mm
'■<• Btta I
• •■•-.•'•
trt
■
M
•'■•:•>•
23
^H
»»
*«S
31
*BSS?
COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND
ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE
LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
\
A DONATION
V
FROM
Beceived
TZ.yfiy*.
nizo
C/
— -
IMPUTATIVE
RIGHTEOUSNES
Truly Stated,
According to the T £ n b ti R *rf
the GOSPEL:
Manifefting,
In what Sence found P k 6 ? £
s T a n T s hold it :
And in what Serice L i b e r-
t-ines pervert it.
...,: ■ / —
By Richard Baxter, a compaffio-
riat Lamenter of the Churches Wounds
LONDON,
Printed by J. P. and are to be fold by Jonathan
Robhiforiy at the Golden Lion in St. Paul's
Church- Yard, and tFilliam Abingtoh, at the
black- fpread Eagle at the Weft End of St.
Paul's. 1 6yp %i )
The Preface.
Reader,
IF thou blame me for writing again, on
a Subjedt which I have written on fo
oft, and fo lately (fpccially in my s
Life of Faith, and Difputations of
Juftification) I (hall not blame thee for fo
doing •, but I ftiall excufe my felf by telling
thee my reafons. i . The occafion is many
loud accufations of my felf, of which I have
before given an account. I publiih it, be-
caufe I Fee the Contention ftill fo hot in the
Church of Chrift, and mens Charity de-
ftroyed againft each other ; one fide calling
the other S-jciniansflxA the other Ubertine$ y
(who are neither of them Chriftia??s)and if I
miftake not, for the mod part in the dark
about onePbrafe^zni that of mens devifing,
rather than about the fence : But if indeed it
be the fence that they differ about, it's time
to do our beft to re&ifie fuch Fundamental
Errours.
I find that all of us agree in all the Phrafes
of Scripture. And a Mans Sence is no
way known but by his expreiTions :« The
A 2 que-
the PREFACE.
queftion is then. Which is the ncceJfaryPhrafe
which we muft exprefs our fence by ? We
all fay that to Believers, Chrijl is made our
Righteoufneft ', We are made the Right eoufnefs
of God in him; He hath ranfomed y redeemed
us 7 as a Sacrifice for our fins > a price; He hath
merited and obtained eternal Re demotion for
us 7 that Sin is remitted^ covered^ not im-
puted^ that Right eaufoefs is Reckoned or Im-
puted to its; that Faith is Imputed to us for
Right eoufnefs, and any thing elfe that is in
the Scripture, ikit all this will not fervs
to make us Chriftians ! What is wanting i
Why, we muft fay that Chrijl s Right e ouf
neftis Imputed to ks as ours, and that Chrijl
Jati< fled for our fins I Well ; The thing fig-
feified feemeth to us true and good and
peedful, (though the Scripture hath as good
words for it as any of us can invent.) We
confent therefore to life thefePhrafes,fo be it
you put no falfe and wicked fence on thern
&y ether words of your own: Though we wilL
not allow them to be necejfary, becaufe not
in Scriprure^ (And we are more againft adr
aingnew Fundamental Articles ot Faith to
the Scripture, than againft adding new Or-
clgrs. Forms or Ceremonies). But yet it
will not ferve t what is yet wanting i why,
wb muft hold thefe words in aright fenfe J
W&afcf yet ate not your own devifed
words
f — "ft-w* W i
the PREFACE.
Words a fufficient expreffion of the matter f
When we have opened thofe words by other
-words, how will you know that we ufe thofe
other words in a right fence, and fo in infini-
tum. Our fence is,that Righteousness is Im-
puted to us 7 that iS) we are accounted Righte-
ous , becaufe for the Merits of Chrifts total
fulfilling the Conditions of his Mediatorial Co-
venant with the Father 5 by his Habitual Ho-
lme fs^ bis Actual Perfect Obedience, and his
Sacrifice^ Satisfactory Suffering for our fins in
cur (lead, freely without any merit or Conditi-
onal act of mans v God hath made an Act of Ob-
livion and Deed of Gift, -pardoning all fin y
juflifying and adopting and giving Kight to
the Spirit and Ltfe eternally to every one that
believingly accept eth Chrijl and the Gifts
with and by and from him. And when we
accept them > they are all ours by virtue of this
purchafed Covenant-Gift. This is our fhort
and plain explication. But yet this will
notfeive: Chriftianity is yet another thing.
What is wanting ? Why, we muft fay 5 that
Chrifl was habitually and actually perfectly
Holy and Obedient, Imputatively in our par-
ticular Perfons, and that each one of us did
perfectly fulfil that haw which requireth
perfect Habits and Acts in and by Chrifl irnpu-
tatively*) and yet did alfo in and by him fiffcr
our fehcslmputatively for not fulfilling it, and
A 5 Iwpu-
The PREFACE.
Imputatively did f our [elves both [atisfy God's
ZfuHice and merit Heaven 5 and that we have
our [elves Imputatively a Right eou[ne[s of per-
fect Holinejs and Obedience as Jtnleftj and
muft be jufiified by the Law of Innocency^ or
Works) as having our [elves imput at ivcly ful-
filled it in Chrift^And that this is our [oleRdgh-
teou[ne[s ; and that Faith it [elf is not imputed
to us for Righteou[ne[s^no not a meer particular
[ubordinate Right eou[ne[s^ answering the Con-
ditional part of the new $uftifying Covenant^
as necejfary to our participation of ChriSt^ and
his freely given Right eou[ne[s. And muft all
this go into our Chriftianity! But where is it
written < who devifed it < was it in the an-
cient Creeds and Baptifm ? Or known in
the Church for five thoufand years from the
Creation i I profefs I take the Pope to be
no more to be blamed for making a new
Church-Government>than for making us fo
many new Articles of Faith : And I will
not juftifie thofe that Symbolize with him,
or imitate him in either.
But yet many of the men that do this 5 are
good men in other refpe&s : and I love
their zeal that doth all this evil, as it is for
God and the honour of $e[us Ghrift^ though
I love it not as blind, nor their Errour or
their Evil. But how hard is it to know what
Spirit we are of i But it is the doleful
V ■• mi£
lhe jr ftxs r ai j&.
mifchief which their blind zeal doth, that
makethmefpeak •, That three or four of
them have made it their practice to back-
bite my felf> and tell People, He holdeth
dangerous opinions ; He is erroneous in the
pint of J unification. And bis Boots are un-
bound and have dangerous Doctrines ; He lea*
veth the old way oftfuftification, he favour eth
Socinianifm, and fuch-like : this is a fmall
matter comparatively. Back-biting and
falfe reports > are the ordinary fruits of bitter
contentious Zeal 7 and the Spirit of a Sect as
fuch doth ufually fo work(yea to confufion
and every evil work,) when it hath banillied
the Z<?*/ of Love and of Good Works. Jam.
3. 14, 15, i(5. Tit. 2. 14. And I never
counted it any great lofs to their followers,
that they diffwade them from the reading of
my writings (as the Papifts do their Profe-
lytes) as long as God hath bleftour Land
with fo many better.
But there are other effe&s that command
me once again to fpeak to them. 1 . One is,
that I have good proof of the lamentable,
Scandal of fome very hopeful Perfbns of
quality, who by hearing fuch language from
thefe men,have bin ready to turn away from
Religion, and fay, If they thus fet againft
and condemn one another, away wkh theui
all
A 4 2, Be-
2. Becaufe divers great Volumes and o
ther fad Evidence tells me that by their in-
vented fence of Imputation, they have tem-
pted many Learned men to deny Imputation
of Chrift'sRighteoufnefs abfolutely, and
bitterly revile it as a moft Libertine Irreli-
gious Do&rine.
3. But above all, that they do fo exceed-
ingly confirm the Papifts.I muft profefs that
be fides carnal Inter eft andkthe fnare of ill Edu-
cation, I do not think that there is any thing
in the World that maketh or hardneth and
confirmeth Papifts more, and hindreth their
reception of the Truth, than thefe fame well-
meaning people that are moft zealous againft
them, by two means : 1 . One by Divifi-
ons and nnrulinefs in Church-refpe&s, by
which fhey perfwade men,efpecially Rulers,
that without fuch a Center as the Papacy,
there will be no Union, and without fuch
Vid'snce as theirs,there will be no Rule and
Order. Thus one extreme doth breed and
feed another. 2 . The other is by this un-
found fence of the Do&rine of Imputation of
Chrifts Right eoufhefs, (with an unfound De-
fer ipt ion of Faith ) faying that every man
is to believe it as Gods word (or fide divind)
that his own fins are pardoned ^ which when
the Papifts read (that,thefe men make it one
of the chief Points of our difference from
Rome,)
Rome,) doth occafion them to triumph and
reproach us, and confidently diffent from
us in all the reft. 1 find in my felf that my
full certainty that they err in Tranfubftan-
tiation and fome other points, doth greatly
refolve me to negleft them at leaft,or fufpeft
them in the reft which feem more dubious.
And when the Papifts find men moft grojly
erring in the very point where they lay the
mainftrefsof the difference, who can ex-
pert otherwife, but that this fhould make
them defpife and caft away our Books, and
take us as men felf-condemned and already
vanquillied,und difpute with us with the pre-
judice as we do with an Arrian or Socinian ?
They themfelves that caft away our Books
becaufe they diffent from us^ may feel in
themfelves what the Papifts are like to do
on this temptation.
4. And it is not to be difregarded, that
many private perfons not ftudied inthefe
points, are led away by the Authority of
thefe men (for more than Papifts believe as
the Church believeth) to fpeak evil of the
Truth, and finfully to Backbite and Slan-
der thofe Teachers, whom they hear others
(lander : and to fpeak evil of the things
which they know not. And to fee Gods
own Servants feduced into "Disaffection and
abttfe and falfe Speeches againft thofe Mini-
fters
Iters that do moft clearly tell them the truth j
is a thing not filently to be cherifhed by a-
ny that are valuers of Love and Concord a-
mongChriftiaiis 5 and of the truth and their
Brethren's Souls, and that are difpleafed
with that which the Devil is moft pleafed
and God difpleafed with. Thefe are my
Reafons, fubmitted to every Readers Cen-
fure 5 which may be as various as their Ca-
pacities, In terefts or Prejudices.
My Arguments in the third Chapter I
have but briefly and haftily mentioned, as
dealing with the lovers of nakedTruth, who
will not refufe it when they fee it ift its felf-
fcvidence* But they that defire larger proof,
rnay find enough in Mr. Gataker and Mr*
Wot ton de Keconcil. and ih John Goodwin of
Jujlification, (If they can read him without
prejudice). From whom yetl differ in theMe-
ritorious Caiife of our Juftification,and take
in the habitual and a&ual Holinefs of
Chrift as well as his Sufferings 5 and equal in
Merits; and think that pardon it felf is meri-
ted by his Obedience as well as by his Satisfy
ttiomlo fay nothing of fome of his too harfh
expreffions, about the Imputation of Faith,
arid non- imputation of Chrifts Obedience,
which yet in fome explications he mollify -
cth, and fheweth that his fence is the fame
with theirs that place all our Righteoufnefs
iti
in remiflion or Sin; fuch as^belides thole af-
ter-mentioned) are Mufculus, Chamier y and
abundance more : And when one faith that
Faith is taken properly, and another that
it is taken Relatively in Imputation, they
feem to mean the fame thing : For Faith
properly taken is etf entiated by its Object ;
And vthztChrift's Office island whatF*/>A\f
Office is, I find almoft ail Proteftants are
agreed in fence, while they differ in the
manner of expreflion, except there be a real
difference in this point of jimple Perfonating
us in his perfect Holinefs, and making the
Perfon of a Mediator to contain effent tally in
fenfu Civili the very Perfon of every eleff (in-
ner 7 and every fuch one to have verily been and
done^ infenfu civili^what Chrifi was and did.
I much marvel to find that with mofl: the
Imputation of Satisfaction is faid to be for
Remiffion of 'the penalty , and Imputation of
perfect Holinefs for the obtaining of the Re-
ward Eternal Life; and yet that the far
greater part of them that go that way fay,
that Imputation of all Ghrifts Righteoufnefs
goethfirfl as the Gaufe^ and Rernijfion of Sin
followeth as the Efect : So even Mr. Robo-
rough pag. 5 5 .and others. Which feemeth
to me to have this Sence, as fGodfaidtoa
Believer, [I do repute thee to have perfectly
fulfilled the Law in Chrifi^ andfo to be no fin-
7iet\
ncr} and therefore forgive thee all thy Jin .3 In
our fence it is true and runs but thus \ldo
refute Chrift to have been perfectly jufi habit u*
ally and actually in the Per Jon of a Mediator
in the Nature of Man 7 and to, have Jujfered as
if he had beenafwnerjn the Per fin of a Spon-
for^byhis own Conjent , and that in the very
place jand (leadofjinners ; and by this to have
fatisl yed my Juftice, and by both to have
merited free zfuflification and Life^ to be
given by the new Covenant to all Believers :
And thou being a Reliever^ I do repute thee
jujlified and adopted by this f at isf actor y and
meritorious Righteoufnefs of Chrifl^ and by
this free Covenant- Gift^ as verily andjurely as
if thou hadjl done it andfufferedthyfelf.
For my own part 1 find by experience,
that almoft all Chriflians that I talk with of
it, have juft this very notion of our Juftifi-
cation. which I have expreffed^till fome par-
ticular Difputer by way of Controverfie
hath thruft the ether notion into their mind.
And for peace-fake I will fay again > what I
have elfewhercfaid 5 that I cannot think but
that almoft all Proteftants agree in the fub-
ftance of this point of Juftification ("though
fome having not Acutenefs enough to form
their Notions of it rightly, nor Humility e-
nough to fufpeil their Understandings >
wrang ? e about If r ords 7 fuppofing ic to be a-
bout
The PREFACE.
bout the Matter) -, Becaufe I find that all
are agreed, j . That no Eled: Pcrfon is Ju-
ftifiedor Righteous by Imputation while he
is an Infidei or Ungodly (except three pr
four that fpeak confufedly,and fupport the
Jntinomians)i .That God doth not repute us
to have done whatChrift did in our individu-
al natural Per Jons PhyJically:Thc Controver-
fie is about a Civil per fonating. 3 . That God
judgeth not falfly. 4. That Chrift was not
our Delegate and lnftrument fentbyusto
do this in our ftead, as a man payeth his
debt by a Servant whom he fendeth with the
money. 5 . That therefore Chrifts R ighte-
oufnefs is not Imputed to us, as if we had
done it by him as our lnftrument. 6. That
ail the fruits of Chrifts Merits and Satisfa-
ction are not ours upon our firft believing
(much lefs before). But we receive therp by
degrtes : we have new pardon daily of new
(ins : We bear caftigatory puniibments, e-
ven Death and Denials, or lofs of the grea-
ter affiftance of the Spirit : Our Grace is all
imperfed, Sec. 7. That we are under a Law
(and not left ungovemed and lawlefs) and
that Chrift is our King and Judge : And
this Law is the Law or Covenant of Grace,
containing, befides the Precepts of perfeft
Obedience to the Law natural and fuperad-
ded; a Gift of Christ with Pardon and life ;
but
the PREFACE.
but only on Condition that we thankfully
and believingly accept the Gift; And threat-
fling non-liberation, and afar forer punifh-
ment,to all that unbelievingly and unthank-
folly rejeft it. 8. That therefore this Te-
(lament or Covenant-Gift is God's Inftru-
ment, by which he giveth us our Right to
Chrift and Pardon and Life : And no man
hath fuch Right but by this Teftament-
Gift. 9. That this, (called a Teftament,
Covenant ^ Promife, and Law in feveral re-,
fpe&s) doth, befides the Conditions of our
firft Right, impofe on us Continuance
in the Faith> with fincere Holinefs, as
the neceflary Condition of our conti-
nued Juftification, and our a&uai Glori-
fication. And that Heaven is the Re-
ward of this keeping of the new Cove-
nant, as to the order of Gods Collat /^though
as to the value of the Benefit, it is a Free
G^purchafed.merited and given by Chrift.
10. That we (hall all be judged by this
Law of Chrift. 11. That we fhall all be
judged according to our deeds; and thofe
that have done good (not according to the
Law of Innocency or Works, but accord-
ing to the Law of Grace) (hall go into ever-
lafting life^and thofe that have done evil(not
by meer fin as fin againft the Law of Inno-
cency) but by not keeping the Conditions
of
the PREFACE.
of the Law of Grace, fhall go into ever-
lafting punithment. The fober reading of
thefe following texts may end all our Con-
troverfie with men that dare not grofly make
void the Word of God. Rev. 20. 12, 13.
22. 12. dr 2. 23.) 12. That to be Jufti-
fied at the day of Judgment, is, to be ad-
judged to Life Eternal^ and net condemned to
Hell. And therefore to be the caufe or
condition that we are Judged to Glory> and
the Caufe or Condition that we are $uHi-
fied then, will be all one. 13. That to
be Judged according to our deeds, is to be
zfuHified or Condemned according to them*
14. That the great tryal of that day (as I
have after faid) will not be, whether Chrift
hath done his part, but whether we hare
part in him, and fo whether we have belie*
ved, and performed the Condition of that
Covenant which giveth Chrift and Life.
15. That the whole fcope ofChrifFs Ser-
mons,and all the Gofpel,caileth us from fin,
on the motive of avoiding Hell, (after we
a>e reputed Righteous) and calleth us to
Holitiefs, Perfeverance and overcoming, on
the motive of laying up a good Foundati-
on, and having a Treafure in Heaven, and
getting the Crown of Righteoufnefs. 16.
