoolmen Luther Islebius The Lutherans Andr. Osiander The latter German Divines who were against the Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness Our English Divines Davenant's sense of Imputation Wotton de Reconcil Bradshaw Gataker Dr. Crisp Jo. Simpson Randal Towne c. And the Army Antinomians checkt by the rising of Arminianism there against it Jo. Goodwin Mr. Walker and Mr. Roborough Mr. Ant. Burges My Own endeavours Mr. Cranden Mr. Eyres c. Mr. Woodbridge Mr. Tho. Warren Mr. Hotchkis Mr. Hopkins Mr. Gibbon Mr. Warton Mr. Grailes Mr. Jessop What I then asserted Corn. a Lapide Vasquez Suarez Grotius de Satisf Of the Savoy Declaration Of the Faith of the Congregational-Divines Their saying that Christs Active and Passive Obedience is imputed for our sole Righteousness confuted by Scripture Gataker Usher and Vines read and approved my Confession of Faith Placeus his Writings and trouble
act so Maresius ibidem And many deny it to be the form And many think that saying improper 3. Note that it is ordinarily agreed by Protestants that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us in the same sence as our sins are said to be imputed to him even before they are committed many Ages which cleareth fully the whole Controversie to those that are but willing to understand and blaspheme not Christ so Maresius ubi supra Quemadmodum propter deliquia nostra ei imputata punitus fuit Christus in terris ita propter ejus Justitiam nobis imputatam coronamur in Caelis And Joh. Crocius Disput 10. p. 502. And Vasseur in his solid Disp Thes Sedan Vol. 2. pag. 1053 1054. While he mentioneth only Satisfaction for our Justification yet § 27. saith that Satisfaction is imputed to us and placeth Christs Imputed Righteousness in his Obedience to the death and saith that this satisfying Obedience in suffering is our Imputed Righteousness Ea igitur Obedientia Christi qua Patri paruit usque ad mortem crucis qua coram Patre comparuit ut voluntatem ejus perficeret qua a Patre missus ut nos sui sanguinis effusione redimeret justitiae ejus pro peccatis nostris abunde satisfecit ea inquam obedientia ex gratia Patris imputata donata illa justitia est qua justificamur And they ordinarily use the similitude of the Redemption of a Captive and Imputing the Price to him He addeth Hence we may gather that as Christ was made sin so we are made the Righteousness of God that is by Imputation which is true The plain truth in all this is within the reach of every sound Christian and self-conceited wranglers make difficulties where there are none Yea how far the Papists themselves grant the Protestant doctrine of Imputation let the following words of Vasseur on Bellarmine be judg Bellarm. ait Si solum vellent haeretici nobis imputari Merita Christi quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi recta esset eorum Sententia I doubt some will say it is false because Bellarmine granteth it but Vasseur addeth Haec ille sed an nostra longe abest ab illâ quam in nobis requireret sententia And I wish the Reader that loveth Truth and Peace to read the words of Pighius Cassander Bellarmine c. saying as the Protestants cited by Joh. Crocius de Justificat Disput 9. pag. 458. c. And of Morton Apolog especially Tho. Waldensis Nazianzen's sentence prefixed by the great Basil-Doctors to their Confession I do affectionately recite Sacred Theologie and Religion is a simple and naked thing consisting of Divine Testimonies without any great artifice which yet some do naughtily turn into a most difficult Art The History of the Socinians opposing Christs Satisfaction and Merits I overpass as being handled by multitude of Writers If any impartial man would not be troubled with needless tedious writings and yet would see the Truth clearly about Justification and Imputation in a very little room let him read 1. Mr. Bradshaw 2. Mr. Gibbon's Sermon in the Exercises at Giles's in the Fields 3. Mr. Truman's great Propitiation 4. Joshua Placeus his Disput de Justif in Thes Salmur Vol. 1. 5. And Le Blank 's late Theses Which will satisfie those that have any just capacity for satisfaction And if he add Wotton de Reconciliatione and Grotius de Satisfactione he need not lose his labour no nor by reading John Goodwin of Justification though every word be not approveable And Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermons of Satisfaction coming last will also conduce much to his just information So much of the Historical part CHAP. II. Of the true stating of the Controversie and the explication of the several points contained or meerly implyed in it I take explication to be here more useful than argumentation And therefore I shall yet fullier open to you the state of our differences and my own judgment in the point with the reasons of it in such necessary Distinctions and brief Propositions as shall carry their own convincing light with them If any think I distinguish too much let him prove any to be needless or unjust and then reject it and spare not If any think I distinguish not accurately enough let him add what is wanting and but suppose that I have elsewhere done it and am not now handling the whole doctrine of Justification but only that of Imputation and what it necessarily includeth THough a man that readeth our most Learned Protestants professing that they agree even with Bellarmine himself in the stating of the case of Imputation would think that there should need no further stating of it I cited you Bellarmine's words before with Vasseurs consent I here add Johan Crocius de Justif Disp 10. pag. 500.501 Vide hominis sive vertiginem sive improbitutem clamat fieri non posse ut Justitia Christi nobis imputetur eo sensu qui haereticis probetur Et tamen rectam vocat sententiam quam suam faciunt Evangelici Quod enim cum rectâ ratione pugnare dicit nos per Justitiam Christi formaliter justos nominari esse nos non tangit Non dicimus Non sentimus Sed hoc totum proficiscitur e Sophistarum officinâ qui phrasin istam nobis affingunt ut postea eam exagitent tanquam nostram yet some of our own give them this pretence Nos sententiam quam ille rectam judicat tenemus tuemur sic tamen ut addamus quod Genti adversariae est intolerabile non alia ratione nos justos censeri coram Deo But by Justification the Papists mean Sanctification And they count it not intolerable to say that the penalty of our sins is remitted to us by that Satisfaction to the Justice of God according to the Law of Innocency which Christ only hath made But though many thrust in more indeed and most of them much more in words yet you see they are forced to say as we say whether they will or not For they seem unwilling to be thought to agree with us where they agree indeed And the following words of Joh. Crocius pag. 506 507. c. shew the common sence of most Protestants When Bellarmine observeth that Imputation maketh us as righteous as Christ he saith If we said that we are Justified by Christs essential righteousness But we say it not Yea above all we renounce that which the Sophister puts in of his own even that which he saith of Formal Righteousness For it is not our opinion that we are constituted formally Righteous by Christ's Righteousness which we rather call the Material cause § 32. Christs satisfaction is made for all But it is imputed to us not as it is made for all but as for us I illustrate it by the like The Kings Son payeth
Instrumental Intervention and Conveyance or Collation by this Deed of Gift or Covenant do confound themselves by confounding and overlooking the Causes of our Justification That which Christ did by his merits was to procure the new Covenant The new Covenant is a free Gift of pardon and life with Christ himself for his merits and satisfaction sake 44. Though the Person of the Mediator be not really or reputatively the very person of each sinner nor so many persons as there are sinners or believers yet it doth belong to the Person of the Mediator so far limitedly to bear the person of a sinner and to stand in the place of the Persons of all Sinners as to bear the punishment they deserved and to suffer for their sins 45. Scripture speaking of moral matters usually speaketh rather in Moral than meer Physical phrase And in strict Physical sence Christs very personal Righteousness Material or Formal is not so given to us as that we are proprietors of the very thing it self but only of the effects Pardon Righteousness and Life yet in a larger Moral phrase that very thing is oft said to be given to us which is given to another or done or suffered for our benefit He that ransometh a Captive from a Conquerer Physically giveth the Money to the Conquerer not to the Captive giveth the Captive only the Liberty purchased But morally and reputatively he is said to give the Money to the Captive because he gave it for him And it redeemeth him as well as if he had given it himself He that giveth ten thousand pounds to purchase Lands freely giveth that land to another physically giveth the Money to the Seller only and the Land only to the other But morally and reputatively we content our selves with the metonymical phrase and say he gave the other ten thousand pound So morally it may be said that Christs Righteousness Merits and Satisfaction was given to us in that the thing purchased by it was given to us when the Satisfaction was given or made to God Yea when we said it was made to God we mean only that he was passively the Terminus of active Satisfaction being the party satisfyed but not that he himself was made the Subject and Agent of Habits and Acts and Righteousness of Christ as in his humane nature except as the Divine Nature acted it or by Communication of Attributes 46. Because the words Person and Personating and Representing are ambiguous as all humane language is while some use them in a stricter sense than others do we must try by other explicatory terms whether we agree in the matter and not lay the stress of our Controversy upon the bare words So some Divines say that Christ suffered in the Person of a sinner when they mean not that he represented the Natural person of any one particular sinner but that his own Person was reputed the Sponsor of sinners by God and that he was judged a real sinner by his persecuters and so suffered as if he had been a sinner 47. As Christ is less improperly said to have Represented our Persons in his satisfactory Sufferings than in his personal perfect Holiness and Obedience so he is less improperly said to have Represented all mankind as newly fallen in Adam in a General sense for the purchasing of the universal Gift of Pardon and Life called The new Covenant than to have Represented in his perfect Holiness and his Sufferings every Believer considered as from his first being to his Death Though it is certain that he dyed for all their sins from first to last For it is most true 1. That Christ is as a second Adam the Root of the Redeemed And as we derive sin from Adam so we derive life from Christ allowing the difference between a Natural and a Voluntary way of derivation And though no mans Person as a Person was actually existent and offended in Adam nor was by God reputed to have been and done yet all mens Persons were Virtually and Seminally in Adam as is aforesaid and when they are existent persons they are no better either by Relative Innocency or by Physical Disposition than he could propagate and are truly and justly reputed by God to be Persons Guilty of Adams fact so far as they were by nature seminally and virtually in him And Christ the second Adam is in a sort the root of Man as Man though not by propagation of us yet as he is the Redeemer of Nature it self from destruction but more notably the Root of Saints as Saints who are to have no real sanctity but what shall be derived from him by Regeneration as Nature and Sin is from Adam by Generation But Adam did not represent all his posterity as to all the Actions which they should do themselves from their Birth to their Death so that they should all have been taken for perfectly obedient to the death if Adam had not sinned at that time yea or during his Life For if any of them under that Covenant had ever sinned afterward in their own person they should have died for it But for the time past they were Guiltless or Guilty in Adam as he was Guiltless or Guilty himself so far as they were in Adam And though that was but in Causâ non extra causam Yet a Generating Cause which propagateth essence from essence by self-multiplication of form much differeth from an Arbitrary facient Cause in this If Adam had obeyed yet all his posterity had been nevertheless bound to perfect personal persevering Obedience on pain of Death And Christ the second Adam so far bore the person of fallen Adam and suffered in the nature and room of Mankind in General as without any condition on their part at all to give man by an act of Oblivion or new Covenant a pardon of Adams sin yea and of all sin past at the time of their consent though not disobliging them from all future Obedience And by his perfect Holiness and Obedience and Sufferings he hath merited that new Covenant which Accepteth of sincere though imperfect Obedience and maketh no more in us necessary to Salvation When I say he did this without any Condition on mans part I mean He absolutely without Condition merited and gave us the Justifying Testament or Covenant Though that Covenant give us not Justification absolutely but on Condition of believing fiducial Consent 2. And so as this Vniversal Gift of Justification upon Acceptance is actually given to all fallen mankind as such so Christ might be said to suffer instead of all yea and merit too so far as to procure them this Covenant-gift 48. The sum of all lyeth in applying the distinction of giving Christs Righteousness as such in it self and as a cause of our Righteousness or in the Causality of it As our sin is not reputed Christs sin in it self and in the culpability of it for then it must needs make Christ odious to God but in its