That the after-fins of men imputed Righte-
ous deferve Hell, or at leaft temporal
punifli-
The PRE FACE.
punifhments, and abatements of Grace and
Glory. 1 7. That after fuch fins,efpecially
hainous, we muft pray for Pardon, and re-
pent that we may be pardoned, (and not fay
I fulfilled the Law in Chrift as from my
birth to my death, and therefore have no
more need of Pardon.) 18. That he that
faith he hath no fin, deceiveth himfelf, and
isalyar. 19. That Magiftrates muft pu-
nilh fin as Gods Officers ; and Paftors by
Cenfure in Chrifts name ; and Parents alfo
in their Children. 20. That if Chrifts #*-
linefs and perfect Obedience, and Satisfadion
and Merit, had bin Ours in Right and Impu-
tation^ zsfimply and absolutely and fully as it
was his own>vtQ could have no Guilty need
of Pardon, no fafpenfion or detention of the
proper fruits of it, no punilhment fbf fin,
(fpeciaily not fo great as the withholding
of degrees of Grace and Glory) ; And many
of the confequents aforefaid could not have
followed.
All this I think we are all agreed on ; and
none of it can with any face be denied by
a (^hriftian. And if fo 5 1. Then whe-
ther Chrifts perfect Holinefs and Obedience^
3nd Sufferings fNLerit and Satisfaction^ be all
given us, and imputed unto us at our firft
believing as Our own in the very thing it
felf, by a full and proper title to the thing :
Or
1he PKEFJCE.
Or only fo imputed to us, as to be judged a
jujt caufe of giving us all the effects in the de-
grees and timeforementioned as God pleafeth 7
let all judge as evidence ihall convince
them. 2 . And then, whether they do well
that thruft their devifed fence on the
Churches as an Article of Faith, let the
more impartial judge.
I conplude with this confeffion to the
Reader, that though the matter of thefe
Papers hath been thought on thele thirty
years, yet the Script is hafty 7 and defe-
ctive in order and fulnefs; I could not have
leifure fo much as to affix in the margin all
the texts which fay what I alTert : And feve-
ral things, efpecially the ftate of the Cafe,
are oft repeated. But that is, left once read-
ing fuificenot to make them obferved and
underftood; which if many times will do,
I have my end. If any fay, thatlfhould
take time to do things more accurately, I
tell him that I know my ftraights of time,
and quantity of bufinefs better than he doth;
and I will rather be defective in the mode
of one work, than leave undone the fub-
ftance of another as great.
7*ij,i*.it}t. Richard Baxter*
B The
c
The Contents.
Hap* i. The Hiftory of the Controverfie , In the
w Apojiles days : In the following Ages. Auguftine
and his followers Opinion* 'the Schoolmen* Lu-
ther : Iflebius : the Lutherans : An^r.Ofiander ;
The latter German Divines who were againfi the
Imputation of ChrijVs Attive Right eoufnefi: Our
Englifh Divines : Davenant's fnfe of Imputation.
Wotton. deReconcil. Bradftiavv, Gataker, Z?r.
Crifp, Jo.Simpfon> Randal, Towne, &c* And
the Army- Antinomians check} by the rifing of Ar-
minianifm there againji iu Jo. Goodwin, Mr*
Walker, and Mr* Roborough V Mr. Ant. Barges*
My Own endeavours h Mr. Cranden, Mr. Eyres,
&c. Mr. Woodbridge, Mr. Tho. Warren, Mr*
Hotchkis, M^Hopkins, Mr. Gibbon, Mr. War-
ton, Mr. Grailes, Mr. Jeflbp : What I then af~
ferted: Corn, a Lapide, Vafquez, Suarez, Gro-
tius de Satisf. Of the Savoy Declaration * Of the
Faith of the Cong'-gational-Divines : Their faying
that Chrifts Aftivt and Pajfive Obedience is impu-
ted for 'our fole Rigbteoufkefc confuted by Scrip-
ture. Gataker, Ufher, and Vines read and ap-
proved my Confeffion of Faith. Plaeeus bis Wri-
tings and trouble about the Imputation of Adam'x
Sin. Dr. Gel!, Mr. Thomdike, &c. vehemently
accuftng the doUrine of Imputed Right eoufnefi. The
Confent of all Cbriftians-> efpecially Prote(lants-> a-
hout the fenfe of Imputed Righteoufnefi I. The form
of Baptifm. 2 > The ApofUes Creed. 3. The Nicene
and Conftantinopolitan Creed. 4. Athanafius'x
Creed. 5. The Fathers fenfe : Laurentius his
Collections : Damafus his Creed. 6. The Augu-
B 2 fian
The Contents.
ftan fanfeflion. J* The En&lilh Articles^ Homilies
and Confejjion. 8. The Saxon Confeflion. 9. The
Wittenberg Confeffion. ic. the Bohemian Con-
feffion. 11. TheVdUtimttConfejJion. 12. The
Polonian Confeffims. 13. The Helvetian Con-
: ftffion* H- %he BaC\\ Confiflion. 15. The Ar-
gentine Confeffionof *the four Cities. 16. The Sy-
nod of Dort, and the Belgick Conftjfton. 17. The
Scotttfri Confejjion. 18. 2^ French Confejjion.
Whether Imputation of Pajfion and Satisfaction^ or
of meritorious Perfection go firji : How Cbriffs
. Righteoufnefi is called the formal Caufe,&c. That
it is confined that Cbrift^s Righteoufnefl is imputed
to Us , as our Cm was to him. Molinaeus ; Mare-
iius, Vaffeur, Eellarmine ix conjirained to agree
•with us. A recommendation of fome briefs moji
deary and fujficient Treatifes on this fubjefi i viz.
1. Mr. Bradfhaw j 2. Mr. Gibbon 5 s Sermon >
3. Mr. TrumanV Great Propitiation. 4. Pla-
cmshis Vijput.inTheJ. Salmur. 5. Le Blank 5 /
2/Ev/ej ; And thofe that will read larger , Mr. Wat-
ton, John Goodwin, and Vr. Stillingfleet.
Chap. 2. The opening of the Cafe^ by fome Diftinfti-
. ens^ and many Proportions : Joh.Crocius Concef-
fions premifed : Mr. LawfonV Judgment.
Chap. 3. A further Explication oftheControverfie.
Chap, 4. My Re ajws againfi the denied fen fe of Im-
putation and per fonating. The denied fenfe repeated
plainly* Forty-three Reafons briefly named.
Chap. 5» Some Obje£iions apfwered.
Chap. <5> 7,8. Replies to Dr. Tully 5 and a Defence
of the Concord of Proteftants againji his Military
Alarms and falfe pretence of greater difcord than
tbtreif*
Of
tfaS ^^^^^w^-wA ^ J^^sbd^
Of the Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs
(Material or Formal) to Believers :
Whether we are Reputed perfmally tohave fuffered on
the Cmfs, and to have fatisfied God's Jujiicefor our
own fins^and to have been habitually perfeUly Holy*
and ABually perfeUly Obedient, in Cbri\\, or by
C brill) and fo to have merited our ownjuftification
and Salvation. And whether Chriffs Righteoufnefs
Habitual A&ive and Taffive, be flrittly made our
own Righteoufnefs, in the very thing it felffmply
Imputed to M^or only be made ours in the effetts,and
Righteoufnefs Imputed to w when we believe, be-
caufe Cbrift hath fatisfied and fulfilled the Law,
and thereby merited it for us. 'the lafi is affirmed^
and the two firjt Queftions denied*
Have faid fo much of this fubjeft
already in my Confeffion, but ef-
ptcially in my Difputations of
Juftitication, and in my Life of
Faith that I thought not to have
meddled with it any more *, But
fome occaiions tell me that it is
not yet needlefs, though thofe that have mod need
will not read it. But while feme of them held*
that nothing which they account a Truth about the
f orm zndManner otlVorftrip is to be filenced for the
Churches peace, they fhould grant to me that Real
B 3 truth
(■ ° )
'truth fo near theFoundation(in their own account)
is not to be filenced when it tendetb unto Feace.
In opening my thoughts on this fubje& I (hall
reduce all to thefc Heads, i. I (hall give the brief
HHhry ofthisControverfie. 2. I (hall open the
true ftateof it, and aflert what is to be a(Terted,and
deny what is to be denied. 3. I (hall give you the
Reafons of my Denials. 4. I (hall anfwer fome
Objections,
CHAP. I.
the Hiflory of the Controverfie.
§i.XN the Gofpel it felf* we have firft ar>/Pj
JL ®°ft r * ne delivered by his own mouth* And
in that there is fo little faid of this Subjed
that I find few that will pretend thence to refolve
the Controverfie, for Imputation in the rigorous
fence. The fame I fay of the Ads of the Apoftles*
and all the reft of the New Teftament, except Pauls
Epiftles.
The ApoftleP^/, having to do with the Jews y
who could not digeft the equalizing of the Gentiles
with them, and Specially with the factious Jewifii
Chriftians, who thought the Gentiles muft become
Trofelytes to Mofes as well as to Chrift, if they
would be Juftified and Saved, at large confuteth
this opinion, and freeth the Confciences of the
gentile Chriftians from the Impofition of this yoke
(as alfo did all the Apoftles,^. 1 5*)And in his ar^
gumg
( 7 )
guing)proveth thattheMofaical Law is Co far from
being neceflary tothe Juftification of the Gentiles,
that Abraham and the Godly Jews themfelves were
not Juftified by it, but by Faith h And that by the
worlds of it (and corifequently not by the works of
the Law or Covenant of Innocency, which no man
ever kept) no man could ever be juftified : And
therefore that they were to look for Juftification by
Chri.ft alone, and by Faich in him, or bymeer
Chrr.ftianity ? which the Gentiles might have as
well as the Jews? the Partition-wall Being taken
down. This briefly is the true fcope of Paul in thefc
Con trover Ges.
§2. But mTauFs own days, there werefome-
things in his Epiftles which the unlearned and un-
liable did wreft,as they did the other Scriptures, to
their own deftru&ion, as Pet$r tells us, 2 Pet. 2.
And it feemeth by the Epiftle of James? that this
was part of it : For he is fain there earneflly to dis-
pute againft fome,who thought that Faith without
Chriftian works themfclves, would juftifie,- and
flatly affirmeth, that we are Juftified by Works? and
not by Faith only i that is, as it is a Practical Faith?
in which is contained a Confent or Covenant to obey?
which hrft putteth us into a juftified ftate > fo it is
that Pratlical Faith attually working by Love? and
the atiual performance of our Covenant? which by
rv ay of Condition^ necejfary to our Juftification? as
Continued and as Confummate by the Sentence of 'judg-
ment. Againft which fentence of James there is
not a fyllable to be found in Paul. But all the Scrip-
ture agreeth that all men (ball be Judged? that is,
Juftified or Condemned? according to their worlds.
But it is not this Controverfie (between Faith and
B 4 Wor\s)
Worty) which I am now to fpeak to, having; done
it enough heretofore.
§ 3. From the days of the Apoftles till Velagius
and Auguftine,this Contrpverfie was little meddled
with ; For the truth is, the Paftors andDod:ors
took i2ot Chriftianity in thofe days for a matter of
Shcolaftick fubtihy, but of plain Faith and titty.
And contented themfelves to fay that Chrift dyed
for our fins,and that we are Juftified by Faith > and
that Chrift was made unto us Righteoufnefs, as he
was made 'to us Wifdom, San&ification and Re-
demption*
§ 4. But withal thofe three firft Ages were fo in-
tent upon Holinets of Life, as that they a^di^ed
their Dodhine^their Zealand their conitant endea-
vours to it : And particularly to great aufterities to
their Bodies, in gre^t Faftings, and great contempt
of the World, and exercifes of Mortification, to
kill their flefhly Lufts, and deny their Wills, and
Worldly Interefts \ to which end at laft they got in-
to WildernefTes, and Monalieries, whgre,in Farting
and Prayer,and a fingle life, they might live as ic
were out of the World, while they were in it >
(Though indeed -persecution firft drove them thither
to fave themfelves )Into thefeDeferts and Monafte-
*ies thofe went that had moft Zeal, but not ufuallv
moft Knovpledg : And they turned much of their
Dcxfhine and difcourfes about thefe Aufterities,and
about the pra&ices of a Godly Life,and about all the
Miracles which were Cfome rcallyj done, and
(fqme feigned) by credulous foft people faid to
he done among them. So that in all thefe ages moft
of their writings are taken up, 1. In defending
tphriftianity agaipft the Heathens, which was the'
work
v y )
work of the Learned D*o<ftors. 2. And in confu-
ting fwarms of Herefies that fprung up. 3. And
in matters of Church-order, and Ecclefiaftical and
Monaftical difcipline. 4. And in the precepts of a
Godly Life : But the point of Imputation was not
only not meddled with diftin&ly, but almoft all the
Writers of thofe times, fecm to give very much to
Mans free-will^ and to works of Ho'inefs^ zndjvjfer-
ings, making too rare and obfcure mention of the
diftindl Interefts of Chrifts Merits in our Juftihcati-
ort, at leaft, with any touch upon this Controverfie:
Yet generally holding Pardon, and Grace and Sal-
vation only by Chriits Sacrifice and Merits uhough
they fpakg moft of Mans Holinef^ when they cal-
led men to feek to make fure of Salvation.
§ 5. And indeed at the day of Judgment, the
Queftion to be decidecL,wiIl nor be, Whether Chrilt
dyed and did his part,but,Whether we believed and
obeyed bim and did our part: Not,Whether Chrift
performed his Covenant with the Father, but,W he-
ther we performed our Covenant with him: For
it is not Chriffc that is to be judged, but we by
(Shrift.
§ <5- Eut Pelagiu* and Auguftinc difputing about
the Power of Nature andFreewiil and the Grace of
Chrift, began to make it a matter of great Ingenu-
ity (as Erafmus fpeaketh) to be a Chriftian. Pe-
lagius (a Brittain, of great wit, and continence,
and a good and fobcr life,as Aufiin faith,E/>i/?. 1 20.)
ftifly defended the Powerof Nature and Freewill,
and made Grace to confift only in the free Pardon
of all fin through Chrift, and in the DoElrine 3mA
Perfwaftons only to a holy life for the time to come,
with Gods common ordinary help. Auguftine copi-
oufty
1U
oufly (and juftly) defended God's fpecial eternal
Election of fome,and his fpecial Grace given them
to make them repent and believe, and prefevere ;
(For though he maintained that fome that were true
Believers, Lovers of God, Juftified and ;n a ftate of
Salvation, did fall away and perifh, yet he held
that none of the Elett did fall away andperijh h And
he maintained that even the Juftified that fell a-
way, had their Faith by a fpecial Grace above na-
ture.) Vid. Auguft. de bono Perfever. Cap. 8, & p.
& de Cor. & GraU Cap. 8, & 9. & alibi pafjim.
§ 7. In this their Controverfie, the point of Ju-
ftification fell into frequent debate : But no Con-
troverfie ever arofe between them, Whether Chrift's
"pergonal Kighteoufnefs considered Materially or For-
mally? was by Imputation made ours as Proprietors
of the thing it felf,diftin6t from its eflfedfc', or, Whe-
ther God reputed us to have fatisfied and alfo per-
fectly obeyed in Chrift. For Augujline himfelf,
while he vehemently defendeth free Grace,fpeaketh
too little even of the Pardon of fin : And though he
fay,that Free Pardon of fins is part of Grace, yet he
maketh Juftification to be that which we call San-
edification, that makes us inherently Righteous or
new-Creatures,by the operation of the Holy Ghoft:
And he thinketh that this is the Jufiification which
Paul plcadeth to be of Grace and not of works;
yet including Pardon of fin, and confefling xhztfome-'
times to Juftifie, figniiieth in Scripture,not to make
juft, but to judg jitji. And though in it felf this
be but de nomine? and not de m yet, 1. no doubt but
as to many texts ofScripturc^/fm was miftaken,,
though fome few texts Beza and others confefs to
Retaken in his fence; 2* And the expofition of
many
many texts heth upon it. .But ne that took Juiti-
tication to be by the operation of the Holy Ghoft
giving us Love to God, could not take it to be by
Imputation in the rigorous fence no queftion **nor
dottier*
§8. Butbecaufe, asfomethat, itfeems, never
read Auguftine y or underftood not plain words,have
neverthelefs ventured confidently to deny what I
have faid of his Judgment in the points of Perfeve-
rance (in my Tradt of Perfeverance)fo>it's like fuch
men will have no more warinefs what they fay in
the point of Justification * I will cite a few of An-
guftin's words among many, to (how what he took
Juftification to be, though I differ from him de
nomine.
Nee quia refti funt corde? fed etiam ut re&ifiat
cordejretendit Jujiitiamfuam, qua juftiftcat impium
Quo motu receditur ab illofonte vit&, cujnffo-
lius haufiu juftitia bibitur, bona feiU vita. Aug. de
Spir. & Lit. Cap. 7.
Dews eft enim quioperatur in eif & velle & operari y
pro bona volunt ate. H<ec eft Juftitia Dei, hoc eft >
quam Veus donat homini quum juftificat impium
Hanc Veijuftitiam ignor antes fuperbi Judai, &faam
volentes eonftituere^ juftitia Dei nonfuntfubjetti.-
Vet quippe dixit Jujiitiam y qua homini ex Deo eft,
fuam vero> quam put ant fibifitficere adfacienda man-
data fine ad jut or io & dono ejus qui legem dedit.* His
antem fimilesfunt qui cum profiteantur fe ejfe Chrifti-
anos-i ipfi gratia Cbrifti fie adverfantur utfe bumanif
viribus divina exiftiment implere mandata.Epitt. 120.
cap. 21. & 22. CrEpift. 200.
Et de Spir. & lit. c. 26. F adores juftiftcahuntur:,
& — 'Nontanquam per opera. Hamper Cratiam jufli^
ficentur i
pcemttr : I urn dicat Gratis luftificari hominem per ft-
dim fine operibut legis, nibilque aliud velit intelUgijn
to qmd dicit CjraW, ni(i quia juflificationem opera non
precedent: Aperte quippe alibi dicit) ft gratia, jam
non ex operibus : alioquin gratia non eft gratia* Sed
fie intclligendttm eft>> faftores Legis juftificabuntur^ut
fchmtts eos nan ejfe fatlores legis mfi ]u[lificentur '•> ut
mnjnftificatio facloribuf accedat, fed f adores legis
jujUficatio precedat : Quid eft enim aliud JuHficati,
/{team Ju(ii facli, ah Mo fcilicet qui jufti fieat Imptym,
nt ex impio fiatjuftus ? Aut certe it a diVium eft,
Juftificabuntur, acfi diceretur Jufti habebuntur, jufti
deputabuntur.
Et ibid. cap. 29. (jemes qua non feci abantur jufti-
tiam apprehenderuntjuf{itiam\Juftitiam autem qua ex
fide eftjmpretrando earn exVeo^on ex feipfts prefumen-
do h Ifrael vero perfequens legem jujUti*, in legem ju-
ftitit, non pervenit : Quire ? Quia non ex fide,
fed tanquam ex operibits : id eft tanquam earn
per feipfos operands h non in fe credentes operari
T)eum* Dem eft enim qui operatur in nobis .
Finis emm legis Cbriftus eft omni credemi. Et ad-
hue dubitamus qu£ ftnt opera legis, quibus homo
non juftiftcatur \ ft ea tanquam fua credederit fine ad'
jntorio & dmo Dei y quod eft ex fide Jeju Cbrifti- — -
Vtpoffit homo facer e bona & SanCta, Vem operatur in
famine per fidem JefuChrifti^ qui finis ad Jufti tiam
omni credenti ; id eft, per Spiritum incorporate fa-
Uufque membrum ejus, potcft quifque illo incrementum
imrinfecus dante, operari juftitiam* Jufti ficatio
autem ex fide impetratur Infantum jitft us, in
quantum Jalvus. Per banc enim fidem credemus,
qmd etiam nos Veus a mortuis excitethfnterim Spiritu,
ut in novitate ejus grattoe temper anter 0*jufte & pie
viva-
(13 )
vbamus in bocfecnlo — qui in KefurreUione fibi con-
grua, hoc eji^ injujiificatione precedit : . c. 30*
Fides impetrat gratiam qua Lex impleatur. 1
Cap. 28. pag. 3 1 5* Ibi Lex Dei, non tx omni parte
delata per injufiitiam, profeflo fcribitur^ renovata?
per gratiam : Necijiam infcriptionem, <]w*> Jujiifica-
tio eji,peterat ejficere in Judxii Lex in tabulis fcripta.
Ibid. Cap. 9. pag. 307,308. Juiiitia Veimani*
fejiataeji : non dixit ^ Juiiitia bominis veljujiitia pro-
pria voluntatis fed jujiitia Dei 9 Non qua Deus jajiui
efi 9 fed qua induit, bominem cum jujiificat impiam.
Hsc te[iificatur per Legem & Yropbetas. Huic quippe
tefiimonium perbibent Lex & Prophet£. Lex qu'idem
hoc ipfo, quod ]ubendo-> & minando, & neminem )u-
fiificando, fatii indicat dona Dei juliificari hominem
per Adjutorium Spiritus Juiiitia autem Deiper
fidem Jefu Cbrijii*, hoc eft, per fidem qua Creditur in
Cbrijiurn: ficut aittem ifta fides Cbr'ijtiditta non?ji>
qua Credit Chrijius, jic & ilia Juiiitia Dei non qua
Jujius eft Deus* Vtrumque htim Nofirum ejlfed idea
Dei&CbrijU dicitur quod ejus nobii largitate donatur.
Jujiitia Dtifme lege tji^quam Deus per Spiritual
Gratise Credenti confert fine adjutorio legis* Ju~
fiificati gratis per gratiam ipfius : non quod fine volun-
tate nojirafiat-y fed voluntas nojlra ofienditur infirma
per legem, ut fanet Gratia Voluntatem, & fanatavo-
luntas impleat Legem. — — Et cap. 10. Confugiant
per fidem ad Jujiificantem Gratiam, & per donum
Spiritus fuavitate ]u\\it'i£ ddetlati, poenam liter g mi*
nantis evadanu Vid. Ep. 89. q. 2. Et lib. 3. ad
Bcnifac. c. 7.
Et Trad. 3. 10 Joa,o. when he faith that, Om-
nesquiper Cbrijiurn Jujlificatijujii, non infejed in
iilj* he cxpouudech ic of Regeneration by Chrith
Et
( 14 )
Et Serm. 1 5. de verb. Apoft. Sine voluntate tua
non exit in te Jujiitia Dei. Voluntas non efi nip tua'y
Juftitia non eft nifi Dei : he expounds it of Holinefs.
~ — . T'raditus efi propter deliUa noftra, '& refurr<xit,
propter juftifipationem noftrarn. Quid eft, Propter
^fuftificationem noftrarn ? Vt jufttficet nos, & juftos
faciat nos. Eris opus Dei non falum quia homo es*fed
quiajuftus es: Qui fecit teftne te, non te juflificat fi-
ne te : Teamen ipfe juftificat, ne ft juftitia tua. ■
Dei juftitiam dat non liter a Occidents /^vivificacS
Spiritus r Vid. ^Grat. Chrifti Cap. t£t'f4>
Abundance fuch pafTages in Auguftine fully
(hew that he took Juftitication W fignifie San&ifica-
tion,or the Spirits renovation ofus > and thinks it is
called the Righteoufnefs of .God and Chrift, and
not ours, becaufe by the Spirit he woxketh it in us.
,And when he faith that bona opera fequuntur Juftifi-
catum 7 nonprecedunt Juftificandum (as in fence he
often doth) he meaneth that we are freely ifanttified,
before we do. good. I would cite abundance, but
for fweliing the writing, and tiring the Reader.
And his followers Proffer, and Fulgentius go the
fame way, as you may eafily find in their wri-
tings.
Jbhan. Crdcius in his copious Treatife of Juftifi-
cation,Di/p. p.p. 442. (kith^Auguftinum Juflificati-
onis nomine utramque partem compleSi, id eft, turn
Remijjionempeccatorum qu&proprie Juftificatio dici-
tur, tumSanUiftcationem Cum quo nos fentimus
quoad rem ipfam y tantum diffidemus in loquendi
forma.
§p. The Schoolmen being led by theSchok-
flick wit of Auguftine, fell into the fame phrafe of
fpeech and opinions, Lombard making Auguftine
his
his Mafter, and the reft making him theirs, till feme
began to look more towards the Semipelagian way.
§ lift And when Church-Tyranny and Igno-
rance, had obfcured the Chriftian Light, the true
fence of Juftiftcation by the Righteoufifefs of Chrift,
was much obfcured with the reft, and a world of
humane inventions under the name of Good works,
were brought in to take up the peoples minds i And
the merits of man, and of the Virgin M*rjf,founded
louder than the merits of Chrift, in too many pla-
ces : And the people that were ignorant of the true
Juftification, were tilled with the noife of Pardons,
Indulgences, Satisfactions, Penances, Pilgrimages,
and fuch like.
§ ii. Luther finding the Church in this dange-
rous and woful ftate, where he lived, did labour to
reduce mens minds and truft, from humane foppe-
jries and merits, and indulgences, to Chrift, >and to
help them to the Knowledg of true Righteoufnefs :
Eut according to his temper in the heat of his Spi-
rit, he fometimes let fall forne words which feem-
ed plainly to make Ghrifts own perfunal Righteouf-
nete in it felf to be every Believers own by Imputa-
tion, and our fins to be verily Chrifts own fins in
.themfelvesby Imputation : Though by many other
words he (heweth that he meant only, that out fins
were Chrifts in ihe-tffeiis and not in themfelves^nd
-Chrifts perfcnal Righteoufnefs: ours in the effe&s
,and not in it felf.
§ 12. But his Bock on the GalatimSy and fome
other words, gave occaiion to the erronrs of fome
then called Antinomians^ and afterward Libertines
(when fome additions were made to their crrours.)
Ofchefe J/k/w*/ Agricoh was the chief: Whom
Luther
( 16)
Luther confuted and /educed, better expounding
his own words : But Jflebius ere long turned back
to the Contrary extreme of Popery, and with Sido-
wia/and Julius Pflugj (three Pop»fh Bifhopsmade
for that puipofe) promoted the Emperours Interim
to the perfecution of the Proteinics.
§ 13. The Proteltant Reformers themfelves
(pake varioufly of this fubjed. Mod of them
rightly aflerted that ChrilVs Righteoufnefs was ours
by the way of Meriting our Righteoufnefs, which
was therefore faid to be Imputed to us. >• ne of
them follow'd Luthers Hrlt words, and I - i that
ChriiisfufFerings and all his pcrfbna! Righteoufnefs
was Imputed to us, fo as to be ours in it felf, and
when judged as if we had perfonally done what he
did, and were righteous with the fame Righteouk
nefs that he was.
§ 14- AmbfdorfiusjGalluSy and fome other hot
Lutherans were fo jealous of the name of works,that
they maintained that good works were not necef-
fary to Salvation. (Yea as to Salvation fome called
them hurtful : ) And Georgius Major a Learned fo-
ber Divine was numbered by them among, the He-
tetkks^ for maintaining that Good works were ne-
ceffary to Salvation > as you may fee in the perverfe
writings vf Chlufseburgiusand many others.
§15. Andreas Ofiander (otherwife a Learned
Protellant) took up the opinion, that we are Jufii-
fied by the vety eflential Righteoufnefs of God
himfelf. But he had few followers.
§ id- The Papifts faftenipg upon thofe Divines
who held Imputation of Chriits perfonal Righte-
oufnefs in it felf in the rigid fence, did hereupon
greatly infult againft the Proteftants 3 as if it had
been
( *7 )
been their common do&rine,and it greatly ftopt thd
Reformation : For many feeing that fome made that
a Fundamental in our difference.aiid .articulus ft un-
til & cadentis Ecclefi£> and feeing how eaiily it was
difproved, how fully it was againft the Doc/brine of
all the ancient Church,and what intolerable Confe-
rences followed,did judge by that of the reft of our
Dodhine, and were fettledly hardened againft all.
§ 17. The Learned Divines of Germany percei-
ving this , fell to a frefh review of the Controverfie,
and after a while abundance of very Learned Godly
Do&ors fell to diftinguifh between the A&ive and
Paflive Righteoufnefs of Chritf ; and not accurately
diflinguifhing of Imputation,becaufe they perceived
that Chrift fuffered in our ftead,in a fuller ienfe than
he could be faid to be Holy in our ftead, or fulfil the
Law in our (lead. Hereupon they principally mana-
ged the Controverfie, as about the fort of Righte-
oufnefs Imputed to us : And a great number of the
rnoft Learned famous Godly Divines ofthe Refor-
med Churches, maintained that Chrift's Paffive
Righteoufnefs was Imputed to us, even his whole
Humiliation or Suffering, by which the pardon of
all fins of Commiflion and OmilTion was procured
for us>but that his ASive Righteoufnefs was not Im-
puted to us, though it profited us > but was Juftitia
Perfon* to make Chrift a fit Sacrifice for our iins,ha-
ving none of his own,but the Suffering was his Jh-
ftitia Meriti.Uis Obedience they faid was performed
noflrobonO) non nojlro loco, for our good but not in
our ftead > but his Sufferings ,both noftro bono & Iocq,
both/ar our good and in our ft e ad : but neither of
them foftri&ly in nofhrk Perfona in our Perfon, as
if we did it by and in Chrift. The Writers that de-
C fended
^ 15 )
fended this were Carglus^ud that holy man Olevian
and Vrfine, and Partus^ and Scultetus-, and Pifca*
*or, Alfteditts, TVendeline^Beckjnan^ and many more*
He that will fee fhc fum of their arguings may
read it in Wendelinfs Theolog. lib. I. cap. 25. and in
Parens his Miscellanies alter Vrfine's Corpus 'The-
clog. After them C amero w ^h his Learned follow-
ers took it up in France. Leg* Cameron* p. $6^390.
*£bef Sal. vol. i# Placet Difp. de Juft. § 29. & Part.
2deSatisf. § 42. So that at that time (as Partus
tells you) there were four opinions : fome thought
Chrift's Paflive Righteoufnefs only was Imputed to
us i fome alfo his ABive inftead of our Adual Obe-
dience y fome alfo his Habitual inftead of our Ha-
bitual perfection * And fome thought alfo his Di-
vine Righteoufnefs was Imputed to us, becaufeof
our Union with Chrift, God vid Man. (Imputed
I fay * for I now fpeak not oWfiander's opinion of
Inhefion.) And Lubbertus wrote a Conciliatory
Tra&ate favouring thofe that were for the Paflive
"... part. And Forbes hath written for the Paflive only
' imputed. Molintus cafteth away the diftindtion,
Thef. Sedan, v. 1. p. 625. § 18.
§ 18. In England moft Divines ufed the phrafe,
that we were Juftified by the forgivenefs of fin and
the Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs, and being
accepted as Righteous unto life thereon : But the
fenfe of Imputation few pretended accurately to
difcufs. Vavenant who dealt moil elaborately in it,
and maintaineth Imputation fliflly, in terms >
yet when he telleth you what Protectants mean by
it, faith, that [Pojfknt nobis imputari^ non folum
noftrfpajjiones, alliones> qualitates^fed etiam extrin*
Jica qugdam-) qttx nee a nobis fluunt^ nee in nobis b&-*
rent
(19)
retit : T>e faUo autem Imputantur, quando illorum
intuitus & refpeUus valent nobis ad aliquem effedum^
eque acfi a nobU aut in nobis ejftnt. ( Note, that he
faith, but ad aliquem effedum, non ad omnem.) And
he inftanceth in one that is a flotbful fellow himfelf,
but is advanced to the Kings Favour and Nobility for
fome great Service done by his Progenitors to the Com-
mon-wealth. And in one that deferving death is par*
doned through the InterceJJion of a friend, or upon Ji me
fufferlng in hit jiead which the King impofeth on his
Friend* This is the Imputation which Davenant
and other fuch Proteftants plead fori which I
think is not to be denied. Were it not for length-
ening the difcourfe and wearying the Reader, I
would cite many other of our greateft Divines,who
plead for the Imputation of ChrifFs Righteoufnefs,
that Vavenant hereexpoundeth himfelt.
But fome lefs judicious grating upon a harfh and
unfound fence, Mr. Anthony Wotion a very Lear-
ned and Godly Divine of London, wrote, a Latine.
Treatife de Reconciliation, one of the Leamedlt
that hath ever been written of that fubje&,in which
he labcureth to difprove the rigid Imputation of
Chrifts Holinefsand Obedience to man •> and (hew-
eth that he is Righteous to whom all fin of Oiiiif-
Con and Commifiion is forgiven * and confuteth
thefe three Aflertions. I. That A Sinner is Repu-
ted to have fulfilled the Law in and by Chrift*2. And
being reputed to have fulfilled the Law* is taken for
formallyjujlasafulfillerofit. 3. And being form al-
ly juji as afullfller of the Law, Life eternal is due
to him by that Covenant, that faith, do this and thei
Vid. Part. 2.I1. 1. Cap. ii« pag. 152. Cumfequen-*
tibia. Thus and much further Mr. VSotton went to
C 2 the
( *0 )
the very quick of the Controverfie,and irrefragably
overthrew the rigid Imputation*
But Mr. William Bradfkaw, a Learned Godly
Nonconformity being grieved at the differences a-
bout the A&ive and Paffive Righteoufnefs, and
thinking that Mr. Wotton denied all Imputation of
the A&ive Righteoufnefs fwhich he did not, but
owneth it to be Imputed as a meritorious Caufe : )
Part. 2. li. i. Cap. 13. pag. 165. Ne Mud quidem
negaverim? imputari nobis illius jufiiiiam & obedi-
entiam? ut ad no\lrumfruUumredundet: Idunum
non comedo? Legem nos in Cbrifto & per Cbriftumfer*
vajfe? ut propter earn a nobis pr&jiitam vita sterna ex
f/dere y Hocfac et vives? debeatur. Mr. Bradfhaw I
fay attempted a Conciliatory middle way,which in-
deed is the fame in the main with Mr. Wotton" s: He
honoureth the Learned Godly perfons on each fide,
but maintaineth that the Adtive and Paffive Righte-
oufnefs are both Imputed^but not in the rigid fence
of Imputation denying both thefe Propositions.
1. "that Chrijibythe Merits of bis Paffive Obedience
only, bath freed us from the guilt of all fin, both Atfu-
al and Original? of Orniffion and Commiflion.
2. That in the Imputation of Cbrifis Obedience both
ABive and Paffive? God doth Jo behold and*confider a
[inner in Chriji? as if the [inner him felf had done and
fuffered tbofe very particulars rvbichChriji did andfuf-
feredforhim^nd he wrote a fmall book with great
accuratenefs in Englijh hrft, and Latin after,opening
the nature ofj uftihcation 5 which hath been deserved-
ly applauded ever fince. His bofom-Friend Mr. Tho.
Gatabgrfa man of rareLearning and Humility )nbxt
fct in to defend Mr. Bradfoaw's way, and wrote in
Lain Aniaudverfions on Lucius ( who oppofed
Pifcator,
( *«0
Tiftator, and erred on one tide for rigid Imputati-
on,) and on Pifcator who on the other fide was for
Judication by the Paffive Righteoufnefs only > and
other things he wrote with great Learning and
Judgment'in that caufe.
Abouc that time the Dodtrine of perf )nal Impu-
tation in the rigid fence began to be fully improved
in England-* by the Sedt of the Antinomians' tmlyet
called Libertines) of whom Dr. Crifpe was the moft.
eminent Ring- leader, whofe books cook wonderfully
with ignorant Profeflors under rhe pretence of ex-
tolling Chriit and free-Grace. After him rofe
Mr. Randal, and Mr. John Simpfin, and then Mr.