Causality of punishment so Christ's Material or Formal Righteousness is not by God reputed to be properly and absolutely our own in it self as such but the Causality of it as it produceth such and such effects 49. The Objections which are made against Imputation of Christs Righteousness in the sound sense may all be answered as they are by our Divines among whom the chiefest on this subject are Davenant de Justit Habit Actual Johan Crocius de Justif Nigrinus de Impletione Legis Bp. G. Dowman of Justif Chamier Paraeus Amesius and Junius against Bellarm. But the same reasons against the unsound sence of Imputation are unanswerable Therefore if any shall say concerning my following Arguments that most of them are used by Gregor de Valent. by Bellarm. Becanus or other Papists or by Socinians and are answered by Nigrinâ—s Crocius Davenant c. Such words may serve to deceive the simple that are led by Names and Prejudice but to the Intelligent they are contemptible unless they prove that these objections are made by the Papists against the same sence of Imputation against which I use them and that it is that sense which all those Protestants defend in answering them For who-ever so answereth them will appear to answer them in vain 50. How far those Divines who do use the phrase of Christs suffering in our person do yet limit the sense in their exposition and deny that we are reputed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ because it is tedious to cite many I shall take up now with one even Mr. Lawson in his Theopolitica which though about the office of Faith he some-what differ from me I must needs call an excellent Treatise as I take the Author to be one of the most Knowing men yet living that I know Pardon me if I be large in transcribing his words Pag. 100 101. If we enquire of the manner how Righteousness and Life is derived from Christ being one unto so many it cannot be except Christ be a general Head of mankind and one Person with them as Adam was We do not read of any but two who were general Heads and in some respect virtually All mankind the first and second Adam The principal cause of this Representation whereby he is one person with us is the will of God who as Lord made him such and as Lawgiver and Judge did so account him But 2. How far is he One person with us Ans 1. In general so far as it pleased God to make him so and no further 2. In particular He and we are one so far 1. As to make him liable to the penalty of the Law for us 2. So far as to free us from that obligation and derive the benefit of his death to us Though Christ be so far one with us as to be lyable unto the penalty of the Law and to suffer it and upon this suffering we are freed yet Christ is not the sinner nor the sinner Christ Christ is the Word made flesh innocent without sin an universal Priest and King but we are none of these Though we be accounted as one person in Law with him by a Trope yet in proper sence it cannot be said that in Christ's Satisfying we satisfied for our own sins For then we should have been the Word made flesh able to plead Innocency c. All which are false impossible blasphemous if affirmed by any It 's true we are so one with him that he satisfied for us and the benefit of this Satisfaction redounds to us and is communicable to all upon certain termes though not actually communicated to all From this Unity and Identity of person in Law if I may so speak it followeth clearly that Christ's sufferings were not only Afflictions but Punishments in proper sense Pag. 102 103. That Christ died for all in some sence must needs be granted because the Scripture expresly affirms it vid. reliqua There is another question unprofitably handled Whether the Propitiation which includeth both Satisfaction and Merit be to be ascribed to the Active or Passive Obedience of Christ Ans 1. Both his Active Personal Perfect and Perpetual Obedience which by reason of his humane nature assumed and subjection unto God was due and also that Obedience to the great and transcendent Command of suffering the death of the Cross both concur as Causes of Remission and Justification 2. The Scriptures usually ascribe it to the Blood Death Sacrifice of Christ and never to the Personal Active Obedience of Christ's to the Moral Law 3. Yet this Active Obedience is necessary because without it he could not have offered that great Sacrifice of himself without spot to God And if it had not been without spot it could not have been propitiatory and effectual for Expiation 4. If Christ as our Surety had performed for us perfect and perpetual Obedience so that we might have been judged to have perfectly and fully kept the Law by him then no sin could have been chargeable upon us and the Death of Christ had been needless and superfluous 5. Christs Propitiation freeth the Believer not only from the obligation unto punishment of sense but of loss and procured for him not only deliverance from evil deserved but the enjoyment of all good necessary to our full happiness Therefore there is no ground of Scripture for that opinion that the Death of Christ and his Sufferings free us from punishments and by his Active Obedience imputed to us we are made righteous and the heirs of life 6. If Christ was bound to perform perfect and perpetual Obedience for us and he also performed it for us then we are freed not only from sin but Obedience too And this Obedience as distinct and separate from Obedience unto death may be pleaded for Justification of Life and will be sufficient to carry the Cause For the tenor of the Law was this Do this and live And if man do this by himself or Surety so as that the Lawgiver and supreme Judg accept it the Law can require no more It could not bind to perfect Obedience and to punishment too There was never any such Law made by God or just men Before I conclude this particular of the extent of Christs Merit and Propitiation I thought good to inform the Reader that as the Propitiation of Christ maketh no man absolutely but upon certain terms pardonable and savable so it was never made either to prevent all sin or all punishments For it presupposeth man both sinful and miserable And we know that the Guilt and Punishment of Adams sin lyeth heavy on all his posterity to this day And not only that but the guilt of actual and personal sins lyeth wholly upon us whilest impenitent and unbelieving and so out of Christ And the Regenerate themselves are not fully freed from all punishments till the final Resurrection and Judgment So that his Propitiation doth not altogether prevent but remove sin and punishment
it for us For it said not in words or sense Thou or one for thee shall Perfectly Obey or Suffer It mentioned no Substitute But it is the Law-giver and not that Law that justifieth us by other means § 28. But we have another Righteousness imputed to us instead of that Perfect Legal Innocency and Rewardableness by which we shall be accepted of God and glorified at last as surely and fully at least as if we had never sinned or had perfectly kept that Law which therefore may be called our Pro-legal Righteousness § 29. But this Righteousness is not yet either OURS by such a propriety as a Personal performance would have bin nor OURS to all the same ends and purposes It saveth us not from all pain death or penal desertion nor constituteth our Relation just the same § 30. It is the Law of Grace that Justifieth us both as giving us Righteousness and as Virtually judging us Righteous when it hath made us so and it is Christ as Judg according to that Law and God by Christ that will sentence us just and executively so use us § 31. The Grace of Christ first giveth us Faith and Repentance by effectual Vocation And then the Law of Grace by its Donative part or Act doth give us a Right to Vnion with Christ as the Churches Head and so to his Body and with him a right to Pardon of past sin and to the Spirit to dwell and act in us for the future and to the Love of God and Life eternal to be ours in possession if we sincerely obey and persevere § 32. The total Righteousness then which we have as an Accident of which we are the Subjects is 1. A right to Impunity by the free Pardon of all our sins and a right to Gods Favour and Glory as a free gift quoad valorem but as a Reward of our Obedience quoad Ordinem conferendi rationem Comparativam why one rather than another is judged meet for that free gift 2. And the Relation of one that hath by grace performed the Condition of that free Gift without which we had been no capable recipients which is initially Faith and Repentance the Condition of our Right begun and consequently sincere Obedience and Perseverance the Condition of continued right § 33. Christs personal Righteousness is no one of these and so is not our Constitutive Righteousness formally and strictly so called For Formally our Righteousness is a Relation of right and it is the Relation of our own Persons And a Relation is an accident And the numerical Relation or Right of one person cannot be the same numerical Accident of another person as the subject § 34. There are but three sorts of Causes Efficient Constitutive and Final 1. Christ is the efficient cause of all our Righteousness 1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life 2. And of our Gospel-Obedience And that many waies 1. He is the Meritorious Cause 2. He is the Donor by his Covenant 3. And the Donor or Operator of our Inherent Righteousness by his Spirit 4. And the moral efficient by his Word Promise Example c. 2. And Christ is partly the final cause 3. But all the doubt is whether his personal Righteousness be the Constitutive Cause § 35. The Constitutive Cause of natural bodily substances consisteth of Matter disposed and Form Relations have no Matter but instead of Matter a Subject and that is Our own persons here and not Christ and a terminus and fundamentum § 36. The Fundamentum may be called both the Efficient Cause of the Relation as commonly it is and the Matter from which it resulteth And so Christs Righteousness is undoubtedly the Meritorious efficient Cause and undoubtedly not the Formal Cause of our personal Relation of Righteousness Therefore all the doubt is of the Material Cause § 37. So that all the Controversie is come up to a bare name and Logical term of which Logicians agree not as to the aptitude All confess that Relations have no proper Matter besides the subject all confess that the Fundamentum is loco efficientis but whether it be a fit name to call it the Constitutive Matter of a Relation there is no agreement § 38. And if there were it would not decide this Verbal Controversie For 1. Titulus est fundamentum Juris The fundamentum of our Right to Impunity and Life in and with Christ is the Donative act of our Saviour in and by his Law or Covenant of Grace that is our Title And from that our Relation resulteth the Conditio tituli vel juris being found in our selves 2. And our Relation of Performers of that Condition of the Law of Grace resulteth from our own performance as the fundamentum compared to the Rule So that both these parts of our Righteousness have a nearer fundamentum than Christs personal Righteousness § 39. But the Right given us by the Covenant and the Spirit and Grace being a Right merited first by Christs personal Righteousness this is a Causa Causae id est fundamenti seu Donationis And while this much is certain whether it shall be called a Remote fundamentum viz. Causa fundamenti and so a Remote Constitutive Material Cause or only properly a Meritorious Cause may well be left to the arbitrary Logician that useeth such notions as he pleases but verily is a Controversie unfit to tear the Church for or destroy Love and Concord by § 40. Quest 1. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS Ans Yes In some sense and in another not § 41. Quest 2. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS Ans Yes In the sense before opened For all things are ours and his righteousness more than lower Causes § 42. Quest 3. Is Christs Righteousness OVRS as it was or is His own with the same sort of propriety Ans No. § 43. Quest 4. Is the formal Relation of Righteous as an accident of our persons numerically the same Righteousness Ans No It is impossible Unless we are the same person § 44. Quest 5. Is Christ and each Believer one political person Ans A political person is an equivocal word If you take it for an Office as the King or Judg is a political person I say No If for a Society Yea But noxia noxa caput sequuntur True Guilt is an accident of natural persons and of Societies only as constituted of such and so is Righteousness Though Physically Good or Evil may for society-sake befal us without personal desert or consent But if by Person you mean a certain State or Condition as to be a subject of God or one that is to suffer for sin so Christ may be said to be the same person with us in specie but not numerically because that Accident whence his Personality is named is not in the same subject § 45. Quest 6. Is Christs Righteousness imputed to us Ans Yes If by imputing you mean reckoning or reputing it ours so far as is aforesaid that is such a Cause of ours §