Tlovph, and at laft in the Armies of the Parliament*
$altmarft} z ar\(\ fo many mcre,as that it feemed to be
likely to have carried moft of the Profeflors in the
Army, and abundance in the City and Country
that way ; But that fuddenly (one Novelty being
fet up againft another) thfe opinions called Armini-
anifm role up againft it>and gave it a check and car-
ryed many in the Army andCity che clean contrary
way: And theft two Parties divided a great part of
the raw injudicious fort of the profeilbrs between
them, which ufually are the greateft part : but cf-
pecially in the Army which was like to become a
Law and example to others.
\ Before t?fe John Goodmnfnot yet turned Arr
nian) preached and wrote with great diligence a*
bout Juftification againft the rigid fence of Imputa-
tion, who being anfwered by Mr. Walke\\ and Mr*
Robourougbj with far inferiour ftrengthi his book
had the greater fuccefs for fuch anfwerers*
The Antinomians thenfwarming in London^ Mr,
Anthony Budget, a very worthy Divine was em-
C 3 ployed
£ 22 )
ployed to Preach and Print againft them i which
lie did in feveral books : but had he been acquaint-
ed with the men as I was, he would have found
more need to have vindicated the Gofpel againft
them than the Law.
Being daily converfant my felf with the Antino*
man and Ar minim Souldiers,and hearing their dai-
ly contefts, I thought it pitty that nothing but
one extreme (houldbe ufed to beat down that other,
and I found the Antimmian party far the ftronger,
higher, and more fierce,and working towards grea-
ter changes and fubverfions \ And I found that they
werejuft falling in with Saltmarfa that Cbriji hath
repented and believed for us, and that we mufl no more
queftion our Faith and Repentance^ than Chrift* This
awakened me better to ftudy thefe points h And be-
ing young, and not furnifhed with iqfficient read-
ing of the Controverfie, and alfo being where were
ho libraries, I was put to ftudy only the naked mat-
ter in it felf. Whereupon I fhortly wrote a final!
book called Aphorifms of Juftification, &c. Which
contained that Dodrine in fubftance which I judg
found ; but being the firft that I wrote, it had fe-
veral expreflions in it which needed correction \
which made me fufpend or retraft it till I had time
to reform them.Mens judgments of it tteafs various,
fome for it and fome againft it : 1 had4>efore been
a great efteemer of two books of one mme>Vindici<e
&rati£, MuPembles and Dr. e fvpiffes-> above moft
other books. And from them I had taken in the o*
pinion of a double Juftification, one in foroVeias
&n Immanent eternal A& of God, and another in
foro ConfiientU^ the Knowledg of that*, and I
knew no other : But now I faw> that neither of
thofe
I 23 ;
thofe was the Juftification which the Scriptinc
fpake of. But feme \\2tf-Antin0mians which were
for the Juftification before Faith, which I wrote a-
gainft, were moft angry with my book. And Mr.
Crandon wrote againft it, which I anfwered in an
Apologie, and fullyer wrote my judgment in my
Confeflion y and yet more fully in fome Difputations
of Juftification againft Mr. Burge s, w ho had in a
book of Juftification made fome exceptions > and
pag. 34.tf.had defended that [As in Chrift z s fitjjmng
we tv ere lookyl upon by God asfuffering in him *, fo by
Cbrijis obeying of the Law, we were beheld as fulfil-
ling the Law in him*'] To thofe Difputations I never
had any anfwer. And fince then in my Life of
Faith, I have opened the Libertine errours about
Juftification, and ftated the fence of Imputation.
Divers writers were then employed on thefe fub~
jedts : Mr. Eyers for Juftification before Faith(that
is, of eled Infidels) and Mr '. Benjamin Woodbridgy
Mr. Tho* Warren againft it. Mr. Hotchkis wrote
a confiderable Book of Forgivenefs of fw,defending
the founder way : Mr. George Hopkins, wrote to
prove that Juftification and Sanguification are e-
qually carryed on together: Mr. WartonJAx. Graile*
Mr. Jejfop, (clearing the fence of Dr. T'wijfe,) and
many otheis wrote againft Antimmianijm. But no
man more clearly opened the whole do&rine of Ju-
ftification, than Learned and Pious Mr. Gibbons
Minifter at Blacky Fryers, in a Sermon Printed in
the LeUures at St. Giles in the Fields. By fuch en-
deavours the before- prevailing Antinomianifm was
fuddenly and fomewhatmarvelouflyfuppreiTvd, fo
that there was no great noife made by it.
About Imputation that which I affertcd was a-
C 4 gainft
t»4 J
gainft the two fore-defcribed extremes \ infhort,
f That we are Jujiifiedby Cbrips whole Right eouf-
cc nefs, Taffive, Aftive, and Habitual^ yea the Di-
tC vine fo far included as by Union advancing the reft
' c to a valuable furficiency : That the PafTive,that is,
cc ChrifTs whole Humiliation \sfattifa£tory firft, and
u fo meritorious,and the Adiive and Habitual meri-
torious primarily. That as God the Father did
appoint to Chrift as Mediator his Duty for our
f c Redemption by a Law or Covenant, fo Chrift's
cc whole fulfilling that Law, or performance of his
" Covenant- Conditions as fuch (by Habitual and
"A&ual perfe&ion,' and by Suffering) made up
" one Meritorious Caufe of our Juftirication, not
■ c diftinguifhing with Mr. Gatdkgr of the pure mo-
C5 raJ,andthefervilepartofChrift's Ohedience,fave
f$ only as one is more a part of Humiliation than the
cc other, but in point of Merit taking in all : That
£c as Chrift fuffered in our Head that we might not
"fuffer, and obeyed in dur nature, that perfection
u of Obedience might not be neceffary to our Ju-
■* Q (lification, and this in the perfon of a Mediator
* c and Sponfor for us finners, but not fo in our Pe rjr
"fonsi as that we truely in a moral or civil fence,
u did al| this in and by him * Even fo God repu-
* c teth the thing to be as it is, and fo far Imputeth
<c Chrift'sRighteoufiiefs andMerits and Satisfaction
% to us, as that it is Reputed by him the true Me-
* ; ritcrious Caufe of our Juftification * and that for
u it God maketh a Covenant of Grace, in which he
* c freely giveth Chrift, Pardon and Life to all that
B accept the Gift as it is ? fo that the Accepters
* c are by this Covenant or Gift as furely juftified
|j and faved by Chrift's Righteoufnefs as if they bad
« Obeyed
( 2 * >
ff Obeyed and Satisfied themfelves- Not that Ghrift
<< meriteth that we (hall have Grace to fulfil the
<c Law our fdves and ftand before God in a Righ-
" teoufnefs of our own, which willanfwer the Law
" of works andjuftifieus: But that the Conditio
cc ons of the Gift in the Covenant of Grace being
cc performed by every penitent Believer, that Cove-
Pntmt doth pardon all their fi*s (asGods Inftru-
" ment) and giveth them a Right to Life eternal,
C; for Chrifis Merits. >■■
This is the fence of Imputation which I and o-
thers afferted as the true healing middle way- And
as bad as they are, among the moft Learned Papifis,
Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wottm, Vafjuez
by Davenant, Suarez by Mr. Burges, as fpeaking
for fome fuch Imputation, and Merit : Grotius de
Satis f is clear for it.
But the Brethren called Congregational or Inde-
pendantin their Meeting at the Savoy, Oft* 12.
1658. publifhinga Declaration of their Faith, Cap.
1 1 . have thefe words [flhofe whom God effectually
callethjoe alfo freely juftifietb y not by infuftng Rigb-
teoufnefs into them, but by pardoning their Shis, and
hy accounting and accepting their perfons as Righteous >
not for any thing wrought in them , or done by them,
but for Chrijis fahg alone : not by imputing Faith it
felfi the att of believing, or any other evangelical Obe-
dience to them, as their Righteouftefi ', but by Impu-
ting Chrijis Aftive Obedience to the whole Law, and
Paffive Obedience in hi* death for their whale and file
Rigbteoufnefr, they receiving and re fling on him and hit
Righteoufnefs by faith."]
Upon the publication of this it was varioully
fpoken of; fome thought that it gave the Papiftr
To
I 26 )
Co great a fcandal, and advantage to reproach the
Proteftants as denying all inherent Righteoufnefs,
that it was neceflary that we (hould difclaim it :
Others faid th^t it was not their meaning to deny
Inherent Righteoufnefs, though their words Co
fpake, but only that we are not juftified by it : Ma*
ny faid that it was not the work of all of that party,
but of fome few that had an inclination to fome of
the Antinomian principles, out of a miftaken zeal of
free Grace>and that it is well known that they differ
from us, and therefore it cannot be imputed to us,
and that it is beft make no ftir about it,leii it irritate
them to make the matter worfe by a Defence, & give
the Papifts too foon notice of it. And I fpake with
one Godly Minifter that was of their AfTembly,who^
told me, that they did not fubferibe it,and that they
meant but to deny Justification by inherent Righ-
teoufnefs. And though fuch men in the Articles
of their declared Faith,no doubt can fpeak intelligi-
bly and aptly, and are to be underftood as they
fpeak according to the common ufe of the words >
yet even able-men fbmetimes may be in this ex-
cepted, when eager engagement in an opinion and
parties, carryeth them too precipitantly, and ma-
keth them forget fomething, that fhould be remem-
bred. The Sentences here which we excepted a-
gainft are thefe two. But the firft was not much
offenfive becaufe their meaning was right \ And the
fame rv&rds are in the AJfembliesConfejJion^thoHgh they
might better have been left ouu
Scrip-
( *7 )
Scriptures. Declaration.
Rom. 4.3. What faith the C 1 Not by impu-
Scripture ? Abraham believed tmg Faith it fcjf,jart
n / j . 1 / • of Sieving, or any
G*rf, *arf U was counted to him othet . Evangelical Oc
for Rigbteoufnefs. bedience to them A
Ver. 5. Jo fcim fM wor\etb thdr Righteoufhcfs]
w*, &«* believeth on him that
Jujiifyetb theVngodly, his Faith is counted for Rigb-
teoufnefs.
Ver. p. For we fay that Faith was reckoned to A-
braham for Rigbteoufnefs : How was it then reck^
oned?
Ver. 1 1. And he received the fign of Circumcifwn^a
feal of the rigbteoufnefs of the Faith, which he had yet
being uncircumcifed, that he might be the Father of all
them that believe, that Righteoujnefs might be im-
puted to themalfo.< -Ver 13. Through the Rigbte-
oufnefs of Faith. 1 Ver. i<5. Therefore it is of Faith
that it might be by Grace. ; vid. Ver. 17, 18,
19 > 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. He was ftfongin Faithfully
perfrvaded that what he hadpromifed, he was able alfo
to perform S and therefore it was Imputed to him for
Rigbteoufnefs. Now it was not written for bis fake a-
lone that it was imputed to him, but for us alfo : to whom
it Jhall be imputed, if we for, who) believe on
him that raifed up Jefus our Lord from the dead.
Gen. 15. 5,6. Tell the Stars ■ -fo Jhall thy feed
be : And he believed in the Lord, and be counted it to
him for Rigbteoufnefs, Jam. 2. 21, 22, 23, 24. Was
not Abraham our Father juftified, by Works ? .
And the Scripture was fulfilled which faith, Abra-
ham believed God, and it was imputed to him for
Rigbteoufnefs. Luk-
r*8)
Luk.- i p. 17. Well done thou good Servant , Be-
caufe thou haft been Faithful in a very little \have thou
authority over ten Cities.
Mat* 25.34, 35, 40, Come ye bkjfed..—^ fori
was hungry and ye gave me Meat.
Gen. 22. i<5, 17, By my felf I have foorn. .
*7>ecaufe thou hajh done thii thing* ' — —
Joh. 16 '• 27. For the Father himfelf loveth you,
becaufe you have loved me and have believed that I
came mtfrom God. Many fuch paflages aye in Scrip-
ture.
Our opinion is, i\ That it is better to jufiifie and
expound the Scripture, than flatly* to deny it : If
Scripture fa oft fay, that Faith is reckoned or Impu-
ted for Right eoufnefs., it becometh not Chritfians,to
fay, It U not : But » to (hew in what fence it is, and
in what it is not. For if it be fo Imputed in no
fence-, the Scripture is made falfe : , If in any fence,it
fhould not be univerfally denied but with di-
ftindtion.
2. We hold, that in JuAification there is confi-
derable, r. The Purchasing and Meritorious Caufe
of Juftification freely given in the new Covenant.
This is only ChrifFs Sufferings and Righteoufnefs,
and fo it is Reputed of God, and Imputed to us*
2. The Order of Donation, which is, On Condi-
on of Acceptance h And fo 3. The Condition of
pur title to the free Gift by this Covenant > And
that is, Our Faith, or Acceptance of the Gift ac-
cording to its nature and ufe. And thus God Re-
puteth Faith, and Imputeth it to us,requiring but
this Condition of us (which alfo he workethin us)
by the Covenant of Grace > whereas perfect Obe-
dience
. ( 25> )
dience wm required of us, by the Law of Innocency.
If we err in this explication, it had been better
to confute us than deny God's Word.
Scriptures befides the former. Declaration.
i Joh. 2. 29. Every one [ * For their fok
which doth Righteoufnefs is born R^teoufncfs.]
of God. ■ & 3.7, 10. He that doth Righteoufnefs
is Righteous-, even as he is Righteous* . Whofoever
doth not righteoufnefs \s not of God.
2 Tim. 4. 8. He hath laid up for us a Crown of
Right eoufnefs*
Heb. 11. 23. Through Faith they wrought Righte-
oufnefs. Heb. 12. The peaceable fruit of Righte-
oufnefs. Jam. 3. 18. The fruit of Righteoufnefs
is jown in Peace. ■ 1 Pet. 2. 24. TJiat we being
dead to /in, Jhould live unto righteoufnefs, Mat 5. 20.
Except your Righteoufnefs exceed the Righteoufnefs of
the Scribes and Pharifees-.&c. Luk. i.ji. In Ho-
linefs and Righteoufnefs before him all the days of our
Life* Adh ic. 35. He that feareth God^ and
worketh Righteoufnefs tf accepted of him^ • Rem*
(5. 13, 16, 18, 1 9, 20. Whether of fin unto deaths or
of Obedience unto Righteoufnefs. ■ 1 Cor. 1 5. 34.
Jwakj to Righteoufnefs and fin not. — — Eph. 5. p.
The fruit of the Spirit is in all Goodnefs? and Right e-
oufiefs. Dan. 12.3. They fly til turn many to
Righteoufnefs. Dan. 4. 27. P>rea\pff thy fins by
Righteoufnefs. ■ Eph. 4. 24. The new- man which
after God is created in Righteoufnefs. — Gen. 7.1.
Theehavelfeen Righteous before me. — — Gen. 18.
t 23, 24, 25, 2(5. Far be it from thee, to dejlroythe
Righteous with the Wicked. — Prov. 24. 24. He
that
S 3° )
that faith to the Wu\ed thou art Right eoks^ him jh all
the people Curfe^ Nations Jhall abhor him. I fa.
3. 10. Say to the Right eousjt Jhall be well with him^
I fa. 5. 23. 'that take away the Righteoufnefs from the
Righteous. — * Mat. 25. 37, 46. Then Jhall the
Righteous anfwer. "the Righteous into life eter-
nal. — — . Luk. 1. 6. They were both Righteous before
Cod, Heb. 11. 4,7. By Faith Abel offered to
God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he
obtained witnefs that he was righteous -jGod tejiifying
of his Gifts. By Faith Noah being teamed of God
of things notfeen asyet^moved witbfear, prepared an
Ar^ • by which he became heir of the Righteoufi
nefs by Faith* 1 Pet. 4. 18. If the Righteous befcarce-
ly faved* ■ Math. 10. 41. He that receive th a
Righteous man in the name of a Righteous man^ Jhall
have a Righteous mans reward. • . 1 Tim. 1. £•
TLbehaxvis not made for a Righteous manjbutfor .
Many fcore of texts more mention a Righteoufnefs
diftin£t from that of Chrift imputed to us.
Judgnow,Whether he that believeth God fhould
believe that he Imputeth Chrifts Obedience and
Suffering to us, [for our Sole Righteoufnefs .]
That which is not out file Righteoufnefs^ is not
fo Reputed by God nor Imputed: But Chrifts Obe-
dience and Suffering is not our file RigbteoufneJs.
See Uavenanfs many arguments to prove that
we have an Inherent Righteoufnefs.
Obj. But, . they mean, [our Sole Righteoufnefs by
which we are Jullified.~\
Anfw. 1. We can tell no mans meaning but by
his words>efpecially not contrary to them^efpecialiy
in an accurate Declaration of Faith. 2. Suppofe it
had been fo faid, we maintain on the contrary, 1/
That
v 3 1 ;
That we are Juftified by more forts of Righteouf-
nefs than one, in feveral refpe&s. We are juftifi-
ed only by Cbrifis Righteoufnefs as the Purchafing
and Meritorious Caufe of our Juftification freely
given by that new Covenant. We are Juftified by
the Righteoufnefs of God the Father, as performing
his Covenant with Chrift and us, (efficiently). We
are juftified efficiently by the Righteoufnefs of
Chrift as our Judg, paffinga juft fentence according
to his Covenant : Thefe laft are neither Ours nor
Imputed to us ; But we are juftified alfo againft the
Accufation, of being finally Impenitent Unbelievers
or unholy ,by the perfonal particular Righteoufnefs
of our own Repentance, Faith andHoIinefs.
For 2. We fay, that there is an univerfal Jufti-
fication or Righteoufnefs, and there is a particular
one. And this particular one may be the Condition
and Evidence of our Title to all the reft. And this is
our cafe. The Day of Judgment is not to try and
Judg Cbrifis or bis Merits, but us : He will judg us
himfelfby his new Law or Covenant, the fum of
which is, \_Exceptye Repent, ye Jhall all perifhi
and, He that believeth, Jhall be faved : and be that
believeth not, jhall be condemned. If we be
not accufed of Impenitence or Unbelief, but only
of not-fulfilling the Law oflnnocency, that will fup-
pofe that we are to be tryed only by that L<w,which
is not true : And then wc refer the Accufer only to
Cbrifis Rigbteoufnefs, and to the Pardoning Law of
Grace, and to nothing in our felves to anlwcr that
charge j And fo it would be Cbrifis part only that
would be judged. But Mattk 25. and all the
Scripture aflureth us of the contrary, that it's Our
part that it is to be tryed and judged, and that we
(tall
ftiall be all judged according to what we have done.:
And no man is in danger there of any other accu-
fation, but that he did not truly Repent and Believe,
and live a holy life to Cbriji : And (hall the Terti-
tent Believer fay, I did never Repent and Believe, but
Cbriji did it for me'&nd Co ufe trvoLyet, one of Chrift,
and another of himfelf, that he may be juftified ?
Or (hall the Vnboly, Impenitent Infidel fay, It's true
I was never a Penitent Believer, or holy, but Chrift
was for me, or Chrifts Righteoufnefs is my fole
Righteoufnefs ? that is a fafhood > For Chrifts
Righteoufnefs is none of his. So that .there is a
particular perfonal Right eoufnejs, confifting in faith
and Repentance, which by way of Condition and E-
vidence of our title to Chrift and his Gift of Par-
don and Life, is of abfolute necefllty in our Ju-
flification. Therefore Imputed Righteoufnefs is
not the fole Righteoufnefs which tnuft juftifie us.
I cited abundance ot plain Texts to this purpofe
in my Confeflion, pag. 57. 8cc. Of which book I
add, that when it was in the prefsj procured thofe
three perfons whom I rnoft highly valued for judg-
ment, Mr. Gata\er, (whofe laft work it was in this
World) Mr. Vines, and laftly Arch-Bi(hop Vfoer
to read it over, except the Epiftles (Mr. Gataher
read only to pag. J 63.) and no one of them advifed
tne to alter one word, nor fignified their diffent to
any word of it. But I have been long on this: to
proceed in the Hiftory. —
The fame year that I wrote that book,that mod
Judicious excellent man Jojhua Plactus ofSaumours
in frame, was exercifed in a Controverfie conjunct
with this \ How far Adams tin is imputed to us.
And tofpeak truth^at firft in the 'fbefes Salmurienft
Vol.
( 33 .)
Vol i. he feemed plainly to difpute againft the Im-
putation of Adam" s adlual fin,and his arguments I
elfewhere anfwer.J And Andr Rivet wrote a Colle-
ction of the Judgment of all forts of Divines for the
contrary. But after he vindicated himfelf,& fhewed
that his Doctrine was, that Adams fact is not im-
"mediately imputed to each of us, as if our perfons
as perfons had been all fully reprefented in Adam's
perfon (by an arbitrary Law or Will of God) or
reputed fo to be : But that our Perfons being Virtu-
ally ox Seminally in him, we derive from him fir ft
our Perfons-) and in them a corrupted n3ture, and
that nature corrupted and juftly deferted by the
Spirit of God, becaufe it is derived from Adam that
fo finned : And fo that Adams fa& is imputed to us
mediately, mediante natura & Corrupione ,but ncft
primarily and immediately.
This dodfrrine of the Good and Judicious man
was thought too new to efcapefharp cenfures* fo
that a rumour was fpread abroad that he denied all
Imputation of Adams fa&,and placed original guilt
only in the Guilt of Coruption,for which indeed he
gave occafiori. A Synod being called zzCbarentonJ.b\$
opinion without naming anyAuthor was condem-
ned-^ allMinifters required to fubfcribe iv.Amyral-
dm being of Placem mind, in a fpeech of two hours
vindicated his opinion. Placeus knowing that the
Decree did not touch him, took no notice of it. But
Cerijfolmoi Montauban wrote againft him,pvetend-
inghim condemned by the Decree, which Vrelin-
court one that drew it up, denied,profefiing himfelf
of Placeus his judgment. And Rivet alfo, Marefi-
%u % Carol. Vaubuz and others, mifunderftanding
him wrote againft him*
D For
(■34)
* For my part I confefs that I am not fatisfied in
his diftin&ion of Mediate and Immediate Imputati-
on : I fee not, but our Perfonr as derived from A-
dam, being fuppo.fed to be in Being,we are at once
Reputed to be fuch 3S Virtually finned in him, and
fuch as are deprived of God's Image. And if either
muft be put iirft, me-thinksit fhould rather be the
former, we being therefore deprived of God's Im-
mage (not by God, but by Adam) becaufe he fin-
ned it away fromhimfelf. It fatisfieth me much
more, to diftinguifh of our Being and fo finning iu
Adam Perfonally and Seminally, or Virtually ; we
were not Perfons in Adam when he finned > there-
fore we did not fo fin in him : And it is a fi&ion
added to- God's Word,to fay that God (becaufe he
would do it) reputed us to be what we were not.
But we were Seminally in Adam as in Caufa natu-
rtf/i,who was to produce us out of his very effence :
, And therefore that kind of being which we had in
him, could not be innocent when he was guilty :
And when we had our Natures and Perfons from
him, wearejuftly reputed to be as we are, the off*
fpringofonethat actually finned; And fo when
our Exigence and Perfonality maketh us capable
Subje&s, we are guilt v Perfons of his fin *, though
not with fo plenary a fort of Guilt as he.
And I fear not to fay, that as I lay the ground of
this Imputation in Nature it felf, fo I doubt not
but I have elfewhere proved that there is more par-
ticipation of all Children in the guilt of their pa-
tents fins by nature, than is fufficiently acknow-
ledged or lamented by rnoft, though Scripture a-
bound with the proof of it : And that the over-
looking it, and laying all upon, God's arbitrary Co-
venant
( 35 )
vcnant and Imputation, is the great temptation to
Pelagians to deny Original fin : And that our mi-
fery no more increafeth by it, is, becaufe we are
now under a Covenant that doth not fo charge all
culpability on mankind, as the Law of Innocency
did alone. And there is fomething of Pardon in
the Cafe. And the Evglifo Litany^ (after Ezra,
Daniel and others) well prayeth, Remember not,
Lord, our offences, nor the oifcnces of our Forefa-
thers, &c.
This fame Tlaceus in Theft Salmnrienf Vol* i*
hath opened thedodhine of Juftification fo fully,
that I think that one Difputation might fpare fome
the reading of many contentious Volumes.
The rigid affertors of Imputation proved fuch a
ftumbling-block to many, that they run into the c-
ther extreme, and not only denyed it,but vehement-
ly loaded it with the Charges of over-throwing all
Godlinefs and Obedience. Of thefe P<zr%r (as is
faid)with fome others wrote againfi it in an anfvver
to the Affemblies Confeflion : Dr. Gell often re-
proachetb it in a large Book in Folio. Andlafrly
and moft (harply and confidently Herbert Thorndike %
(to mention no more.)
The Hiftory of this Controverfie of Imputation,
t conclude, though diforderly, with thefenfeof
all the Chriftian Churches, in the Creeds and Har-
mony of Confeflions,becaufe they were too long to
be fitly inferted by the way.
D 2 The
( 3* )
The Confent of Chriftians, and fpec tally Pro-
teflants^ about the Imputation of Ghrifs
Kighteoufnefs in tfuftification •, Hove far
and in what fence it is Imputed.
I. CEeing Baptifm isourvifible initiation into
•^ Ghriftianity,we mutt there begin > and fee
what of this is there contained. Mat. 28. 19. Bap-
tizing them into the name of the Fatber,theSon, and
the Holy Ghofi, Mar. i<5- i<5. He that believeth,and
ubaptizedfhallbefaved, Aft 2.38. Repent, and he
Baptized every one of you in the name of Jefm Chrifl
for the Remiffion of fins, and ye Jh all receive the gift of
the Holy ghoji. See Afts 8.36,37,38. The Eu-
nuch's Faith and Baptifm. Aft. 22. to* Arife,and
he baptized, and wafh away thy fins, having called
on the name of the Lord. Rom^d. 3. So many as were
baptized into Jefm Chrifl^ were baptized into his
death* Gal. 3. 27. As many as have been baptized in-
to Chrifl, have put on Chrifl. 1. Pet. 3.21. *lhe like
rvhereuntoy Baptifm doth alfo nowfave us, (not the
putting away the filth of thefefh-but the anfwer of a
"good Confcience towards God) by the Rejurreftion of
Jefm Chrifl. Rom. 4« 24, 25. But for us alfo to
whom itfhall be imputedjfwe believe on him that rai-
fed up Jejus our Lord from the dead : who was deli-
vtred for our offences, and was raifed again for our
JulHfication.\Quxt. How far Chrifl j Refurre&ionis
imputed to us.']
II. The Creed, called^ the A poftles, hath but
[7 believe the forgivenefi of fins. ~\
III. The Nicene and Conftantinopolitane Creed,
I
C 37 )
lactyowledg one Baptifm for the Remijfion of fins?
(Chrirt's Death, Eurial, and Refurre&ion pre-
mifed.)
IV. Athanafius's Creed [Who fuffered for our
S alvation^de fended into HelLjofe again the third day.
• At whofe coming all men jh all rife again with
their bodies -> and [hall give account for their own
works \ and they that have done good, Jhall go into e-
verla[iing life, and they that have done evil into ever-
lajiing Fire<~\ (Remijfion is contained in Salva-
tion*)
V. The Fathers fence I know not where the
Reader can fo eafily and furely gather,without read-
ing them ail, as in Laurentius his Collection de
Jujtif after the Corpus Cwfeffumum > and that to
the beft advantage of the Protectant Caufe. They
that will fee their fence of fo much as (they account-
ed neceffary to Salvation, may beft hnd it in their
Treadles of Baptifm, and Catechmngs of the Ca-
techumens \ Though they fay lefs about our Ccn-
troverfie than I could wifh they had. I will have no
other Religion than they had. The Creed of Va-
mafus in Hieron* op. Tom. 2. hath but (In his Death
and Blood we believe that we are cleanfd • a#d
have hope that we jhall obtain the reward of good merits
(meaning our own) 5 which the Helvetians own in
the end of their Confcflion.
VI. The Auguiiane Confeifion, Art. 3, 4. Chrift
died that he might reconcile the Father to us, and
be a facrifice, not only for original (in, but alfo for
all the aftuaifins of men* And that we may ob-
tain thefe benefits ofChrijl, that is, Remiffion of fins,
ptjiification and life eternal-* Chrifi gave us the Gofpel
in which thefe benefits are prop nwded* "fo preach
D 3 Repen-
( 38 )
Repentance in his Name-, and Remiffion of fins among
all Nations. For when men propagated in the natural
manner have fin* and cannot truly fatisfie Gods Law*
the Gofpel reproveth fin* and fheweth us Chrift the Me-
'diator*atidfo teacheth us about Pardon of fins -That
freely for Chrift s fake are given ns*RemiffioH of fins *&
Justification by Faiths by which we mujt confefs that
thefe are given us for Chrift* who was made a Sacri-
fice for us* and appeafed the Father* though the Gof-
pel require Penitence '* yet jhat pardon of fin may be
fure*itieacheth us that it is freely given us\ that is*
that it dependetb not on the Condition of our worthy-
nefs, nor is given for any precedent works* or worthy-
nefs of following worths. • — — For Confcience in true
fears findeth no wor\which it can oppofe to the Wrath
of God's and Chrift is propofed and given us* to be a
pfophidtGrfihvs honour of Chrift muft not be transferred
to our worty. Therefore Paul faith? ye are faved free-
ly-i (or of Grace,) And it is of grace ^ that the pro*
mifemight bejure^th^tis* Pardon will be fur eh when
we know that it dependetb not on the Condition of our
worthinefs? but is given for Chriji. In the Creed
this Article .[1 believe the Forgivenefs offins*~\is added
itftbe hiftory : And the reft of the hiftory of Chrift muft
be referred to this Article : For this benefit is the end
of the hiftory* Chrifi therefore fujfered and rofe again*
that for him might be given us Remiffion of fins* and
fife everlafting.
Art. 6. When we are Reconciled by Faith* there
muft needs follow the Righteoufnefs of good worhj. ■ -
l$ut becaufe the infirmity of mans nature is fo great*
that no man can fatisfie the Law* it is neceffary to
i each men? not only that they muft obey the haw* but
$lfo how this Obedience pleajith* le$ Confidences fall
into \
( 39 )
into defperation> when they underfiand that they fa*
tisfie not the Law* Tbti Obedience then pleajeth, not
becaufe it fat'vsfieth the Law, hut because the perfon it
in Cbrifl, reconciled by Faith, and believeth that the
reliBs of hvs Sin are pardoned. We muji ever hold
that we obtain remiffion of fins, and the per fon is pro-
nounced Righteous ->t bat is,is accepted freely for Chriji y
by Faith : And afterward that Obedience to the haw
pleafeth,andti reputed a certain Right eoufnefs,and me-
rit etb rewards."] Thus the tirit Proteifcmts.
VII. The iith Article of the Church oi England
( to which we all offer to fubfcribe) is [Of the Ju-
stification of Man. We are accounted Righteous be-
fore God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour
Jefus Chriji by Faith > and not for our own wirks or
defervings. Wherefore that we are jujiified by Faith
only-'tf a moji wholfome d)Urine, and very full of Com-
fort, as more largely is expreffed in the Homily of Ju-
stification f]
The faid Homilies (of Salvation and Faith) fry
over and over the fame thing. As pag. 14. [three
things' go together in our J unification*: On Gods p*rt
hi* great Mercy and Grace* on Chriji s part ,Juftice,tbat
is,the Satisfaction of Gods Jujtice, or the Price of our
Redemption, by the offering of hit bidy, and jhedding
of his blood, with fulfilling of the Law per feVtly and
throughly \ And on our part true and lively Faith in
the Merits of Jefus Chriji: whichyet is not o-urs, but
by Gods working in us. /
And pag. \_A lively Faith is not only the common
belief of the Articles of our Faith* but alfo a true truft
and confidence of the mercy of Gbd through our Lord
Jefus Chriji, and ajieadfaji hope of all good things to be
received at Gods hand > and that although we through
D 4. infirmity
infirmity or temptation — - do fall from him by fin*
yet if we return again to him by true repentance, that
\>e will forgive and forget our offences, for his Sons fake
our Saviour Jefus Chrift, and will make us inheritors
with him of his everlajiing Kingdom Pag. 23.
For the very fur e and lively Qbriftian Vaith,is,tohave
an earnest truji and confidence in God, that he doth re-
gard us-, and is careful over us, as the Father is over
the Child whom he doth loves and that he will be mer-
ciful unto us for his only Sons fake > and that we have
our Saviour Chrift our perpetual Advocate and Prince,
in whofe only merits, oblation and fuffering, we do
iruft that our offences* be continually wafhed and purg-
ed, whenfoever we repenting truely do return to him
with our whole heart, jieadfaftly determining with our
felvfs, through tin grace to obey andjerve him, in keep-
ing his Commandments, &c] So alfo the Apology,
This is our doctrine of Imputation.
VIIL The Saxon Confcffion oft infiftethon the
frje Pardon of fin, not merited by us, but by Chrift.
^nd expoundeth Justification to be [Of unjuftjhat
is, Guilty anddifobedienty and not having Chrift : to
he made Juft, that is, '*£& be Abfolvedfrom Guilt for
the Son of God, and an apprehender by Faith of Chrift
him f elf, who is our Right eoujnefs > (as Jeremiah and
3P##/fay) becaufeby his Merit we haveforgivenefs,
and God imputeth righteoufnefs to us, and for him, re-
futethusfuft, and by giving us his Spirit quickeneth
and regenerated us. %y being 3uftified. by Faith
alone we mean, that freely for our Mediator alone, not
for our Contrition, or other Merits, the pardon of
fm and reconciliation is given us, — ~ And before, It is
Certain, when the mind is raifed by this Faith jbat the
farddk of Jiff) Reconciliation and Imputation ofRighte*
i ;; '•""'• oufnefs
f 4 1 )
qufnefs, are given for the Merit of Cbrift himfelf >
And after [By Faith is meant Affiance, refiing in the
Son of God the Propitiator, for whom we are received
andpleafe (God) and not for cur virtues and fulfilling
of the Law.
IX. The Wittenberge Confeflion, (In Corp.
Conf. pag. 104) A man is made Accepted ofGod,and
Reputed jujl before him, for the Son of God our Lord
Jefus Chrijl alone, by Faith. And at the Judgment
of God we muji not trufi to the Merit of any of the Vir-
tues which we have, but to thefole Merit of our Lord
Jefus Chrill,which is made curs by Faith- And be-
cattfe at the bar of God, where the cafe of true eternal
Righteoufnefs and Salvation will be pleaded, there is
no place for mans Merit s^but only for God y s Mercy, and
the Merits of our Lord Jefus Chrijl, whom we receive
by Faith: therefore we thtnkjut Anceftors faid rightly ,
that we are jujiified before God by Faith only*
X. The Bohemian Confeflion, making Juffifica-
tion the principal Article, goeth the fame way.
LPag. 183,184. By Chrijl men are Jujiified, obtain
Salvation andRemiffion offinfreely by Faith in Chrijl,
through mercy, without any Worh^ and Merit of man*
And his death and blood alone is fufficient, to abolijh
0° expiate all the fins of all men* All mujl come toChrifi
for pardon and Remiffion of Sin, Salvation and every
thing. All our trujl and hope is to befafiened on him
alone •'through him only and his mervs God is appeafd
andpropitious\ Loveth us, and giveth us Life eternal.
Xf/The Palatinate Confeflion ib. pag. i^^I be-
lieve that God the Father for the mofi full Satisfafti-
on of Chrijl, doth never remember any of my fins, and
that pravity which Imujljlrive againjl while I live, but
contrarily will rather of grace give me the right eouf*
nefs
K 42 )
uefs ofChrift, fo that I have no need to fear the judg-
ment of God. - — And pag. 155. If he merited, and
obtained Remiffion of all our fins, by the only and bit-
ter pafjion, and death of the Crofs^jo be it we embra-
cing it by true Faith, as thefatisfaBion for our fins 2
apply it to ourfelves. • ] I rind no more of this.