46. Quest 7. Are we reputed our selves to have fulfilled all that Law of Innocency in and by Christ as representing our persons as obeying by him Ans No. § 47. Quest 8. Is it Christs Divine Habitual Active or Passive Righteousness which Justifieth us Ans All viz the Habitual Active and Passive exalted in Meritoriousness by Union with the Divine § 48. Quest 9. Is it Christs Righteousness or our Faith which is said to be imputed to us for Righteousness Rom. 4. Ans 1. The text speaketh of imputing Faith and by Faith is meant Faith and not Christs Righteousness in the word But that Faith is Faith in Christ and his Righteousness and the Object is quasi materia actus and covenanted 2. De re both are Imputed that is 1. Christs Righteousness is reputed the meritorious Cause 2. The free-gift by the Covenant is reputed the fundamentum juris both opposed to our Legal Merit 3. And our Faith is reputed the Conditio tituli and all that is required in us to our Justification as making us Qualified Recipients of the free-Gift merited by Christ § 49. Quest 10. Are we any way Justified by our own performed Righteousness Ans Yes Against the charge of non-performance as Infidels Impenitent Unholy and so as being uncapable of the free-gift of Pardon and Life in Christ CHAP. IV. The Reasons of our denying the fore-described rigid sence of Imputation Though it were most accurate to reduce what we deny to several Propositions and to confute each one argumentatively by it self yet I shall now choose to avoid such prolixity and for brevity and the satisfaction of such as look more at the force of a Reason than the form of the Argument I shall thrust together our denyed Sence with the manifold Reasons of our denyal WE deny that God doth so Impute Christs Righteousness to us as to repute or account us to have been Holy with all that Habitual Holiness which was in Christ or to have done all that he did in obedience to his Father or in fulfilling the Law or to have suffered all that he suffered and to have made God satisfaction for our own sins and merited our own Salvation and Justification in and by Christ or that he was did and suffered and merited all this strictly in the person of every sinner that is saved Or that Christs very individual Righteousness Material or Formal is so made ours in a strict sense as that we are Proprietors Subjects or Agents of the very thing it self simply and absolutely as it is distinct from the effects or that Christs Individual Formal Righteousness is made our Formal Personal Righteousness or that as to the effects we have any such Righteousness Imputed to us as formally ours which consisteth in a perfect Habitual and Actual Conformity to the Law of Innocency that is that we are reputed perfectly Holy and sinless and such as shall be Justified by the Law of Innocency which saith Perfectly Obey and Live or sin and die All this we deny Let him that will answer me keep to my words and not alter the sense by leaving any out And that he may the better understand me I add 1. I take it for granted that the Law requireth Habitual Holiness as well as Actual Obedience and is not fulfilled without both 2. That Christ loved God and man with a perfect constant Love and never sinned by Omission or Commission 3. That Christ died not only for our Original sin or sin before Conversion but for all our sin to our lives end 4. That he who is supposed to have no sin of Omission is supposed to have done all his duty 5. That he that hath done all his duty is not condemnable by that Law yea hath right to all the Reward promised on Condition of that duty 6. By Christs Material Righteousness I mean those Habits Acts and Sufferings in which his Righteousness did consist or was founded 7. By his and our Formal Righteousness I mean the Relation it self of being Righteous 8. And I hold that Christs Righteousness did not only Numerically as aforesaid but also thus totâ specie in kind differ from ours that his was a perfect Habitual and Actual Conformity to the Law of Innocency together with the peculiar Laws of Mediator-ship by which he merited Redemption for us and Glory for himself and us But ours is the Pardon of sin and Right of Life Purchased Merited and freely given us by Christ in and by a new Covenant whose condition is Faith with Repentance as to the gift of our Justification now and sincere Holiness Obedience Victory and Perseverance as to our possession of Glory Now our Reasons against the denyed sence of Imputation are these 1. In general this opinion setteth up and introduceth all Antinomianism or Libertinism and Ungodliness and subverteth the Gospel and all true Religion and Morality I do not mean that all that hold it have such effects in themselves but only that this is the tendency and consequence of the opinion For I know that many see not the nature and consequences of their own opinions and the abundance that hold damnable errors hold them but notionally in a peevish faction and therefore not dammingly but hold practically and effectually the contrary saving truth And if the Papists shall perswade Men that our doctrine yea their 's that here mistake cannot consist with a godly life let but the lives of Papists and Protestants be compared Yea in one of the Instances before given Though some of the Congregational-party hold what was recited yet so far are they from ungodly lives that the greatest thing in which I differ from them is the overmuch unscriptural strictness of some of them in their Church-admissions and Communion while they fly further from such as they think not godly than I think God would have them do being generally persons fearing God themselves Excepting the sinful alienation from others and easiness to receive and carry false reports of Dissenters which is common to all that fall into sidings But the errors of any men are never the better if they be found in the hands of godly men For if they be practised they will make them ungodly 2. It confoundeth the Person of the Mediator and of the Sinner As if the Mediator who was proclaimed the Beloved of the Father and therefore capable of reconciling us to him because he was still well-pleased in him had not only suffered in the room of the sinner by voluntary Sponsion but also in suffering and doing been Civilly the very person of the sinner himself that sinner I say who was an enemy to God and so esteemed 3. It maketh Christ to have been Civilly as many persons as there be elect sinners in the World which is both beside and contrary to Scripture 4. It introduceth a false sence and supposition of our sin imputed to Christ as if Imputatively it were his as it is ours even the sinful Habits the sinful Acts and
to be such a Person and another thing to have the Act Passion Merit c. Accepted for that other Person And this latter signifieth either 1. That it was done by the other person mediately as being a cheif Cause acting by his Instrument 2. Or that it was done for that other Person by another The first is our denyed sence and the second our affirmed sence Among us Sureties and Sponsors are of several sorts Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another sense of Sponsion in the Civil Law than is pertinent to the objectors use And in Baptism the same word hath had divers senses as used by persons of different intentions The time was when the Sponsor was not at all taken for the Political Person as you call it of Parent or Child nor spake as their Instrument in their name But was a Third person who because many parents Apostatized and more Died in the Childs minority did pass his word 1. That the Parent was a credible Person 2. That if he Dyed so soon or Apostatized he himself would undertake the Christian Education of the Child But the Parent himself was Sponsor for the Child in a stricter sense as also Adopting Pro-parents were as some take God-fathers to be now that is they were taken for such whose Reason will and word we authorised to dispose of the Child as obligingly as if it had been done by his own reason will and word so be it it were but For his good and the Child did own it when he came to age And so they were to speak as in the Childs name as if Nature or Charity made them his Representers in the Judgment of many Though others rather think that they were to speak as in their own persons e. g. I dedicate this Child to God and enter him into the Covenant as obliged by my Consent But this sense of Sponsion is nothing to the present Case They that lay all upon the very Name of a Surety as if the word had but one signification and all Sureties properly represented the person of the Principal obliged person do deal very deceitfully There are Sureties or Sponsors 1. For some Duty 2. For Debt 3. For Punishment 1. It is one thing to undertake that another shall do a Commanded duty 2. It 's another thing to undertake that else I will do it for him 3. It 's another thing to be Surety that he shall pay a Debt or else I will pay it for him 4. It 's another thing to undertake that he shall suffer a penalty or else to suffer for him or make a Valuable Compensation 1. And it 's one kind of Surety that becometh a second party in the bond and so maketh himself a debtor 2. And it s another sort of Surety that undertaketh only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a Friend who may pay it on such Conditions as he and the Creditor think meet without the Debtors knowledg Every Novice that will but open Calvin may see that Fidejussor and Sponsor are words of very various signification and that they seldom or never signifie the Person Natural or Political as you call it of the Principal Sponsor est qui sponte non rogatus pro alio promittit ut Accurs vel quicunque spondet maximè pro aliis Fidejubere est suo periculo fore id de quo agitur recipere Vel fidem suam pro alio obligare He is called Adpromissor and he is Debtor but not the same person with the Principal but his promise is accessoria obligatio non principalis Therefore Fidejussor sive Intercessor non est conveniendus nisi prius debitore principali convento Fidejussores a correis ita differunt quod hi suo proprio morbo laborant illi vero alieno tenentur Quare fideijussori magis succurrendum censent Veniâ namque digni sunt qui alienâ tenentur Culpâ cujusmodi sunt fidejussores pro alieno debito obligati inquit Calv. There must be somewhat more than the bare name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once used of Christ as Mediator of Gods Covenant or the name of a Surety as now used among men that must go to prove that the Mediator and the several sinners are the same Legal Persons in Gods account But seeing Legal-Personality is but a Relation of our Natural person to another Natural person that we may not quarrel and tear the Church when really we differ not 1. Let our agreement be noted 2. Our difference intelligibly stated 1. It is granted not only by Dr. Tullie but others that accurately handle the Controversie 1. That Christ and the Believer never were nor are our Natural person and that no union with him maketh us to be Christ or God nor him to be Peter John or Paul c. That we know of no third sort of Natural person which is neither Jesus nor Peter John c. But composed of both united which is constituted by our Union For though it be agreed on that the same Spirit that is in Christ is operatively also in all his Members and that therefore our Communion with him is more than Relative and that from this Real-Communion the name of a Real-Vnion may be used yet here the Real-Vnion is not Personal as the same Sun quickeneth and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and a Plant and yet maketh them not our person Therefore he that will say we are Physically one with Christ and not only Relatively but tell us ONE What and make his words Intelligible and must deny that we are ONE PERSON and that by that time we are not like to be found differing But remember that while Physical Communion is confessed by all what VNION we shall from thence be said to have this Foundation being agreed on is like to prove but a question de realitione nomine 2. Yea all the world must acknowledg that the whole Creation is quoad praesentiam derivationem more dependant on God than the fruit is on the Tree or the Tree on the Earth and that God is the inseperate Cause of our Being Station and Life And yet this natural intimateness and influx and causality maketh not GOD and every Creature absolutely or personally One 3. It is agreed therefore that Christ's Righteousness is neither materially nor formally any Accident of our natural Persons and an Accident it is unless it can be reduced to that of Relation 1. The Habits of our Person cannot possibly be the habits of another inherently 2. The actions of one cannot possibly be the actions of another as the Agent unless as that other as a principal Cause acteth by the other as his Instrument or second Cause 3. The same fundamentum relationis inherent in One Person is not inherent in another if it be a personal Relation And so the same individual Relation that is one Mans cannot numerically be another Mans by the same sort of in-being propriety or adherence Two Brothers have a Relation in kind