XII. The Polonian Churches of Lutherans
and Bohemians agreed in the Auguftane and Bohe-
mian Confeffion before recited.
XI1L The Helvetian Confeffion, [fo Jujlifie
figttifieth to the Apo\ileinthe diffute of Justification*
Ho Remit fins, to Ab five from the fault andpunifh*
mentjo Receive into favour ^and to Pronounce jttft
F&r Cbriji tool^on himfelfand took^away the fins of the
World, and fatisfted Gods Jujiice . God therefore for
thefakg afCbrifi alone, fuffering and raifed again , is
fr&piti&usto our fins* and imputeth them not to us, but
imputiththe right eoujhefs of Chrifl for ours'-> fo that
mm we are not only oleanfed and purged from fins, or
Udy^ but alfo endowed with the Rtghteoufnefs of
Cbriji, and fo abfolved from fins, Death and Condem-
mtimj and are righteous and heirs of life eternal.
Speai^ing properly, Godonlyjujiifiethus, and jujli*
fttthmlyforChriji, not imputing to us fins, but im-
pamgto us his Rtghteoufnefs. } This Confeffion
ipeaketb in terms neereft the oppofed opinion; But
indeed faith no 'Abate than we alt fay* Chrifts Righ-
febufeefs being given and imputed to us as the Afc-
rhmwmsCaufe of our pardon and right to life.
. XW. The Bafil Confeffion, Arr.p, [Weconfefs
Jtan^ttK of fins by Faith in Jefus Chriji crucified*
Ami though this Faith workjeontinudly by Love, yet
Bigjkemjhej} and S atisfaUiionfor bur Sins, voe do not
teto works) which are fruits of Faith > but jwi-
b
( 43 ;
ly to true affiance &faitb in the bhodfhedofthe Lamb
ofGod.We ingenuoufly prof efs .that in Chrifi, who is our
Right eou fiefs, Holinejs 7 %.edemptvm, Way, 'truths
Wifdom, Life, all things are freely given us. The
workj therefore of the faithful are done, not that they
may fatisfie for their fins, but only that by them, they
may declare that they are thankful to God for fe great
benefits given us in Chrifi.
XV # The Argentine Confeffion of the four Ci-
ties,Cap. 3. ib. p3g.i7p. hath but this htreo(:Wben
heretofore they delivered, that a mans own proper
Worlds are required to hit J unification, we teach that
this U to be acknowledged wholly received of God's he~
nevolence and Chri[Vs Merit, and perceived only by
Faitb.C.^We a+efure that no man can be made Righ-
teous orfavedy unlefs he love God above all, and moji
ftudioufly imitate him. We can no otherwife be Jujii-
fed, that is, become both Righteous and Saved (for
our Righteouftefs is our very Salvation) than if we
being firjl indued with Faith, by which believing the
Gofpel, and perf waded that God hath adopted us as
Sons, and will for ever give us his fatherly benevo-
lence, we wholly depend on his bec\ (ox Wilf.jjj
XVI. The Synod of Dort, mentioneth only
Chrifts death for the pardon of fin and Justification.
TheBclgick Conttilion §22. having mentioned
Chrifi and his merits made ours, § 23. addeth,
[We believe that our bleffednefs confifteth in Remif-
fion of our fins for Jefus Chrifi > and that our Righ-
teoufnejs before God is therein contained,as David and
Paul teach > We are juftified freely, or by Grace,
through the Redemption that is in Chrifi Jefus. We
hold this Foundation firm j and give all the Glory to
God—prefuming nothing of ourfelves^and our merits,
but
\ ft J
fat we reft on the fole Obedience of a Crucified Cbrift b
which is ours when me believe in him.~\ Here you ice
in what fence they hold that Chrifts merits are
ours > Not to juftifie us by the Law, that faith,
(Obey perfectly and Live) but as the merit of our
-pardon* which they here take for their whole Righ-
teoufnefs.
XVII. The Scottish Confeffioi^Corp. Conf. pag.
125. hath but [j:hat true Believers receive in tbti life
RemiJJion of Sins* and that by Faith alone in Chrijis
blood : So that though fin remain yet it is not Im-
fitted to us* but is remitted* and covered by Chrijis
Right eoufhefs.] This is plain and paft all queftion.
XVIII. The French Confeffion is more plain, §
18. ib. pag. 8 1 • \We believe that our whole Right e-
oufnefs lyeth in the pardon of our fins j which is alfo as
David witnejfeth our only blejfednefs. therefore all 0-
therreafons by which men thinkjo be jujiified before
God* we plainly re)eft \ and all opinion of Merit being
cgfi awayywe reft only in the Obedience of ' Cbrift >wbicb
is Imputed to us* both that all our fins may be covered*
and that we may get Grace before God7\ So that Im-
putation of Obedience, they think is but (ox pardon
of fin* and acceptance.
Concerning Proteftants Judgment of Imputati-
on, it is further to be noted > 1. That they are not
agreed whether Imputation of Chrift's perfe&Holi-
nefs and Obedience, be before or after the Imputa-
tion of his Pallion in order of nature. Some think
that our fins are firft in order of nature done away
by the Imputation of his fufferings, that we may
be free from punifhment * and next, that his perfe-
ction is Imputed to us, to merit the Reward of life
eternal : But the mod learned Confuters of the P4-
pifls
( 45 )
pifts hold,that Imputation ofChrifts Obedience and
Suffering together, are in order of nature before our
Remiflion of tin and Acceptance, as the meritorious
caufe : And thefe can mean it in no other fence than
that which I maintain. So doth Vavenant de
Juft.hab. et a&.& Pet.Molinseus Thef.Sedan.Vol.i.
pag, 625. Imputatio jufiiti* Cbrifti propter quam pec-
cat a remittuntur, & cenfemur julii coram Deo. Mare-
fius Thef. Sedan. Vol * 2 . pag. 770, 77 1 . § 6 & 1 o. -
maketb the material caufe of our Jufiification to be the
Merits and SatisfaQion of Cbrifti yea the Merit of
bis Satisfaction^ andfo maketb the formal Caufe of
Jufiification to be the Imputation ofChrijls Rigbteouf-
nefj) or which is the fame , the folemn Remiffion of all
fins, and our free Acceptance with God. Note that he
maketh Imputation to be the fame thing with Re*
miffion and Acceptance > which is more than the
former faid.
2. Note, that when they fay that Imputation is
the Form of Jufiification, they mean not of Jufiifi-
cation Pailively as it is ours, but A&ively as it is
Gods Jufiifying afcfo Marefms ibidem. And many
deny it to be the form" And many think that faying
improper.
3* Note, that it is ordinarily agreed by Prote-
ftants, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs is imputed to us
in che fame fence as our fins are faid to be imputed
to him h (even before they are committed many
Ages i) which cleareth fully the whole Controverfie
to thofe that are but willing to underftand, and
blafpheme not Chrift *, Co Marefws ubifupra'.Quem-
admodum propter deliquia nofira ei imputata punitus
fuit Cbrifius in terris > it a & propter ejus Jufiitiam
nobis imputatam coronamur in C&Vfa And J oh.
Crocius
( 4« )
Crocius Difput. ib. p. 502. And Vaffeur in his folid
Difp. Tbef. Sedan. Vol. 2. pag. 1053, io 54* While
he mentioneth only SatisfaSion for our Juftificati-
on, yet § 27. faith that SatisfaSion is imputed to us,
and placeth Chrifts Imputed Righteoufnefs in his
Obedience to the death > and faith that this Satis-
fying Obedience, infufjering, is our Imputed Righ-
teoufnefs. Ea igitur Obedientia Chrijii qua Patri
paruit ufque ad mortem cruris, qua coram Patre com-
paruit ut voluntatem ejus perficeret, qua a Patre mif
fits, ut nosfuifanguinis ejfufwne redimeret, ]uftiti<e'
ejus pro peccatis noftris abunde fatisfecit \ ea inquam
obedientia ex gratiaPatris imputata &• donata*illaju~
ftitia efi qua juftificamur. And they ordinarily ufe
the fimilitude of the Redemption of a Captive, and
Imputing the Price to him. He addeth (Hence we
may gather that as Chrift . was made fin, fowe are
made the JLigJoteoufnefs of God, that is by Imputation^
which is true.
The plain truth in all this is within the reach of
every found Chriftian 5 and felf- conceited wranglers
make difficulties where there are none. Yea,how
far the Papifts themfelves grant the Proteftant do-
drine of Imputation, let the following words of
Vaffeur on Bellarminebc judg. [Bell arm. ait h Si
folum vellent baretici nobis imputari Merita Cbrifti,
quia nobis donatafunt,& pojfumus ea Deo Patri offerre
pro peccatis mfiris, quoniam Chrijius fufcepit fuper fe
onus fatisfaciendi pro nobtfjtoJqueVeo Patri reconcile
andi, reSa effet eorum Sententia : I doubt fbme
will fay, it is falfe, becaufe Bellarmine granteth it ;
but Vaffeur addeth [Htc tile : fed an noftra longe
abeft ah illa y quam in nobis requireret fententia.~]
And I wi(h the Reader that loveth Truth and Peace
to
( 47 )
to read the words of Pigbius, Cajfander^ Bellas
mine^ &c. faying as the Proteftants, cited by Job*
Crocius de Jujiificat. Vifout* 9*T<*g* 45 8. &c. And
of Morton Apolog efpecially 'tbo-Waldenfis.
Nazianzetis fentence prefixed by the great Bafil-
Do&ors to their Confeffion, I do affectionately re-
cite, f Sacred 'theologie and Religion is afimple and
naked thing \ confijling ofDivine Tejlirnonies. without
any great artifice : which yet fome do naughtily turn
into a moft difficult Art.
The Hiftory of the Socinians oppofing Chrifts
Satisfallion and Merits I overpafs, as being handled
by multitudes of Writers.
If any impartial man would not be troubled with
needlefs tedious writings, and yet would fee the
Truth clearly,about Jufhfication and Imputation^
a very little room, let him read, i. Mr. Brad(han><>
zMx.Gibbotf s Sermon in the Exercifes at Giles's in
the Fields. 3. Mr. Irumaris great Propitiation.
4. Jofhua Placeus, his Vifput. de Jujiif. in Tbef.
Salmur. Vol. 1. 5. And Le Blanks late Tbefes*
Which will fatisfie thofe that have any juft capa-
' city for fatisfa&ion.And if he add Wotton de Recott-
ciliatione, and Grotius de SatisfaBione, he need not
lofe his labour : no nor by reading John Goodwin
of Juftifkation,though every word be not approve*
able. And Ds.Stillingfleet's Sermons of Satisfaction,
coming laft, will a Ifo conduce much to his juft in-
formation.
So much of the Hiftorical part.
CHAP.
(48)
CHAP. II.
Of the true dating of the Controverfie, and
the explication of the feveral points con-
tained or meerly imply ed in it.
I take explication to be here more ufeful than
argumentation : And therefore 1/hall yep
fullier open to you the ft ate pfour differences,
and my own judgment in the pointy with the
reasons of it) infuch necejfary Diflinciionsy
and brief Proportions, as /hall carry their
own convincing light with them. If any
think I diftinguif/j too much, let him prove
any to be needlefs 'or unjufl, and then reject
it and fp are not. If any think Idiflinguifh
not accurately enough^ let him add what is
wanting^ and but Jnppofe that I have elfe-
where done it 7 and am not now handling the
whok doctrine of purification) but only that
of Imputation) and what it necejfarily in-
cludeth.
T Hough a man that readeth our moft Learned
Proteltants, profeffing that they agree even
with Bellarmine KimCdi in the ftating of the cafe of
Imputation, would think that there fhould need no
further ftating of it. I cited you Eellarmines
words
r 4* )
words before with Vajfeurs confent : I here add
Johan. Crocius de Juftif. Difp. Id. pag. 500. 501.
Vide bothinisfive vertiginemfive irriprobitatem^ darn at
-fieri non pojfe ut Juftitia Chrifti nobis imputetur eofen-
fu qui b&retic'u probetur Et tame n reft am vocat
fententiam, quamfuam faciunt Evangelici. Quod
tnim cum re&a ratione pugnare dicit^ nos per Jujii-
tiam Cbrifti formaliier juiios nofninari & ejfe.nos non
tangit : Non dicimm * Non fentimus : Sedhoctotum
proficifcitur e Sopbijiarum officina^qui pbrafin ijiam no-
bis affinguntjtt poftea earn exagitent tanquam noftram:
(yet fome of our own give them this pretence.)
Nosfententiam quam tile reBarri judicata tenemus^
tuetnur h fie t amen ut addamus y quodGemi adverfa-
ri* eft iniolerabile> non alia ratione nos jujios cenfe-
ri coram 'Deo.'] But by Judication the Papifts mean
Sandlification : And they count it not intolerable
to (ay that the penalty of our (ins is remitted to us,
by that- Satisfaction to the Juftice of God according
to the Law of Innocency, which Chrift only hath
made. But though many thruft in more indeed,
and moft of them much more in words > yet you fee
they are forced to fay as we fay whether they will
or not : For they fecm unwilling ro be thought to
agree with us, where they agree indeed.^] And the
following words of Job. Crocius pag. 505,507. &c.
(hew the common fence of moll Proteifants, [JVben
Bellarmine obferveth that Imputation maketh us of
righteous as Chrifti he faith, \_Ifwefaid that we are
Jujiified by Chrifts effential right -toujhfs. — But
we fay it mi. Tea above all we renounce that which
the Sophijier puts in of his own. even that which he
faith of Formal Right eoufnefs : F#r it is not our opini-
oH-> that we are confntuted formally Righteous by
E Cbrijf's
( '* )
CbrijFs Right eoufnefs, which we rather call the Mate*
rialcaufe. § 32. Chrijis fatU fattion u made for
all : But it vs imputed to us, not as it is made for all,
hut as for us. Iillujirateitbythe like- The Kings
Sonpayeth the debt of a Community deeply indebted to
the King, and thence bound to perpetual flavery. This
payment gets liberty for tbti, and that, and the other
member of the Community : For it is imputed to them
by the King as if they hadpaid it. But this Imputa-
tion transferred not the honour to them, but brings
them to partake of the Benefit. So when the price paid
hy Chrijifor all, is imputed to this or that man, he is
taken into the fociety of the Benefit* 'Pag* 503*
Vifiinguifh between the Benefit,and the Office ofChnfi.
The former is made ours, but not the latter, ■ Pag;
542. The Remijjion of fin is nothing but the Imputati-
on of Chrijis Right eoufnefs. Rom. 4* Where Jm*
putation of Right eoufnefs, Remijjion of Iniquities, and
non-imputation of fin, are all one, — — Pag. 547.
God imputeth it as far as he pkafeth, • — — Pag. 548.
Princes oft impute the merits of Parents so unworthy
Children, ■ Pag. 551. He denyeth that we have
Infinite Righteoufnejs in Chrift, becaufe it is imputed
to-usin a finite manner, even fo far as was requisite to
our abfolution.
But I will a little more diftin&ly open and re-
folve the Cafe.
1. We mud diftinguifh oiRighteoufnefs as it re-
lateth to the Preceptive part of the Law '% and as it
relateth to the Retributive part : The firft Righte-
oufnefs, is Ianocency contrary to Reatus Culpa : The
fecond is Jus ad impmiitatem & ad premium (feu
d<mum,)Right to Impunity and to the Reward.
2. Wemuft diftinguifl) of Chrijis Right eoufnefs,
which
c 51 ;
which is either fo called, formally and properly ^
which is the Relation ofChriftsperfon to his Law of
CMediation impofed on him, i. As Innocent znd a
perfect obey er > 2. As one that deferved not punijh-
ment^but deferved Reward* Or it is fo called mate*
rially and improperly ; which \s>Thofefame Habits*
Acts and Sufferings of Ch rift, from which bit Relati-
on of Righteous did refult.
3, We muft diftinguifh of Imputation* which
fignifyeth (here) 1, To repute us perfonally to have
been the Agents of Chrijis AS s, the fubjetfs of his
Habits and Pafjionm a Phyfical fence. 2. Or to
repute the fame formal Relation of Rigbteoufnefs
which was in Chrifts perfon, to be in ours as the
fubjeci. 3 . Or to repute us to have been the very
fubjeSs ofChrijVs Habits and Pajfion^nd the Agents
of his A8s in a Political or Moral fenfe? (and not a
phyficalj > as a man payerh a debt by his Servant,or
Attorney,or Delegate. 4. And consequently to re-
pute a double formal Rigbteoufnefs to refult from the
faid Habits > A£is, and Pajpons* one to Cbri(i as the
natural Subjett and Agent-, and another to us as the
Moral ^Political) or reputed Subjett and ^gf#* (And
fo his Formal Rigbteoufnefs not to be imputed to us
i# it fetfas ours, but another to refult from the fame
Matter.) 5. Or elfe that we are reputed both the
Agents and Subjetis of the Airtrir of his Righteoufc
nefs, morally.and alfo of the Formal Rigbteoufnefs
of C&riji himfelf. ' 6. Or elfe by Imputation is
meant here,that Chrift being truly reputed to have
taken the Nature of finful man,3nd become a Head
for all true Believers, in that undertaken Nature
and Office in the Ferfon of a Mediator, to have ful-
filled all the have impofed on him^by perfect Holinefs
E 2 and
( 52 )
and Obedience* and Offering himfelf on the Crofs a
Sacrifice for our fins* voluntarily differing in our
(lead, as if he had been a (inner, (guilty of all our
(Ins)Asfoon as we believe we are pardoned, juftifi-
ed,adopted for the fake and merit of this Holinefs,
Obedience and penal Satisfa&ion of Chrift, with as
full demonftration of divine Ju(tice*zt leaft,and more
full demonftration of his Wifdom and Mercy* than
if we had differed our felves what our Gns deferved
(that is, been damned) or had never finned : And
fo Right eoufnefs is imputed to us* that is, we are ac-
counted or reputed righteous* (not in relation to the
Precept, that is, innocent , oxftnlefs* but in relati-
on to the Retribution^ that is, fuch as have Right to
Impunity and £*/<?,)becaufe Chrift's (brefaid perfedfc
Holinefs, Obedience and Satisfaction, merited our
Pardon* and Adoption*and the Spirit > or merited the
New* Covenant* by which.as an Inftrument, Pardon*
Jujiijication and Adoption are given toEelievers,and
the Spirit to be given to (andiifie them : And when
wq.beiieve, we are juftly reputed fuch as have Right
to all thefe purchafed Gifts.