the same but not unmerically 4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falsly and therefore taketh not Christ's Righteousness to be any more or otherwise ours than indeed it is nor imputeth it to us erroneously 5. Yet it is commonly agreed that Christ's Righteousness is OVRS in some sense And so far is justly reputed Ours or imputed to us as being Ours 6. And this ambiguous syallable OVRS enough to set another Age of Wranglers into bitter Church-tearing strife if not hindred by some that will call them to explain an ambiguous word is it that must be understood to end this Controversie Propriety is the thing signified 1. In the strictest sense that is called Ours which inhereth in us or that which is done by us 2. In a larger Moral sense that which a Man as the principal Cause doth by another as his Instrument by authorizing commanding perswading c. 3. In a yet larger sense that may be called OVRS which a third person doth partly instead of what we should have done had or suffered and partly for our use or benefit 4. In a yet larger sense that may be called OVRS which another hath or doth or suffereth for our Benefit though not in our stead and which will be for our good as that which a Friend or Father hath is his Friends or Childs and all things are Ours whether Paul or c. and the Godly are owners of the World in as much as God will use all for their good 7. It is therefore a Relation which Christ's Righteousness hath to us or we to it that must here be meant by the word OVRS Which is our RIGHT or Jus And that is acknowledged to be no Jus or Right to it in the foresaid denied sense And it is agreed that some Right it is Therefore to understand what it is the Titulus seu Fundamentum juris must be known 8. And here it is agreed 1. That we are before Conversion or Faith related to Christ as part of the Redeemed World of whom it is said 2 Cor. 5.19 That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing to them their sins c. 2. That we are after Faith related to Christ as his Covenanted People Subjects Brethren Friends and Political Members yea as such that have Right to and Possession of Real Communion with him by his Spirit And that we have then Right to Pardon Justification and Adoption or have Right to Impunity in the promised degree and to the Spirits Grace and the Love of God and Heavenly Glory This Relation to Christ and this Right to the Benefits of his Righteousness are agreed on And consequently that his Righteousness is OVRS and so may be called as far as the foresaid Relations and Rights import II. Now a Relation as Ockam hath fully proved having no real entity beside the quid absolutum which is the Subject Fundamentum or Terminus he that yet raileth at his Brother as not saying enough or not being herein so wise as he and will maintain that yet Christ's Righteousness is further OVRS must name the Fundamentum of that Right or Propriety What more is it that you mean I think the make-bates have here little probability of fetching any more Fuel to their Fire or turning Christ's Gospel into an occasion of strife and mutual enmity if they will but be driven to a distinct explication and will not make confusion and ambiguous words their defence and weapons If you set your quarrelsome Brains on work and study as hard as you can for matter of Contention it will not be easie for you to find it unless you will raze out the names of Popery Socinianism Arminianism or Solifidianism Heresie c. instead of real Difference But if the angriest and lowdest Speakers be in the right Bedlam and Billingsgate may be the most Orthodox places Briefly 1. The foresaid Benefits of Christ's Righteousness Habitual Active and Passive as a Meritorious Satisfactory Purchasing Cause are ours 2. To say that the Benefits are Ours importeth that the Causal Righteousness of Christ is related to us and the Effects as such a Cause and so is it self OVRS in that sense that is so related 3. And Christ himself is OVRS as related to us as our Saviour the Procurer and Giver of those Benefits And do you mean any more by OVRS If you say that we deny any Benefits of Christ's Righteousness which you assert name what they are If you say that we deny any true Fundamentum juris or reason of our title name what that is If you say that we deny any true Relation to Christ himself tell us what it is If you cannot say that you are agreed 1. If you say that the Benefit denied by us is that we are judged by God as those that habitually and actively have perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency our selves though not in our natural Persons yet by Christ as representing us and so shall be justified by that Law of Innocency as the Fulfiller of it we do deny it and say That you subvert the Gospel and the true Benefits which we have by Christ 2. If you say that we deny that God esteemeth or reputeth us to be the very Subjects of that Numerical Righteousness in the Habits Acts Passion or Relation which was in the Person of Christ or to have done suffered or merited our selves in and by him as the proper Representer of our Persons therein and so that his Righteousness is thus imputed to us as truly in it self our own propriety we do deny it and desire you to do so also lest you deny Christianity 2. If you blame us for saying That we had or have no such Relation to Christ as to our Instrument or the proper full Representer of each Believers particular Person by whom we did truly fulfil the Law of Innocency habitually and actively and satisfied merited c. We do still say so and wish you to consider what you say before you proceed to say the contrary But if you come not up to this where will you find a difference Object 2. Christ is called The Lord our Righteousness and he is made Righteousness to us and we are made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 c. And by the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Answ And are we not all agreed of all this But can his Righteousness be Ours no way but by the foresaid Personation Representating How prove you that He is Our Righteousness and his Obedience maketh us Righteous 1. Because the very Law of Innocency which we dishonoured and broke by sin is perfectly fulfilled and honoured by him as a Mediator to repair the injury done by our breaking it 2. In that he suffered to satisfie Justice for our sin 3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the Father all that Righteousness which we are truly the Subjects of whether it be Relative or Qualitative or Active that is 1. Our Right
the Maledictory Sentence of the Law Answ 1. If this be untrue it 's pity so worthy a Man should unworthily use it against peace and concord If it be true I crave his help for the expounding of several Texts Exod. 23.6 7. Thou shalt not wrest the Judgment of thy Poor in his Cause Keep thee far from a false Matter and the Innocent and Righteous slay thou not for I will not justifie the wicked Is the meaning only I will not absolve the wicked from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law of Innocency Or is it not rather I will not misjudg the wicked to be just nor allow his wickedness nor yet allow thee so to do nor leave thee unpunished for thy unrighteous judgment but will condemn thee if thou condemn the Just Job 25.4 How then can Man be justified with God or How can he be clean that is born of a Woman Is the sense How can Man be absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law Or rather How can he be maintained Innocent Psal 143.2 In thy sight shall no Man living be justified Is the sense No Man living shall be absolved from the Maledictory sentence of the Law Than we are all lost for ever Or rather no Man shall be found and maintained Innocent and judged one that deserved not punishment Therefore we are not judged perfect fulfillers of that Law by another or our selves Object But this is for us and against you for it denyeth that there is any such Justification Answ Is our Controversie de re or only de nomine of the sense of the word Justifie If de re then his meaning is to maintain That God never doth judg a Believer to be a Believer or a Godly Man to be Godly or a performer of the Condition of Pardon and Life to have performed it nor will justifie any believing Saint against the false Accusations that he is an Infidel a wicked ungodly Man and an Hypocrite or else he writeth against those that he understood not But if the Question be as it must be de nomine whether the word Justifie have any sense besides that which he appropriateth to it then a Proposition that denieth the Existentiam rei may confute his denyal of any other sense of the word So Isa 43.9 26. Let them bring forth their Witnesses that they may justified Declare thou that thou mayest be justified that is proved Innocent But I hope he will hear and reverence the Son Matth. 12.37 By thy words thou shalt be Justified and by thy words thou shalt be Condemned speaking of Gods Judgment which I think meaneth de re nomine Thy Righteous or unrighteous words shall be a part of the Cause of the day or Matter for or according to which thou shalt be judged obedient or disobedient to the Law of Grace and so far just or unjust and accordingly sentenced to Heaven or Hell as is described Matth. 25. But it seems this Learned Doctor understands it only By thy words thou shalt be absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law and by thy words contrarily condemned Luk. 18.14 The Publican went down to his House justified rather than the other I think not only from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law of Innocency but by God approved a sincere Penitent and so a fit Subject of the other part of Justification Acts 13.39 is the Text that speaketh most in the sense he mentioneth And yet I think it includeth more viz. By Christ 1. we are not only absolved from that Condemnation due for our sins 2. but also we are by his repealing or ending of the Mosaick Law justified against the Charge of Guilt for our not observing it and 3. Augustine would add That we are by Christ's Spirit and Grace made just that is sincerely Godly by the destruction of those inherent and adherent sins which the Law of Moses could not mortifie and save us from but the Spirit doth Rom. 2.13 Not the Hearers of the Law are just before God but the Doers of the Law shall be justified Is it only The Doers shall be Absolved from the Maledictory Sentence c. Or first and chiefly They shall be judged well-doers so far as they do well and so approved and justified so far as they do keep the Law which because no Man doth perfectly and the Law of Innocency requireth Perfection none can be justified absolutely or to Salvation by it Object The meaning is say some The Doers of the Law should be justified by it were there any such Answ That 's true of absolute Justification unto Life But that this is not all the sense of the Text the two next Verses shew where the Gentiles are pronounced partakers of some of that which he meaneth inclusively in doing to Justification Therefore it must include that their Actions and Persons are so far justified more or less as they are Doers of the Law as being so far actively just Rom. 8.30 Whom he justified them he also glorified And 1 Cor. 6. â—â— Ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God Many Protestants and among them Bezâ— himself expound in the Papists and Austins sense of Justification as including Sanctification also as well as Absolution from the Curse And so Arch Bishop Vsher told me he understood them As also Tit. 3.7 That being justified freely by his Grace And many think so of Rom. 4.5 he justifieth the Vngodly say they by Converting Pardoning and Accepting them in Christ to Life And Rom. 8.33 Who shall condemn it is God that justifieth seemeth to me more than barely to say God absolveth us from the Curse because it is set against Man's Condemnation who reproached slandered and persecuted the Christians as evil Doers as they did Christ to whom they were predestinated to be conformed And so must mean God will not only absolve us from his Curse but also justifie our Innocency against all the false Accusations of our Enemies And it seemeth to be spoken by the Apostle with respect to Isa 50.8 He is near that justifieth me who will contend with me Which my reverence to this Learned Man sufficeth not to make me believe is taken only in his sense of Absolution Rev. 22.11 He that is Righteous let him be justified still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which not only our Translaters but almost all Expositors take as inclusive of Inherent Righteousness if not principally speaking of it To speak freely I remember not one Text of Scripture that useth the word Justifie in this Doctor 's sense that is Only for the said absolution from the Curse of the Law For all those other Texts that speak for Justification by Christ's Grace and Faith and not by the Works of the Law as Rom. 3.20 24 28 30. and 4.2 5 25. 5.1 9 16 18. 1 Cor. 4.4 Gal. 2.16 17. 3.8 11 24. 5.4 c. do all seem to me to mean not only that we are absolved from the