4. And that it may be underftood how far Chrift
did Obey or Suffer in out jiead* or perfon*we muft
diftingui(h, 1. Between his taking the Nature of
fwful man* and taking the Perfcn of (inners.
2. Between his taking the Perfonoiz finner* and
taking the Perfon Gfyou and me* and each particular
(inner. 3. Between his taking our finful perfons
fimply, & ad omnia* and taking them only, fecun-
dumquid* infantum* & ad hoc. 4. Between his
j (offering in the Perfon of (inners, and his obeying and
fandity in thePerfon of (inners ,or of us in particular.
5. Between his Obeying and Suffering in our Perfon*
and
< 53 )
and our Obeying and Suffering in his Perfon (Natu-
ral or Political.) And now I (hall make ufe of thefe
diftin&ions, by the Propofitions following.
Prop. i. The phrafe of [ChrijVs Kighteoufnefs
imputed to ui] is not in the Scripture.
2. Therefore when it cometh to Difpuration,to
them that deny it, fome Scripture-phrafe (hould be
put in ftead of it \ becaufe, i. The Scripture hath
as good,if not much better,phrafes,to fignifie all in
this that is neceflary. 2. And it is fuppofed that the
Difputants are agreed of all that is exprefs in the
Scripture.
3. Yet fo much is faid in Scripture,as may make
this phrafe [of Imputing ChrijVs Kighteoufnefs to us)
juftifiable, in the found fence here explained : tor
the thing meant by it is true, and the phrafe intelli-
gible*
4. Chrift's Righteoufnefs is imputed to Belie-
vers, in thefixth fence here before explained * As
the Meritorious caufe of our Pardon, Juftihcation,
Righteoufnefs, Adoption, San£tification and Salva-
tion, &c. as is opened.
5. Chrift did not fuffer all in kind (much lefs in
duration^) which finful man deferved to fuffer;
As e.g. 1. He was not hated of God *, 2. Nor de-
prived or deferted of the fandifying Spirit, and fo
of its Graces and Gods Image* Nor had 3. any
of that permitted penalty by which fin it (elf is a
mifery and punifhment to the (inner. 4. He fell
not under the Power of the Devil as a deceiver and
ruler, as the ungodly do* 5. His Confcience did not
accufe him of fin, and torment him for ic. 6. He
did not totally defpair of ever being faved. 7. The
E 3 fire
( 54 )
fire of Hell did not torment his body. More foch
inftances may be given for proof.
6. Chrift did not perform all the fame obedience
in kind, which many men,yea all men, are or were
bound to perform. As i. He did not ckefs and
keep that Garden which Adam was commanded to
drefs and keep. 2. He did not the conjugal offices
which Adam^ and millions more,were bound to. 3.
Nor the Paternal Offices to Children. 4. Nor all the
offices of a King on Earth, or Magiftrate ; nor of a
Servant, &c. Nor the duty of the Sick. 5. He
did not repent of fin, nor turn from it toGod,nor
mortifieorrefiftinhimfelfany finful luft > nor re-
ceive a Saviour by Faith, nor was circumcifed or
baptized for the Remiffion of Ws fins 3 nor loved
God or thanked him for redeeming or pardoning
him h nor obeyed God in the ufe of any Ordinance
or Means, for the fubduing of fin, and healing or
favingofhis Soul from any fin or deferved wrath
of God * with much more fuch.
7. Chrift did perform much which nomanelfe
was bound to do: As to redeem Souls, to work
his Miracle^ and the reft of the works, peculiar to
the Mediator.
8* That Law which bound us to Suffering, (or
made it our due) bound not Chrift to it, (as being
innocentj > But he was bound to it by the Fathers
Law of Mediator, and by his own voluntary fpon-
fion.
p. The Law obliging every finner himfelf to fuf-
fer, was not fulfilled by the Suffering of Chrift our
Sponfor : But only the Lawgiver fatisfied by at-
taining its Ends. For neither the letter nor fence
of it faid, \Ifthoufin^ thou or thy fumy Jhall fujfer.]
JO. Chrift
(55)
io. Chrift fatitfied Juftice and obeyed in Humane
Nature, which alfo was Holy in him.
1 1. He did not this as a Natural Root, or Head
to man, as Adam was > to convey Holinefs or
Rigbteoufnefs by natural propagation's Adam fhould
have done ; and did by fin : For Chrift had no
Wife or natural Children** But as a Head-fry Contratt
as a Husband to a Wife, and a King to a Kingdom,
and a Head of Spiritual Influx.
12. No as bring Afiually fuch a Head to the
Redeemed when he Obeyed and Suffered •» but as
a Head by Aptitude and Office,? ower and Virtue, who
was to become a Head attually to every one when
they Relieved and Confenteds Being before a H*W
/<?r *JEtf#Z) and overtbofe that did exifi, but not a Hi?<ft/
to them, inadh
13. Therefore they were not Chrifts members
Political, (much lefs Natural) when he obeyed and
died.
14. A Natural Head being but apart of a perfon,
what it doth the Perfon doth. But feeing a Contra-
tied Headend all the members of his Body Contracted
or Politic^, are every one a dijiincl Perfon jt follow-
eth not that each perfon did really or reputatively
what the Head did* Nay it is a good confequence
that \Jf be did it as Head, they did it not (numeri-
cally) as Head or Members-']
15. Chrift Suffered and Obeyed in the Perfon of
the Mediator between God and man > and as afub-
je3 to the Law of Mediation.
id. Chrift may be faid to fuflfer in the perfon of a
fmner, as it meaneth hi* orvnperfin reputed and ufed
as a finner by his pcrfecutor5,and as he was one who
flood before God as an Undertaker to fufler for
Man's fin* 17. Chrift
( J* )
17. Chrift fuffered in the place and fleadof fin-
tiers, that they might be delivered, though in the
ferfon of a Sponfor.
1 8. When we are agreed that the Perfon of the
Sponfor, and of every particular finner: are divers >
and r hat Chrift had not fuffered, if we had not fin-
ned, and that he as a Sponfor fuffered in our flead,
3nd fo bore the punifhment, which not be, but we
defervedy If any will here inftead of a Mediator or
Sponfor call him oar Reprefentative, and fay that he
fuffered even in all our Perfons relatively , not
fimpliciter, but fecundum quid, & in i ant um only;
that is, not reprefentingourF^^ fimply and in
all refpeds-i and to all ends, but only fo far as to be a
Sacrifice for our fins, and fuffer in our place and fiead
what he fuffered '<> we take this to be but In de no-
mine, a queftion about the name and words : And
we will not oppofe any man that thinketh thofc
words fitteft, as long as we agree in the matter fig-,
nified. And fo many Proteftant Divines fay that
Chrift fuffered m the perfon of every (inner, (at
leaft Ele&,) that is, fo far only and to fuch effects*
ip. Chrift' did not fuffer rtri&ly, limply, abso-
lutely, in the perfon of any one elecj finner, much
lefs in the millions of perfons of them all, in Law*
fence,or in Gods efteem. God did not efteem Chrift
to be naturally * or as an abfolute Repref enter J) avid,
Manaffeb, Paul, and every fuch other finner, but
■only a Mediator that differed in their ftead.
20. God did make Chrift to be fin for us •> that is,
A Sacrifice for our fm, and one that by Man was re-
>d, and by God and Man was ttfed, as finner s are,
j defcrve to be.
21. ChiUt vy^is not Qur "Delegate in Obeying or
• :: ,.- Suffering*
( 57 )
Suffering : We did not commiflion him, or depute
him to do what he did in our (lead : But he did it
by God's Appointment and his own Will.
22. Therefore he did it on God's terms, and to
what effects it pleafed God, and not on our terms,
nor to what effects we pleafe.
23. God did not fuppofe or repute Chrift, to
have committed all or any of the fins which we all
committed, nor to have had all the wickednefsin
his nature which was in ours, nor to have deferved
what we deferved : Nor did he in this proper fence
impute our [ins to Chrift.
24. Thefalfe notion of God ? s ftri& imputing all
our fins to Chrift, and efteeming him the greateft
fmner in the World, being fo great a Blafphemy
both againft the Father and the Son, it is fafeft in '
fuch Controverfies to hold to the plain and ordina-
ry words of Scripture. And it is not the Wifdom
nor Impartiality of fomemen, who greatly cry up
the Scripture- per fedion, and decry the addition of
a Ceremony or Form in the Worfhip of God s that
yet think Religion is endangered, if our Conftffion
ufe not the phrafes of [_God's Imputing our fin to
Chrijh and bis Imputing CbrijFs Right eoufnefs to us}
when neither oF them is in the Scripture \ As if all
God's Word were not big or perfett enough to
rnake us a Creed or Cqnfeflion in fuch phrafes as it
is fit for Chriftians to take up with; Countenancing
the Papifts, whofe Faith is fwelled to the many Vo-
lumes of the Councils, and no man can know how
ouch more is to be added, and when we have all.
25. God doth not repute or account us to have
fuffered in our Natural perfons what Chrift differed
for us, nor Chrift to have fuffered in our Natural
perfons. 2 5» Though
( *8 )
26* Though Chri(\fufferedinourfiead y and in
a large fence, to certain ufes and in fome refpetts, as
the Reprefenttr, oy in the Perfons of finners > yet did
he not fo far reprefent their perfons in his Habitual
Holinefs and Atiual Obedience (no not in the Obedi-
ence of bis Sufferings) as he did in the fuffering it
felf.Rc obeyed not in the Perfon of zfwner,m\ich lefs
of millions of finners s which were to lay, In the
perfon of finners he never ftnnsd. He fuifered, to fave
us from fuffering > but he obeyed not to fave us from
obeying^ but to bring us to Obedience. Yet his
Perfection of Obedience had this end, that perfeQ Obe-
dience might not be necejfary in us to our Juftitica-
tion and Salvation.
27. It was not we our felves who did perfeUly 0-
bey, or were perfeUly holy, or fuffcred for fin in the
Perfon of Chrift, or by Him : Nor did we (Natu-
rally or Morally) merit our own Salvation by obey-
ing in Chrift } nor did we fatisfre Gods Jujiice for
our fins, nor purchafe pardon of Salvation to our
(elves, by our Suffering in and by Chriji > All fuch
phrafe and fence is contrary to Scripture.But Chrift
did this for us.
28- Therefore God doth not repute us to have
done it, feeing it is not true.
2p. It is impoflible for the individual formal
Righteoufnefs of Chrift, to be our Formal perfonal
Righteoufnefs. Becaufe it is a Relation and Accident,
which cannot be translated from fubje6t to fubjed:,
and cannot be in divers fubje&s the fame.
30. Where thequeftion is, Whether Chrifts Ma-
terial Right eoujnefs, that is, his Habits, Ads and
Sufferings thernfclves, be Ours, we muft confider
how a man can have Propriety in Habits^ Ads and
Taffions*
( 19 )
Pajfiorts who is the fubjett of them : and in A&ions>
who is the Agent of them. To Give the fame Indi-
vidual Habit or Paffion to another, i* an Impoff%bility y
that is, to make him by Gift the fubje& of it. For
it is not the fame, if it be in another fubjedh To
make one man really or phyfically to have been the
Agent oianothers Aft, even that Individual Ad, if
he was not fo, is a contradi&ion and impoilibilityi
that is, to make it true, that I did that which I did
not. To be ours by Divine Imputation, cannot be,
to be onrs by a falfe Reputation, or fuppontion that
we did what we did not : For God cannot err or
lie. There is therefore but one ofthefe two ways
left. Either that we ourfelves in perfon, truly bad
the habits which Chriji had, and did all that Chriji
did, and fuffered all that be fujfered, andfo fatisfied
and merited Life in and by him, as by an Infirument^
or Legal Kepr ef enter of our per fons in all this s Which
I am anon to Confute : or elfe,That Chrijls Satisfa*
dion, Righteoufnefs, and the Habits ^Afis and Suf-
ferings in which it lay, are imputed to us,and made
ours ■> not rigidly in the very thing it felf, but in
the EffeUs and Benefits > In as much as we are as
really Pardoned, Jufiified, Adoptedby them,as the
Meritorious caufe, by the inftrumentality of the
Covenants Donation, as if we our felves had done
and fuffered all that Chrift did, as a Mediator and
Sponfor, do and fuflfer for us : I fay, As really and
certainly, and with a fuller demonitration of Gods
Mercy and Wifdom,and with a furficient demonflra-
tion of his Juiiice. Eut not that our propriety in
the benefits is in all refpe&s the fame, as it fhould
have been if we had been, done, fcnd fuffered our felves
what Chrilt did. Thus Chritts Righteoufnefs is ours.
31. Ckrift
( 60)
3 1. Chrift is truly "the Lord our Kighteoufnefs > in
more refpedts than one or two : i. In that he is
the meritorious Caufe of the Pardon of all our fins ,and
our full Justification, Adoption,and right to Glory :
and by his Satisfaction and Merits only, odr Juftifi-
cation by the Covenant of Grace againtt the
CurfeoftheLawof Works is purchafed. 2. In
that he is the Legiflator, Teftator and Donor of
our Pardon, and Juftificatiom by this new-Tefta-
ment or Covenant. 3 . In that he is the Head of In-
flux, and King and Interceflbr, by and from whom
the Spirit is given, to iandtifie us to God, and
caufe us fincerely to perform the Conditions of the
Juftifying and faving Covenant, in Accepting and
Improving the mercy then given. 4. In that he is
the Righteous Judge and Juftifyer of Believers by
fentence of Judgment. In all thefe Refpe&s he is
'the Lord our Kigbteoufnefs.
32. We are (aid to be mbde the Kigbteoufnefs of
God in him: 1. In that- as he was ufed like a (inner
for us, (but not efteemcd one by God ,fb we are ufed
like Innocent perfons Co far as to bzfaved by him.
2. In that through his Merits, and upon our union
with bim,whcn we believe and confent to his Cove-
nant, we are pardoned and juftijied, and fo made
Kighteous really, that is, fuchasarenot to be con-
demned but to be glorified. 3. In that the Divine
Nature and Inherent Kigbteoufnefs, to them that are
in him by Faith, are for his Merits, given by the
HolyGhoft. 4. In that God's Juftice and Holinefs
Truth,Wifdom, and Mcrcy,are all wonderfully de-
monftrated in this way of pardoning and juftifying
finners by Chrift. -Thus are we made the Righte-
oufnefs of God in hi^„
33. For
(6i )
33» For Righteoufnefs to be imputed to us, is aTl
one as to be accounted Righteous, Rom. 4. 6, 11.
notwithstanding that we be not Righteous as fel-
fillers of the Law of Innocency.
34. For Faith to be imputed to us for Righteoufnefs ^
Rom. 4. 22,23, 24. is plainly meant, that God
who under the Law of Innocency required perfedfc
Obedience>of us to our Juftification and Glorificati-
on, upon the fatis faction and merits of Chrift, hath
freely given a full Pardon and Right to Life, to all
true Believersifo that now by theCovenant of Grace
nothing is required of us, to our Juftification, but
Faith : all the reft being done by Chrift: And fo
Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, is
reputed truly to be the condition on our part,on
which Chrift and Life^by that Baptifmal Covenant,
are made ours.
35. Juftification, Adoption, and Life eternal are
confidered > 1. Quoad ipf am rem, as to the thing
it felf in value. 2. Quoad, Ordinem Confer endi &
Recipiendi, as to the order and manner of Conveyance
and Participation. In the firft refpeit, It is a meer
free-gift to us,purchafed by Chrili : In the fecond re*
fpeft, It is a Reward to Believers, who thank-
fully accept the free-Gift according to its nature
and ufes.
36* It is an error contrary to thefcopeof the
Gofpel to fay, that the Law ofWor^sjr of Innocency,
doth juftifie us, as performed either by our fdves, or
by Chrift. For that Law condemneth and curfeth
us> And we are not efficiently juftified by it, but
from or again jl it.
37. Therefore we have no Righteoufnefs in Re-
ality or Reputation formally ours* which confifteth
in
( 61 )
in the firft fpecies * that is,in a Conformity to the Pre*
ceptive part of the Law of Innocency \ we are not re-
puted Innocent : But only a Righteoufnefs which
confifteth in Pardon ofallfm,and right to life, (with
fincere performance of the Condition of the Covenant of
Grace^ th3t is, 'true Faith. )
3& Our pardon puts not away our Guilt of Fatt
or Faulty but our Guilt of or obligation to Punifhment.
God doth not repute us fuch as never tinned, or
fuch as by our Innocency merited Heaven, but fuch
as are not to be damned, but to be glorified > becaufe
pardoned and adopted through the Satisfa&ion and
Merits of Chrift.
3£. Yet the Ream C u ty* * s remitted to us Rela-
tively as to the punifhment, though notinitfelfi
that is, It (hall not procure our Damnation : Even
as Chrift's Righteoufnefs is, though not in it felf,
yet refpe&ively as to the Benefits faid to be made
ours, in as much as we (hall have thole benefits by
it.