Maledictory Sentence of the Law but also that we are first made and then accounted Persons first meet for Absolution and next meet for God's Acceptance of us as just and as Heirs of Life Eternal and meet for the great Reward in Heaven For when the Apostle denieth Justification by Works it is not credible that he meaneth only that By the Works of the Law no Man is absolved from the Curse of the Law But also No Man by the Works of the Law is before God taken for a Performer of the necessary Condition of Absolution and Salvation nor fit for his Acceptance and for the Heavenly Reward Answ 2. But let the Reader here note that the Doctor supposeth James to mean that By Works a Man is absolved from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law and not by Faith only For that James speaks of Justification in foro Dei is past all doubt And who would have thought that the Doctor had granted this of the Text of James But mistakes seldom agree among themselves Answ 3. And would not any Man have thought that this Author had pleaded for such an Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as justifieth not only from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law but also from the very guilt of sin as sin we being reputed not only pardoned sinners but perfect fulfillers of the Law by Christ and so that we are in Christ conform to the Fac hoc or preceptive part commanding Innocency Who would have thought but this was his drift If it be not all his angry Opposition to me is upon a mistake so foul as reverence forbids me to name with its proper Epithets If it be how can the same Man hold That we are justified as in Christ conform to the Precept of perfect Innocency And yet that The Scripture mentioneth no Justification at all in foro Dei besides that one which is Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law But still mistakes have discord with themselves Answ 4. It is the judgment indeed of Mr. Gataker Wotton Piscator Paraeus Vrsine Wendeline and abundance other excellent Divines that as sins of omission are truly sin and poena damni or privations truly punishment so for a sinner for his sin to be denied God's Love and Favour Grace and Glory is to be punished and to be pardoned is to have this privative punishment remitted as well as the rest and so that Justification containeth our Right to Glory as it is the bare forgiveness of the penalty of sin because Death and Life Darkness and Light are such Contraries as that one is but the privation of the other But this Learned Doctor seemeth to be of the commoner Opinion that the Remission of Sin is but one part of our Justification and that by Imputation of perfect Holiness and Obedience we must have another part which is our Right to the Reward and I think a little Explication would end that difference But doth he here then agree with himself And to contradict the common way of those with whom he joyneth Do they not hold that Justification is more than an Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law Answ 5. But indeed his very Description by Absolution is utterly ambiguous 1. Absolution is either by Actual Pardon by the Law or Covenant of Grace which giveth us our Right to Impunity 2. Or by Sentence of the Judg who publickly decideth our Case and declareth our Right determinatively Or by execution of that Sentence in actual delivering us from penalty And who knoweth which of these he meaneth This is but confusion to describe by an unexplained equivocal word And who knoweth what Law he meaneth whose Maledictory Sentence Justification absolveth us from Doth he think that the Law of Innocency and of Moses and the Law of Grace are all one which Scripture so frequently distinguisheth Or that each of them hath not its Malediction If he deny this I refer him to my full proof of it to Mr. Cartwright and elsewhere If not we should know whether he mean all or which 3. And what he meaneth by the Sentence of the Law is uncertain Whether it be the Laws Commination as obliging us to punishment which is not a Sentence in the usual proper sense but only a virtual Sentence that is the Norma Judicis or whether he mean the Sentence of God as Judg according to the Law which is not the Sentence of the Law properly but of the Judg It 's more intelligible speaking and distinct that must edifie us and end those Controversies which ambiguities and confusion bred and feed Answ 6. But which-ever he meaneth most certainly it is not true that the Scripture mentioneth no other Justification in foro Dei For many of the fore-cited Texts tell us that it oft mentioneth a Justification which is no Absolution from the Maledictory Sentence neither of the Law of Innocency of Moses or of Grace but a Justification of a Man's innocency in tantum or quoad Causam hanc particularem Viz. 1. Sometimes a Justifying the Righteous Man against the slanders of the World or of his Enemies 2. Sometimes a justifying a Man in some one action as having dealt faithfully therein 3. Sometimes a judging a Man to be a faithful Godly Man that performeth the Conditions of Life in the Law of Grace made necessary to God's Acceptance 4. Sometimes for making a Man such or for making him yet more inherently just or continuing him so 5. Sometimes for Justification by the Apology of an Advocate which is not Absolution 6. Sometimes for Justification by Witness 7. And sometimes perhaps by Evidence As appeareth Isa 50.8 Rom. 8.33 and so God himself is said to be justified Psal 51.4 Rom. 3.4 and Christ 1 Tim. 3.16 1 King 8.32 Hear thou in Heaven and do and judg thy Servants condemning the Wicked to bring his way upon his Head and justifying the Righteous to give him according to his Righteousness where the Sentence is passed by the Act of Execution Is this absolving him from the Curse of the Law So 1 Chron. 6.23 so Mat. 12.37 Jam. 2.21 24 25. where Justification by our Words and by Works is asserted and many other Texts so speak Frequently to Justifie is to maintain one or prove him to be just It 's strange that any Divine should find but one sort of sense of Justification before God mentioned in the Scriptures I would give here to the Reader a help for some excuse of the Author viz. that by praeter unam illam quae est Absolutio he might mean which is partly Absolution and partly Acceptation as of a fulfiller of the Precept of Perfection by Christ and partly Right to the Reward all three making up the whole but that I must not teach him how to speak his own mind or think that he knew not how to utter it And specially because the Instances here prove that even so it is very far from Truth had he so spoken Answ 7. But what
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
out all sin that he might confirm what he said both from the Faith of Abraham by which he was justified and from our Saviours Death by which we are delivered from sin But this is on the by 2. But saith Dr. T. The Orthodox abhor the contrary in sensu forensi Answ How easie is it to challenge the Titles of Orthodox Wise or good Men to ones self And who is not Orthodox himself being Judg But it seems with him no Man must pass for Orthodox that is not in so gross an error of his Mind if these words and not many better that are contrary must be the discovery of it viz. That will not say that in sensu forensi God esteemeth Men to have done that which they never did The best you can make of this is that you cover the same sense which I plainlier express with this illfavoured Phrase of Man's inventing But if indeed you mean any more than I by your sensus forensis viz. that such a suffering and meriting for us may in the lax improper way of some Lawyers speaking be called Our own Doing Meriting Suffering c. I have proved that the Doctrine denied by me subverteth the Gospel of Christ Reader I remember what Grotius then Orthodox thirty years before his Death in that excellent Letter of Church-Orders Predestination Perseverance and Magistrates animadverting on Molinaeus saith How great an injury those Divines who turn the Christian Doctrine into unintelligible Notions and Controversies do to Christian Magistrates because it is the duty of Magistrates to discern and preserve necessary sound Doctrine which these Men would make them unable to discern The same I must say of their injury to all Christians because all should hold fast that which is proved True and Good which this sort of Men would disable them to discern We justly blame the Papists for locking up the Scripture and performing their Worship in an unknown Tongue And alas what abundance of well-meaning Divines do the same thing by undigested Terms and Notions and unintelligible Distinctions not adapted to the Matter but customarily used from some Persons reverenced by them that led the way It is so in their Tractates both of Theology and other Sciences and the great and useful Rule Verba Rebus aptanda sunt is laid aside or rather Men that understand not Matter are like enough to be little skilful in the expressing of it And as Mr. Pemble saith A cloudy unintelligible stile usually signifieth a cloudy unintelligent Head to that sense And as Mr. J. Humfrey tells Dr. Fullwood in his unanswerable late Plea for the Conformists against the charge of Schism pag. 29. So overly are men ordinarily wont to speak at the first sight against that which others have long thought upon that some Men think that the very jingle of a distinction not understood is warrant enough for their reproaching that Doctrine as dangerous and unsound which hath cost another perhaps twenty times as many hard studies as the Reproachers ever bestowed on that Subject To deliver thee from those Learned Obscurities read but the Scripture impartially without their Spectacles and ill-devised Notions and all the Doctrine of Justification that is necessary will be plain to thee And I will venture again to fly so far from flattering those called Learned Men who expect it as to profess that I am perswaded the common sort of honest unlearned Christians even Plowmen and Women do better understand the Doctrine of Justification than many great Disputers will suffer themselves or others to understand it by reason of their forestalling ill-made Notions these unlearned Persons commonly conceive 1. That Christ in his own Person as a Mediator did by his perfect Righteousness and Sufferings merit for us the free pardon of all our sins and the Gift of his Spirit and Life Eternal and hath promised Pardon to all that are Penitent Believers and Heaven to all that so continue and sincerely obey him to the end and that all our after-failings as well as our former sins are freely pardoned by the Sacrifice Merits and Intercession of Christ who also giveth us his Grace for the performance of his imposed Conditions and will judg us as we have or have not performed them Believe but this plain Doctrine and you have a righter understanding of Justification than many would let you quietly enjoy who tell you That Faith is not imputed for Righteousness that it justifieth you only as an Instrumental Cause and only as it is the reception of Christ's Righteousness and that no other Act of Faith is justifying and that God esteemeth us to have been perfectly Holy and Righteous and fulfilled all the Law and died for our own sins in or by Christ and that he was politically the very Person of every Believing Sinner with more such like And as to this distinction which this Doctor will make a Test of the Orthodox that is Men of of his Size and Judgment you need but this plain explication of it 1. In Law-sense a Man is truly and fitly said himself to have done that which the Law or his Contract alloweth him to do either by himself or another as to do an Office or pay a Debt by a Substitute or Vicar For so I do it by my Instrument and the Law is fulfilled and not broken by me because I was at liberty which way to do it In this sense I deny that we ever fulfilled all the Law by Christ and that so to hold subverts all Religion as a pernicious Heresie 2. But in a tropical improper sense he may be said to be esteemed of God to have done what Christ did who shall have the benefits of Pardon Grace and Glory thereby merited in the manner and measure given by the free Mediator as certainly as if he had done it himself In this improper sense we agree to the Matter but are sorry that improper words should be used as a snare against sound Doctrine and the Churches Love and Concord And yet must we not be allowed Peace § 4. But my free Speech here maketh me remember how sharply the Doctor expounded and applyed one word in the retracted Aphorisms I said not of the Men but of the wrong Opinion opposed by me It fondly supposeth a Medium betwixt one that is just and one that is no sinner one that hath his sin or guilt taken away and one that hath his unrighteousness taken away It 's true in bruits and insensibles that are not subjects capable of Justice there is c. There is a Negative Injustice which denominateth the Subject non-justum but no◠injustum where Righteousness is not due But when there is the debitum habendi its privative The Doctor learnedly translateth first the word fondly by stolide and next he fondly though not stolidè would perswade the Reader that it is said of the Men though himself translate it Doctrina And next he bloweth his Trumpet to the War with this exclamation Stolide O
vocis mollitiem modestiam O stolidos Ecclesiae Reformatae Clarissimos Heroas Aut ignoravit certè aut scire se dissimulat quod affine est calumniae quid isti statuâ—nt quos loquitur stolidi Theologi Answ 1. How blind are some in their own Cause Why did not Conscience at the naming of Calumnie say I am now committing it It were better write in English if Latin translations must needs be so false we use the word fond in our Country in another sense than foolish with us it signifieth any byassed Inclination which beyond reason propendeth to one side and so we use to say That Women are fond of their Children or of any thing over-loved But perhaps he can use his Logick to gather by consequences the Title of the Person from the Title of his Opinion and to gather foolishly by consequence out of fondly To all which I can but answer That if he had made himself the Translator of my Words and the Judg of my Opinions if this be his best he should not be chosen as such by me But it may be he turned to Riders Dictionary found there fondly vide foolishly 2. The Stolidi Theologi then is his own phrase And in my Opinion another Mans Pen might better have called the Men of his own Opinion Ecclesiae Reformatae clarissimos Heroas compared with others I take Gataker Bradshaw Wotton Camero and his followers Vrsine Olevian Piscator Paraeus Wendeline and multitudes such to be as famous Heroes as himself But this also on the by § 5. But I must tell him whether I abhor the Scripture Phrase We are dead buried and risen with Christ I answer No nor will I abhor to say That in sensu forensi I am one political Person with Christ and am perfectly holy and obedient by and in him and died and redeemed my self by him when he shall prove them to be Scripture Phrases But I desire the Reader not to be so fond pardon the word as by this bare question to be enticed to believe that it is any of the meaning of those Texts that use that Phrase which he mentioneth that Legally or in sensu forensi every Believer is esteemed by God to have himself personally died a violent death on the Cross and to have been buried and to have risen again and ascended into Heaven nor yet to be now there in Glory because Christ did and doth all this in our very Legal Person Let him but 1. consider the Text 2. and Expositors 3. and the Analogy of Faith and he will find another sense viz. That we so live by Faith on a dying buried risen and glorified Saviour as that as such he dwelleth objectively in our Hearts and we partake so of the Fruits of his Death Burial and Resurrection and Glory as that we follow him in a Holy Communion being dead and buried to the World and Sin and risen to newness of Life believing that by his Power we shall personally after our death and burial rise also unto Glory I will confess that we are perfectly holy and obedient by and in Christ as far as we are now dead buried and risen in him § 6. And here I will so far look back as to remember That he as some others confidently telleth us That the Law bound us both to perfect Obedience and to punishment for our sin and therefore pardon by our own suffering in Christ may stand with the reputation that we were perfectly Obedient and Righteous in Christ Answ And to what purpose is it to dispute long where so notorious a contradiction is not only not discerned but obtruded as tantum non necessary to our Orthodoxness if not to our Salvation I ask him 1. Was not Christ as our Mediator perfectly holy habitually and actually without Original or Actual Sin 2. If all this be reputed to be in se our own as subjected in and done by our selves political or in sensu forensi Are we not then reputed in foro to have no original or actual sin but to have innocently fulfilled all the Law from the first hour of our lives to the last Are we reputed innocent in Christ as to one part only of our lives if so which is it or as to all 3. If as to all is it not a contradiction that in Law-sense we are reputed perfectly Holy and Innocent and yet sinners 4. And can he have need of Sacrifice or Pardon that is reputed never to have sinned legally 5. If he will say that in Law-sense we have or are two Persons let him expound the word Persons only as of Qualities and Relations nothing to our Case in hand or else say also That as we are holy and perfect in one of our own Persons and sinful unrighteous or ungodly in another so a Man my be in Heaven in one of his own Persons and on Earth yea and in Hell in the other And if he mean that the same Man is justified in his Person in Christ and condemned in his other Person consider which of these is the Physical Person for I think its that which is like to suffer § 7. pag. 224. He hath another touch at my Epistle but gently forbeareth contradiction as to Num. 8. And he saith so little to the 11 th as needeth no answer § 8. pag. 127. He assaulteth the first Num. of N. 13. That we all agree against any conceit of Works that are against or instead of the free Mercy of God And what hath he against this Why that which taketh up many pages of his Book and seemeth his chief strength in most of his Contest viz. The Papists say the same and so saith Bellarmine It 's strange that the same kind of Men that deride Fanatick Sectaries for crying out in Church-Controversies O Antichristian Popery Bellarmine c. should be of the same Spirit and take the same course in greater Matters and not perceive it nor acknowledg their agreement with them But as Mr. J. Humfrey saith in the foresaid Book of the word Schism Schism oft canted out against them that will not sacrilegiously surrender their Consciences or desert their Ministry The great Bear hath been so oft led through the streets that now the Boys lay by all fear and laugh or make sport at him so say I of this Sectarian Bugbear Popery Antichristian Bellarmine either the Papists really say as we do or they do not If not is this Doctor more to be blamed for making them better than they are or for making us worse which ever it be Truth should defend Truth If they do I heartily rejoyce and it shall be none of my labour any more whatever I did in my Confession of Faith to prove that they do not Let who will manage such ungrateful Work For my part I take it for a better Character of any Opinion that Papists and Protestants agree in it than that the Protestants hold it alone And so much for Papists and Bellarmine though I
are offended that I perswade you that by Melancholy Phantasms you set not the Churches together by the Ears and make People believe that they differ where they do not And you ask Who began the Fray Answ 1. Do you mean that I began with you You do not sure But is it that I began with the Churches and you were necessitated to defend them Yes if Gallus Ambsdorfius Schlusselburgius and Dr. Crispe and his Followers be the Church But Sir I provoke you to try it by the just Testimony of Antiquity who began to differ from the Churches In this Treatise I have given you some Account and Vossius hath given you more which you can never answer But if my Doctrine put you upon this Necessity what hindred you from perceiving it these twenty years and more till now O Sir had you no other work to do but to Vindicate the Church and Truth I doubt you had § VIII But pag. 15. You are again incredulous that All the Difference betwixt you and me or others of the same Judgment in the Point of Justification is meerly Verbal and that in the Main we are agreed And again you complain of your weak Legs Answ 1. I do agree with very many against their wills in Judgment because the Judgment may be constrained but with none in Affection as on their part Did I ever say that I differed not from you I tell you I know not what your Judgment is nor know I who is of your Mind But I have not barely said but oft proved that though not the Antinomians the Protestants are mostly here agreed in the Main If you could not have time to read my larger Proof that short Epistle to Mr. Allen's Book of the Covenant in which I proved it might have stopt your Mouth from calling for more Proof till you had better confuted what was given But you say Are perfect Contradictions no more than a difference in Words Faith alone and not Faith alone Faith with and without Works Excuse our Dulness here Answ 1. Truly Sir it is a tedious thing when a Man hath over and over Answered such Objections yea when the full Answers have been twenty years in Print to be put still to say over all again to every Man that will come in and say that his Legs are too weak to go see what was answered before How many score times then or hundreds may I be called to repeat 2. If I must pardon your Dulness you must pardon my Christianity or chuse who believe that there is no such perfect Contradictions between Christ's By thy Words thou shalt be Justified and Paul's Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law or not of Works and James's We are justified by Works and not by Faith only Must we needs proclaim War here or cry out Heresie or Popery Are not all these Reconcileable Yea and Pauls too Rom. 2. The Doers of the Law shall be justified 3. But did I ever deny that it is by Faith alone and without Works Where and when But may it not be by Faith alone in one sense and not by Faith alone in another sense 4. But even where you are speaking of it you cannot be drawn to distinguish of Verbal and Real Differences Is it here the Words or Sense which you accuse The Words you dare not deny to be Gods own in Scripture spoken by Christ Paul and James My Sense I have opened to you at large and you take no Notice of it but as if you abhorred Explication and Distinction speak still against the Scripture Words § IX Pag. 16. But you say Let any discerning Reader compare the 48 § of this Preface with the Words in pag. 5. of your Appeal to the Light and 't is likely he will concur with me in that Melancholy Phantasm or Fear For 't is worth the noting how in that dark Appeal where you distinguish of Popish Points i. e. some-where the Difference is reconcileable others in effect but in words we have no Direction upon which Rank we must bestow Justification nothing of it at all from you Name or Thing But why next to the All-seeing God you should know best your self Answ Alas Sir that God should be in such a manner mentioned I answered this same Case at large in my Confession Apologie Dispute of Justification c. Twenty years ago or near I have at large Opened it in a Folio Cathol Theol. which you saw yea in the very part which you take Notice of and now you publish it worth the Noting that I did not also in one sheet of Paper Printed the other day against a Calumnie of some Sectarian Hearers who gave me no Occasion for such a work Had it not been a Vanity of me Should I in that sheet again have repeated how I and the Papists differ about Justification Were you bound to have read it in that sheet any more than in many former Volumns It 's no matter for me But I seriously beseech you be hereafter more sober and just than to deal with your Brethren the Church and Truth in such a manner as this But by this Talk I suspect that you will accuse me more for opening no more of the Difference in this Book But 1. It is enough for to open my own Meaning and I am not obliged to open other Mens And my own I have opened by so many Repetitions in so many Books as nothing but such Mens Importunity and obstructed Minds could have Excused 2. The Papists minds sure may be better known by their own Writings than by mine The Council of Trent telleth it you What need I recite it 3. I tell you again as I did in my Confession that I had rather all the Papists in the World agreed with us than disagreed I like a Doctrine the better and not the worse because all the Christian World consenteth to it I am not ambitious to have a Religion to my self which a Papist doth not own Where they differ I am sorry for it And it pleaseth me better to find in any Point that we are agreed than that we differ Neither you nor any such as you by crying O Popish Antichristian shall tempt me to do by the Papists as the Dominicans and Jansenists and some Oratorians do by the Calvinists I will not with Alvarez Arnoldus Gibieuf c. make the World believe that my Adversaries are much further from me than they are for fear of being censured by Faction to be one of them If I would have been of a Church-Faction and sold my Soul to please a Party I would have begun before now and taken a bigger Price for it than you can offer me if you would Pag 17. You say Pile one Distinction or Evasion on another as long as you please as many several Faiths and Works and Justifications as you can name all this will never make two Poles meet Answ And do you cry out for War in the Darkness of Confusion
as long as you will you shall never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptism and List my self under the grand Enemy of Love and Concord nor to Preach up Hatred and Division for nothing as in the Name of Christ If you will handle such Controversies without Distinguishing of Faiths Works and Justifications I will never perswade any Friend of mine to be your Pupil or Disciple Then Simon Magus's faith and the Devils faith and Peters faith must all pass for the same and justifie accordingly Then indeed Believing in God the Father and the Holy Ghost yea and Christ as our Teacher King and Judg c. must pass for the Works by which no Man is Justified If Distinction be unsound detect the Error of it If not it is no Honour to a disputing Doctor to reproach it § X. But pag. 17. you set upon your great undeâ—eiving Work to shew the evil of ill using Words Words you say as they are enfranchised into Language are but the Agents and Factors of things for which they continually negotiate with our Minds conveying Errands on all occasions c. Let them mark that charge the vanity and bombast of Metaphors on others one word Signa should have served our turn instead of all this Whence it follows that their use and signification is Vnalterable but by the stamp of the like publick usage and imposition from whence at first they received their being c. Answ O Juniors Will not such deceiving Words save you from my Deceits But 1. Is there a Law and unalterable Law for the sense of Words Indeed the Words of the sacred Text must have no new Sense put upon them 2. Are you sure that it was Publick usage and Imposition from whence they first received their being How shall we know that they grew not into publick use from one Mans first Invention except those that not Publick use but God Himself made 3. Are you sure that all or most Words now Latine or English have the same and only the same use or sense as was put upon them at the first Is the change of the sense of Words a strange thing to us 4. But that which concerneth our Case most is Whether there be many Words either of Hebrew and Greek in the Scripture or of Latine English or any common Language which have not many Significations Your Reputation forbids you to deny it And should not those many Significations be distinguished as there is Cause Are not Faith Works Just Justice Justification words of divers senses in the Scripture and do not common Writers and Speakers use them yet more variously And shall a Disputer take on him that the use or signification of each is but one or two or is so fixed that there needeth no distinction 5. Is the change that is made in all Languages in the World made by the same publick usage and imposition from which at first they received their being 6. If as you say the same thing can be represented by different words only when they are Synonymous should we not avoid seeming to represent the same by Equivocals which unexplained are unfit for it Pag. 20. You tell me what sad work you are doing and no wonder Sin and Passions are self-troubling things And it 's well if it be sad to your self alone and not to such as you tempt into Mistakes Hatred and Division It should be sad to every Christian to see and hear those whom they are bound to Love represented as odious And you are still pag. 19. feigning that Every eye may see Men dealing Blows and Deaths about and therefore we are not wise if we think them agreed But doubtless many that seem killed by such Blows as some of yours are still alive And many a one is in Heaven that by Divines pretending to be Orthodox were damned on Earth And many Men are more agreed than they were aware of I have known a Knavish Fellow set two Persons of quality on Fighting before they spake a word to one another by telling them secretly and falsly what one said against the other Many differ even to persecuting and bloodshed by Will and Passion and Practice upon a falsly supposed great difference in Judgment I will not so suddenly repeat what Proof I have given of some of this in the place you noted Cath. Theol. Confer 11 12 13. There is more skill required to narrow differences than to widen them and to reconcile than to divide as there is to quench a Fire than to kindle it to build than to pull down to heal than to wound I presume therefore to repeat aloud my contrary Cautions to your Juniors Young-Men after long sad Experience of the sinful and miserable Contentions of the Clergie and consequently of the Christian World that you may escape the Guilt I beseech you whoever contradicteth it consider and believe these following Notices 1. That all Words are but arbitrary Signs and are changed as Men please and through the Penury of them and Mans imperfection in the Art of Speaking there are very few at all that have not various Significations 2. That this Speaking-Art requireth so much time and study and all Men are so defective in it and the variety of Mens skill in it is so very great that no Men in the World do perfectly agree in their interpretation and use of Words The doleful plague of the Confusion of Tongues doth still hinder our full Communication and maketh it hard for us to understand Words our selves or to be understood by others for Words must have a three-fold aptitude of Signification 1. To signifie the Matter 2. And the Speakers conceptions of it 3. And this as adapted to the hearers Mind to make a true Impression there 3. That God in Mercy hath not made Words so necessary as Things nor necessary but for the sake of the Things If God Christ Grace and Heaven be known believed and duly accepted you shall be saved by what Words soever it be brought to pass 4. Therefore Real Fundamentals or Necessaries to Salvation are more easily defined than Verbal ones For more or fewer Words these or other Words are needful to help some Persons to Faith and Love and Holiness as their Capacities are different 5. But as he that truly believeth in and giveth up himself to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant is a true Christian to be loved and shall be saved so he that understandeth such Words as help him to that true Faith and Consent doth know so much of the Verbal part as is of necessity to his Christianity and Salvation 6. And he that is such holdeth no Heresie or Error inconsistent with it If he truly love God it 's a contradiction to say that he holdeth an Error inconsistent with the Love of God 7. Therefore see that you Love all such as Christians till some proved or notorious inconsistents nullifying his Profession disoblige you 8.
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
Sanctification 2. Do you not invite me thus herein to be a Papist when they rank them no where but as you say the Protestants do 3. Do not you here proclaim that Papists and Protestants differ not about the necessity of Good-works to Justification But yet I that would make no Differences wider than they are can find some greater than you have mentioned Truly Sir I am grieved and ashamed to foresee how Learned Papists will make merry with such Passages and say See here how we differ from the Protestants See what it is for that the Protestant Doctors separate from the Church of Rome viz. Because we make Good-Works necessary to the First Justification which unless equivocally spoken is false and because the Protestants rank them with Inherent Holiness as we do What greater advantage will they desire against us than to choose us such Advocates And to shew the World that even where their keenest Adversaries condemn them and draw Men from them they do but justifie them Who knoweth what a Temptation they may make of such passages to draw any to Popery It is my assurance that such Over-doing is Vndoing and that mistaken Accusations of the Papists greatly advantage them against us which maketh me the more against such Dealing besides the sinfulness of pretending that any differences among Christians are greater than indeed they are But may not I think that you take the word Justification here in the Protestant Sense and not in the Papists when you say that they rank Good-work's-necessity as stretcht to the First Justification No sure For 1. Protestants use not to distinguish of a First and Second Justification which Papists do but of Justification as Begun Continued and Consummate 2. If it were so it were not true For the First Justification in the Protestant Sense is our first right to Impuniâ—y and Life Eternal freely given to Believers for the Merits of Christs perfect Righteousness and Satisfaction And Papists do not make Good-works unless Equivocally so called necessary to this but as a Fruit to follow it As for Remission of Sin I have else-where proved 1. That most commonly by that word the Papists mean nothing but that which we call Mortification or Putting away or destroying the Sin it self as to the habit and ceasing the Act. 2. That most of them are not resolved where the Remission of the Punishment which Protestants call Remission of Sin or Forgiveness shall be placed They differ not much as to its Time but whether it be to be called any part of Justification Some say yea some make it a distinct thing Most describe Justification by it self as consisting in our Remission of or Deliverance from Sin it self and the infused habit of Love or Righteousness all which we call Sanctification and the forgiveness of the Penalty by it self not medling with the Question whether the latter be any part of the former so much are they at a loss in the Notional part among themselves But they and we distinguish of Forgiveness as we distinguish of Penalties We have a right to Impunity as to everlasting Damnation upon our first being Justified but our Right becometh afterward more full and many other Penalties are after to be remitted § XIII Pag. 20. In my 42. Direct for the Cure of Church-divisions telling the Weak whom they must follow I concluded 1. That the necessary Articles of Faith must be made our own and not taken meerly on the authority of any and we must in all such things of absolute necessity keep company with the Vniversal Church 2. That in Matters of Peace and Concord the greater part must be our Guide 3. That in Matters of humane Obedience our Governours must be our Guides And 4. In Matters of high and difficult Speculation the judgment of one Man of extraordinary Vnderstanding and Clearness is to be preferred before the Rulers and the major Vote I instanced in Law Philosophy Physick Languages c. and in the Controversies of the Object of Predestination the nature of the Will 's Liberty Divine Concourse the determining way of Grace of the definition of Justification Faith c. Here I was intreated before God and my Conscience to search my self with what Design or Intent I wrote this and to tell you Who that One is that we may know whom to prefer and to whom in the Doctrine of Justification c. Answ How greatly do you dishonour your self and then you will impute it to me by insisting on such palpably abusive Passages Had you not been better have silently past it by 1. Doth not the World know that Heathens and Christians Papists and Protestants are Agreed on this general Rule 2. And will you make any believe that Definition of Justification is none of these Works of Art which depend on humane Skill How then came you to be so much better at it than I I find not that you ascribe it to any special Revelation which you have And if you should ascribe it to Piety and say Hoc non est Artis sed Pietatis opus I would go to many a good Woman before you Nor do you plead general Councils nor the Authority of the Church 3. And what sober Scholar will you make believe that by laying down this common Rule I signifie some One singular Person as an Individuum determinatum whom therefore I must acquaint you with These things are below a Grave Divine Pag. 21. Where you called me to seriousness or diligence in my search and I told you by what and how many Writings I have manifested my almost thirty years Diligence in this Controversie and that I am now grown past more serious and diligent Studies that I might shew you what a trifling way it is for a Man to wrangle with him that hath written so many things to tell the World what his studies of this Point have been and never to touch them but to call him a new to serious diligence You now expostulate with me whether you accused me for want of diligence I talk not of Accusing but I tell you that I have done my best and that it were a poor kind of dealing with your self if you had written against many as you have done against me twenty five years ago and very often if instead of taking any notice of your Labours I should call you now to diligent Studies As for your Lesson pag. 22. that tumbling over many Books without meditation may breed but Crudities c. It is very true and the calamity of too many of the literate Tribe who think that they have deserved Credit and Reverence when they say the words which others whom they would be joyned with have said before them Want of good Digestion is a common Disease of many that never complain of it nor feel any present trouble by it Pag. 22 23. You insinuate that about Retractation which I before detected I told you when and where I Suspended or Retracted the Book and for what
Reasons and you presently feign a Retractation of the Doctrine and of about sixty Books of Retractions It 's well that pag. 23. you had the justice not to justifie your Nec dubito quin imputatam Christi justitiam incluserit But to confess your Injustice was too much It is not your own Retractation that you are for it seems § XIV Pag. 23 24. You talk as if my supposing that both Justice and Imputation are capable of Definitions which are not the Things were a Fallacy because or is a disjunctive viz. When I say that the Definition of the one or the other is not the Thing Do you grant it of them Disjunctively and yet maintain the contrary of them Conjunct Yes you say Imputed Justice cannot differ from its true definition unless you will have it to differ really from it self And pag. 34. you say I am ashamed you should thus over and over expose your self as if supposing Definitions true they were not the same Re with the Definitum Good Sir talk what you please in private to such as understand not what you say and let them give you a grand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for your pains but you may do well to use more Civility to the reason of a Scholar though he hath not yet worn out his Freshmans Gown Answ This is no light or jesting Matter The comfort of Souls dependeth on it I see some Men expect that Reverence of their Scholarship should give them great advantage But if one argued thus with me for Transubstantiation I would not turn to him to escape the Guilt of Incivility If the Definition and the Definitum as in question now be the same Thing wo to all the Unlearned World and wo to all Freshmen that yet have not learnt well to define and wo to all Divines that differ in their Definitions except those that are in the right I know that a Word and a Mental Conception are not Nothing They may be called Things but when we distinguish the Things from their Signs Names or Definitions we take not the word Things so laxly as to comprehend the said Signs Names c. When we say that the Thing defined is necessary but to be able to Define it or actually to Define it is not necessary to Salvation it is notorious that we take Definition as Defining actively as it is Actus definientis and Definire sure is not the same with the Thing defined I have heard before your Letter told me that Definitum definitio idem sunt But I pray you let us not quibble almost all the World under a sentence of Damnation As long ago as it is since I read such words I remember our Masters told us I think Schibler in his Topicks for one that when they are taken Pro terminis Logicis definitio definitum non sunt idem but only when they are taken Pro rebus per eos terminos significatis and that there they differ in Modo significandi essentiam the definitum signifying the Essence confusedly and the Definition distinctly If you will take the Res definita for that which is strictly nothing but Rei conceptus inadaequatus seu partialis that is a Species and that not as the thing is Existent extra intellectum but as the conception is an operation of the Mind so I confess that he that hath a true Conception of a Species as meerly denominated or as defined hath the same conception of it And also the Thing named and the Thing defined is the same thing in it self Homo Animal rationale are the same that is it is the same essence which is denominated Homo and defined Animal rationale And it is the same Conceptus mentis which we have if true when we denominate and when we define But as Things are distinct from the knowledg and signs of Things nothing is Res that is not existent and nothing existeth but in Singulars or Individuals And as nothing can be defined but a Species so a Species or any Vniversal is nothing but a Notion or Ens rationis save as it existeth in the said Individuals And in the Individuals it is nothing but their being as partially or inadequatly taken or a Conceptus objectivus partialis whether it be of a thing really or only intellectually partible or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of Vno simplici conceptu activo Now if you take the word Definition for the Species as existent in Individuals it is really a part of the thing that is a Partial objective conceptus or somewhat of the Thing as Intelligible But this is to take Definition in Sensu passivo for the Thing defined which our Case distinguisheth But Sir I crave your leave to distinguish Real objective Beings from 1. The Knowledg 2. and the Names and other Logical Organs by which we know them and express our knowledg of them God Christ Grace Glory Pardon Justification Sanctification the Gospel-Doctrine Precept Promises Faith Hope Love Obedience Humility Patience c. are the Res definitae in our Case not as they are in esse cognito or in the notion or idea of them but in esse reali To Define properly is either 1. Mentally to conceive of these things 2. or Expressively to signifie such Conceptions agreeably to the nature of the things known or Expressively defined Which is if the Definition be perfect under the notions of a Genus and Differentia The Definition as in Words is but a Logical Organ as Names are also Notifying signs Mental defining is but the said distinct knowledg of the thing defined and is neither really the Thing it self nor usually of necessity to the Thing Which two I shall prove distinctly as to the sense of our Case 1. The Definition of Justification is either our Distinct knowledg or Expression of it Justification is not our Distinct knowledg or Expression of it Therefore the Definition of Justification and Justification are not the same Justification In sensu activo is not an Act of God and In sensu passivo is the Relative state of Man thereby effected But the Definition of Justification is neither The Definition of Justification is a work of Art but Justification is a Work of Grace A wicked damnable Man or a damned Devil may define Justification and so have the Definition of it but not Justification it self The Definition of Justification Faith Love c. is Quid Logicum but Justification Faith Love c. are things Physical and Moral A Man is Justified or hath Christs Righteousness imputed to him in his sleep and when he thinketh not of it but he hath not the Active definition of Justification in his sleep c. Other things be not the same Really with their Dâ—finition therefore neither is Justification Faith c. The Sun is not really the same thing with a Definition of the Sun nor Light Heat Motion c. A Brute can see taste feel smell that cannot
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
judicious Divines these were my words are to be preferred before Authority or Majority of Votes And Reader what Reason bound me to confine this Case to one only sort of Justification And why I say why must I confine it to a sort which Dr. Tully meaneth when my Rule and Book was written before his and when to this day I know not what he meaneth Though he at once chide at my Distinguishing and tell me that All Protestants agree in the Nature Causes and Definition and if all agreed I might know by other Mens words what he meaneth yet to all before-said I will add but one contrary Instance of many Cluto in his very Methodical but unsound Idea Theol. signalized in Voetii Biblioth defineth Justification so as I suppose best pleaseth the Doctor viz. Est Actio Dei Judicialis qua redemptos propter passiones justitiae Divinae satifactorias a Christo sustentatas redemptisque imputatas a peccatis puros consequenter a poenis liberos itemque propter Obedientiam a Christo Legi Divinae praestitam redemptisque imputatam justitia praeditos consequenter vita aeterna dignos ex miserecordia pronunciat In the opening of which he telleth us pag. 243. against multitudes of the greatest Protestants Definitions Male alteram Justificationis partem ipsam Justitiae Imputationem statui cum Justificatio non sit ipsa Imputatio sed Pronunciatio quae Imputatione tanquam fundamento jacto nititur And he knew no sense of Justification but Vel ipsam sententiae Justificatoriae in mente Divina prolationem sive Constitutionem vel ejus in Cordibus redemptorum manifestantem Revelationem And saith Priori modo factum est autem omnem fidem cum Deus omnes quibus passiones justitiam Christi imputabat innocentes justos reputaret cum ejus inimici adeoque sine fide essent so that here is a Justification of Infidels as innocent for Christs Righteousness imputed to them Quare etiam ut jam facta fide apprehendenda est The second which follows Faith is Faith ingenerating a firm perswasion of it Is not here sad defining when neither of these are the Scripture Justification by Christ and Faith And so § 32. the time of Justification by Faith he maketh to be the time when we receive the feeling of the former And the time of the former is presently after the Fall of all at once And hence gathereth that Ex eo quod Justificatio dicitur fieri propter passiones obedientiam Christi quibus ad perfectionem nihil deest nobis imputatas before Faith or Birth consequitur innocentiam justitiam in Redemptis quam primum perfectas ab omni macula puras esse and so that neither the pronunciation in mente Divina or imputation ullis gradibus ad perfectionem exsurgat But what is this pronunciation in mente Divina He well and truly noteth § 29. that Omnes actiones Divinae fi ex eo aestimentur quod re ipsa in Deo sunt idem sunt cum ipso Deo ideoque dependentiam a Causa externa non admittant Si tamen considerentur quoad rationem formalem hujus vel illius denominationis ipsis impositae in relatione ad Creaturas consistentem ipsis causae impulsivae assignare possunt c. This distinction well openeth how God may be said to justifie in His own Mind But what is that effect Vnde essentia vel mens Divina ita denominatur justificans Here he is at a loss neither truly telling us what is Justication Constitutive Sentential nor Executive but in the little part of Feeling God 's secret Act yet this dark Definer truly saith Ex sensu Scripturae verissime affirmetur hominem per fidem solam justificari quia ex nostra parte nihil ad Justificationem conferendum Deus requirit quam ut Justificationem in Christo fundatam credamus fide non producamus sed recipiamus If yet you would see whether all Protestants agree in the Definition of Justification read the multitude of Definitions of it in several senses in Learnrd Alstedius his Definit Theol. c. 24. § 2. pag. 97. c. Justificatio hominis coram Deo est qua homo in foro Divino absolvitur seu justus esse evincitur contra quemvis actorem Deo ipso judice pro eo sententiam ferente But what is this Forum Forum Divinum est ubi Deus ipse judicis partes agit fert sententiam secundum leges a se latas But where is that Est internum vel externum Forum divinum internum est in ipsa hominis Conscientia in qua Deus Thronum justitiae erigit in hac vita ibi agendo partes actoris judicis Forum Conscientiae But it is not this that is meant by the Justification by Faith Forum divinum externum est in qua Deus post hanc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium 1. Particulare 2. Vniversale This is true and well But are we no where Justified by Faith but in Conscience till after Death This is by not considering 1. The Jus ad impunitatem vitam donatum per foedus Evangelicum upon our Believing which supposing Faith and Repentance is our Constitutive Justification virtually only sentential 2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life pronounced specially by Execution Abundance of useful Definitions subordinate you may further there see in Alstedius and some wrong and the chief omitted The vehement passages of the Doctors Conclusion I pass over his deep sense of unsufferable Provocations I must leave to himself his warning of the dreadful Tribunal which I am near it greatly concerns me to regard And Reader I shall think yet that his Contest though troublesome to me that was falsly assaulted and more to him whose detected Miscarriages are so painful to him hath yet been Profitable beyond the Charges of it to him or me if I have but convinced thee that 1. Sound mental Conceptions of so much as is necessary to our own Justification much differ from proper Logical Definitions And that 2. Many millions are Justified that cannot define it 3. And that Logical Definitions are Works of Art more than of Grace which require so much Acuteness and Skill that even worthy and excellent Teachers may be and are disagreed about them especially through the great ambiguity of Words which all understand not in the same sence and few are sufficiently suspicious of and diligent to explain 4. And therefore that our Christian Love Peace and Concord should not be laid upon such Artificial things 5. And that really the Generality of Protestants are agreed mostly in the Matter when they quarrel sharply about many Artificial Notions and Terms in the point of Justification And yet after all this I shall as earnestly as this Doctor desire and labour for accurateness in Distinguishing Defining and Method though I will not have such things to be Engins of Church-Division And lastly Because he so oft and
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