40. Thus both the Material and the Formal
Righteoufnefs oi Chrift are made ours <> that is, Both
the Holy Habits and Ads-, and his Sufferings , with
the Relative formal Righteoufnefs of his own Perfon,bt-
caufe thefe are altogether one Meritorious caufe of
our Juftification, commonly called the Material
Caufe.
Ob), But though Forma "Denominate yet ifChrifts
Righteoufnefs in Matter and Form, be the Meritoriouf
Caufe of ours, and that be the fame with the Material
Caufe, it is a very tolerable fpeech to fay, f hat His Righ-
teoufnefs is Ours in itfelf while it is the very matter
efours.
Anf\ x When any man is Righteous Immediately by
aft)
# ( «3 )
any aBion, thata&ionis called the Matter of his
Righteoufnefs, in fuch an Analogical fenfe as Action,
an Accident may be called Matter^ becaufe the Re-
lation of Righteous is founded or fubjedied firftor
partly in that Aftion* And fo when Chrift perfect-
ly obeyed, it was the Matter ofkti Righteoufnefs. But
to be Righteous and to Merit are not all one notion ;
Merit is adventitious to meer Righteoufnefs. Now
it is not Chrifts Aftions in themfelves that our Righ-
teoufnefs refulceth from immediately as his own
did y But there is firft his Action* then his formal
Righteoufnefs thereby » and thirdly y his Merit by that
Righteoufnefs which goes to procure the Covenant-
Donation of Righteoufnafs to us, by which Cove-
nant we are efficiently made Righteous. So that the
name of a Material Caufe is much more properly gi-
ven to Chrijis Aftions, as to his own formal Righte*
oufnefs,thzn as to ours&ut yet this is but de nomine.
2. Above all, confider what that Righteoufnefs is
which Chrift merited for us,f which is the heart of
the Controverlie.) It is not of the hmefpecies or
fort with his own. His Righteoufnefs was a per-
fect finlefs Innocency, and Conformity to the precep-
tive part of the Lapp ofhtnocency in Holimfs. Ours
is not fuch.The diffenters think it is fuch bylmputa-
tion, and here is the difference. Ours is but in re-
fpedt tothe/fc<Wor retributive part of the Lavt> > a
Right to Impunity and Life,and a Juftification not at
all by that Law, but from its cur fe or condemnation.
The Law that faith, Obey perfectly and live y fin
and die, doth not juftifie us as perfons that have
perfectly obeyed it,really or imputatively 4 But its
obligation to punijhment u dijf'lvtd, not by it felf,
but by the Law of Grace, it is then by the Law
(#4 )
of Grace that we are judged and juftified. Accord-
ing to it, i. We are not really or ireptitatively fuch
as Have perfeftly fulfilled all its Precept r : 2. But we
are fuch as by Grace do fincerely perform the Conditi-
on of its promife. 3. By which promife of 6ift,we
are fuch as have right to Chrifts ow nperfon, in the
Relation and Union of a Head and Saviour, and
with him the pardon of all our tins, and the right of
Adoption to the Spirit^ and the Heavenly Inheritance
as purchafed by Cbrift. So that befides our Inherent
or Adherent Righteoufhefs of iincere Faith, Repen-
tance and Obedience, as the performed condition of
the Law of Grace, we have no other Righteoufhefs
our felves, but Right to Impunity and to Life : and
not any imputed fmlefs Innocency at all. God par*
doneth our fins and adopt eth us, for the fake oi
Chrifts fufferings and perfett Holinejs : But he doth
not account us perfectly Holy for it, nor perftttly
Obedient. So that how-ever you will call it, whe-
ther a Material Cauje or a Meritorious, the thing is
plain.
Obj. He is made of God Righteoufnefs to us.
Anf. True : But that's none of the queftion.
But how is Tie fo made ? 1 . As he is made Wifdom,
Santftification and Redemption as aforefaid. 2. By
Merit>Satisfa<9:ion,Dircd;ion3 Prefcription and Do-
nation. He is the Meritorious Caufe of our Par-
don, of our Adoption, of our Right to Heaven*
of that new Covenant which is the Inftrumental
Deed of Gift, confirming all thefe : And he is alfo
our Righteoufnefs iu the fenfe that Auftin fo much
ftandeth on, as all our Holinefs and Righteoufnefs
of Heart and Life, is not of our natural endeavour,
but his gift 5 and opeiation by his Spirit > catifingus
to
( 6f)
to obey his Holv precepts and Example. All thefe
ways he is made of God our Righteoufhefs : Be- "
fides the Obje&ive way of fenfe •, as he is Objectively
made our Wifdom^ becaufe it is the trueft wifdom
to know him > So he is objectively made our Rigb-
teoufnefs-> in that it is that Gofpel-Rightecufnefs
which is required ofourfelves^by his grace,to believe
in him and obey him. .
41. Though Chrift fulfilled not the Law by Ha-
bitual Holjnefsand A&ual Obedience, firidtly in the
Individual perfon of each particular (inner » yet he
did it in the nature of Man : And fo humane nature,
(confidered in fpecie, and in ChriiT: perfonally,
though not confidered as atoturn, or as perfonally
in each manjdid fatisfie and fullfil theLaw and Me-
rit. As Humane Nature finned in Adam actually
mjpecie^ and in his individual perfon, and all our
Verfons were feminally and virtually in him, and
accordingly finned, or are reputed finners, as ha-
ving no nature but what he conveyed who could
convey no better than he had (either as to Relation
of Real quality); But not that God reputed us to
have been actually exijient-, as really diftinft perfons
in Adam (which is not true.) Even fo Chrift 0-
beyed and fufFered in our Nature, and in our nature
as it was in him i and humane finful nature in fpecie
was Univerfally pardoned by him, and Eternal life
freely given to all men for his merits, thus far impu-
ted to them, their fins being not imputed to hinder
this Gift 'i which is made in and by the Covenant
of Grace: Only the Gift hath the Condition of
mans Acceptance of it according to its nature, 2 Cer.
5. 19, 20. And all the individuals that (hall in time
by Faith accept tht Gift,are there and thereby made
I fuch
( 66 )
fuch as the Covenant for his merits doth juftifie, by
that General Gift.
42. As Adam was a Head by Naturei and there-
fore conveyed Guilt by natural Generation h fo
Chriftjsa Head (not by nature but) by Sacred
Confra&i and therefore conveyeth Right to Par-
don, Adoption and Salvation, not by Generation,
but by Contract or Donation. So that what it
was XQ be naturally in Adam-, teminally and vir-
tually, though not perfonlly in exiftenceseven that
it is, in order to our benefit by him to be in Cbrifi
by ContraH or the new Covenant ^ittuMy, though not
in perfonal exiftence when the Covenant was made.
43. They therefore that look upon Justification
or Righteoufnefs, as coming to us immediately by
I mputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, without
the Inftrumental Intervention and Conveyance or
Collation by this Deed t)f Gift orCovenant,do con-
found themfelves by confounding and overlooking
the Caufes of our Juftiftcation. That which Chrift
did by his merits was to procure the new Cove-
nant, The new Covenant is a free Gift of pardon
and life with Chrift himfelf, for his merits and fa-
tisfa&ion fake.
44. Though the Perfon of the Mediator be not
really or reputatively the very perfon ofeaebfinner,
(nor fo manyperfons as there are fmners or believers,)
yet it doth belong to the Perfon of the Mediator Jo
far (limitedly) to bear the perfon of a ftnner, and to
ftand in the place of the Perfons of all Sinners, as to
bear the puniihment they deferved, and to fuffer for
their (ins.
,45. Scripture fpeaking of moral matters, ufually
fpeaketh rather in Moral than meer Phyfical
phrafe :
( *7 )
phrafe: And in Arid Phyfical fence, Chrifts very
perfonal Righteoufnefs (Material or Formal) is not
fo given to us, as that we are proprietors of the ve-
ry thing it felf, but only of the effc&s (Pardon,
Righteoufnefs and Life,)yet in a larger Moral phrafe
that very thing is oft faid to be given to us, vvhich
is given to another, or done or differed for our be-
nefit. He that ranfometh a Captive from a Con-
querer,Phyfically giveth the Money to theConque-
rer & not to the Captive,& giveth the Captive only
the Liberty purchafed : But morally and reputatively
he is faid to give the Money to the Captive, becaufe
he gave it for bim. And it redeemeth him as well as if
he had given it himfelf. He that giveth ten thou-
fand pounds to purchafe Lands>& freely giveth that
land to another > phyfically giveth the Money to the
Seller only, and the Land only to the other. But
morally and reputatively we content our felves
with the metonymical phrafe, and fay, he gave the
other ten thoufand pound. So morally it may be
faid, that Chrills Righteoufnefs, Merirs and Satis-
fa&ion, was given to us, in that the thing purcha-
fed by it was given to us > when the Satisfa6Hon
\Vas given or made to God. Yea when we faid it
Wasmade to God, we mean only that he was paf-
fively the 'Terminus of adtive Satisfaction, being the
party fatisfyed > but not that he himfelf was made
the Subjed and Agent of Habits and Acts 5 andRigb*
teoufnefs of Chrirt as in his humane nature, except
as the Divine Nature a&ed it>or by Communication
of Attributes.
4<5. Becaufe the words [?erfon\ and [ferfina-
ting] and [Keprefenting] are ambiguous (as all hu*
mane language is,; while fome ufe them iu zftriOer
F 2 fenfe
( 6* )
fenfe than others do, wemuft try by other explica-
tory terms whether we agree in the matter, and
not lay the ftrefs of our Controverfy upon the bare
words. So fome Divines fay that Chrift fuffered in
the Perfon ofafinner*when they mean not that he re-
preferited the Natural perfon of any one particular
finner*, but that his own Perfon was reputed the
Sponfor of finners by God, and that he was judged
3 real (inner by his perfecuters * and fo fuffered as
if he had been a (inner.
47* As Chrift is lefs improperly faid to have Re-
prefented our Perfons in his fatisfa&ory Sufferings,
than in his perfonal perfect Holinefs and Obedience*
fo he is lefs improperly faid to have Reprefented all
mankind as newly fallen in 'Adam* in a General fenfe*
for the fur chafing of the univerfal Gift of far don and
Life , called^ The new Covenant » than to have Repre-
fented in his perfeti Holinefs and his Sufferings* every
Believer confidered as from his firft being to his Death*
Though it is certain that he dyed for all their fins
from firft to laft. For it is moft true, i. That
Chrift is as a Cccond Adam, the Root of the Re^
deemed*, And as we derive fin from Adam* fo we
derive life from Chrift, (allowing the difference be-
tween a Natural and a Voluntary way oiyderivati-
on,) And though no mans Terfon as a Perfon was
adlually exijient and offended in Adam* (nor was by
God reputed to have been and done) yet all mens
Perfons were Virtually and Seminally in Adam as is
aforefaid «* and when they are exiftent perfons* they
are no better either by Relative Innocency&x by Phy-
fical Difpofition* than he could propagate : and are
truly and juftly reputed by God to be Perfons
Guilty ef Adams f aft, fo far as they were by nature
femi-
(«* )
feminally and virtually in him : And Chrift the ft-
cond Adam is in a fort the root of Mm as Man,
(though not by propagation of us, yet) as he is the
Redeemer of Nature it felf from deftru&ion, but
more notably the Root of Saints of Saints, who are
to have no realfan&ity but what fhallbe derived
from him by Regeneration, as Nature and Sin is
from Adam by Generation. But Adam did not
reprefent all his pofterity as to all the A&ions
which they fhould do themfelves from their Birth
to their Death > fo that they fhould all have been
taken for perfectly obedient to the death, if Adam
had not finned at that time, yea or during his Life.
For if any of them under that Covenant had ever
finned afterward in their own perfbn, they fhould
have died for it. But for the time paft, they were
Guiltlefsor Guilty in Adam, as he was Guiltlefs or
Guilty himfelf, fo far as they were in Adam\ And
though that was but in Caufa^ & non extra caufam*
Yet a Generating Caufe which propagateth efTence
fromefTence, by felf-multiplication of form, much
difFereth from an Arbitrary facient Caufe in this. If
Adam had obeyed, yet all his pofterity had been ne-
verthelefs bound to perfect perfonal perfevering O
bedience^n pain of Death. And Chrift the fecond
Adam Co far bore the perfon of fallen Adam, and
fuffered in the nature and room of Mankind in Ge-
neral, as without any condition on their p»art at all;
to give man by an zGt of Oblivion or new Cove-
nant a pardon of Adams fin, yea and of all fin paft,
at the time of their confent,though not difobliging
them from all future Obedience. And by his per-
fect Holinefs and Obedience and Sufferings, he hath
merited that new Covenant, which Accepetb of
F 3 fin-
( 7<> ) .
fincere, though imperfe&, Obedience> and tnaketh
no more in us neceffary to Salvation. When I fay
he did this without any Condition on mans part, I
mean, He absolutely without Condition, merited and
gave us the Jujlifying Teftament or Covenant, Though
that Covenant give us not Juftification abfolutely,
but on Condition of believing, fiducial Confent. 2.
And fo as this Vnivdrfal Gift of Juftification upon
Acceptance, is actually given to all fallen mankind
as fuch y fo Chrift might be faid to fuffer inftead of
all, yea and merit too, fo far as to procure them
this Covenant-gift.
48. Thefumofalllyeth in applying the diftin*
dtonof giving Chrifts Righteoufnefs as fuch in it
felf, and as a caufe of our Righteoufnefs or in the
Caufality of it* As our fin is not reputed Chrifts fin
in it felf, and in the culpability of itffor then it muft
needs make Chrift odious to God) but in its Cau-
fality ofpunifhment : fo drift's Material or Formal
Righteoufnefs, is not by God reputed to be pro-
perly and abfolutely our own in it felfzs fuch, but
the Caufality of it as it produceth fuch and fuch e£*
4P- The Obje&ions which are made againft Im«
putation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs in tjfcs found
fenfe, may all be anfwered as they are by our Di-
vines i among whom the chiefeft on this fubje6t are
Vavenant de fuftit. Habit & JciuaL Johan. Crocius
de Juftif. Nigrinius delmpletione Legis* Bp. G*
Vow man of Juftif. Chamier, Farms, Amefws and {
Junius againft Bellarm* But the fame reafons againft
the unfound fence of Imputation are unanfwerable.
Therefore if any (hall fay concerning my following
Arguments, that moft of them are ufed, by Gregor*
de
( 7i )
de Valent. by Bellarm* Becanus, or other Papifts,
or by Socinians, and are anfwered by NigriHus£ro-
ciuiy UavettaHt, Sec* Such words may ferve to
deceive the fimple that are led by Names and Preju-
dice j but to the Intelligent they are contemptible,
unlefs they prove that thefe objections are made by
the Papifts againft the fame fence of Imputation a-
gainft which I ufe them, and that it is that ftrife
which all thofe Proteftants defend in anfwering
them : For who-ever fo anfwereth them,will appear
to anfwer them in vain.
50. How far thofe Divines who do ufe the phrafe
of Cbrljis faffering in our perfon^ do yet limit the
fenfe in their expofition,and deny that we are repu-
ted to have fulfilled the Law in Chrift : becaufe it is
tedious to cite many, I (hall take up now with one,
even Mr. Lawfm in his Tbeopolitica, which (though
about the office of Faith hefome-what differ from
me) Imuftneeds call an excellent Treatife, as I
take the Author to be one of the moft Knowing
men yet living that I know.) Pardon me if I be
large in tranferibing his words.
"Pag. 100, 101. [If we enquire of the manner
" howRighteoufnefs andLife is derived fromChrift,
" being one unto (b many, it cannot be, except
"Chrift be a general Head of mankind, and one
4C Perfon with them&Adam was.We do not read of
" any but two whowere generalHeads,and in fome
refpw(St virtually, AH mankind * the
firji and fecond Adam, . . The Marker-
principal caufe of thisReprefentation tually.
" whereby he is one perfon with us, is
cc the will of God, who as Lord made him fuch,
" and as Lawgiver and Judge did fo account him.
F 4 " But
u But, 2. How far is he One per fon with us> Anf.
" 1 . In general fo far as it pleafed God
Not abfo- "to make him fo,and nofurther. 2. In
lutely, tc particular,He and we are one Co fat
" i. As to make him liable to the pe-
nalty of the Law for us. 2. So far as to free us
" from that obligation, and derive the benefit of his
* c death to us. Though Chrift be fofar one with us
" as to be lyable unto the penalty of the Law, and
" to fuflfer ic, and upon this fuflfering we are freed ;
" yet Chrift is not the firmer, nor the finner Chrift.
" Chrift is the Word made flefti, innocent without
* c fin,an univerfal Prieft and King : but we are none
"ofthefe. Though we be accounted
Mar\ by a " as one perfon in Law with him, by a
Trope, " Trope, yet in proper fence it cannot
" be faid that in Chrift s Satisfying vt>e
"fatisfiedfor our own fins* For then we {hould have
" been the Word made flefti, able to plead Innocen-
" cy, &c. All which are falfe, impol-
Mark^ how cc fible.blafphemous if affirmed by any.
far, cc It's true, we are fo one with him,that
" he fatisfied for us, and the benefit of
u this Satisfa&ion redounds to us, and is communi-
cc cable to all, upon certain termes \ though not
" actually communicated to all : From this Unity
" and Identity of perfon in Law (if I may Co
w fpeak) it followeth clearly that ChrilVs fuffer-*
" ings were not only Affli&ions, but Punifhments
"in proper fen fe. - — Pag, 102, 103. That Chrift
"died for all in fome fence muft needs be granted,
" becaufe the Scripture exprefly affirms it (vid,
r M reliqua*) — »
" There is another queftion unprofitably hand-
«led>
(73 ;
1 led, Whether the TropitiatioH which includeth
* bothSatisfa&ion andMerit,be to be afcribed to the
< A&ive or Paflive Obedience of Chrift ? Anf. I.
ic Both his A&ive, Perfonal, Perfedt and Perpetual
< Obedieuce,which by reafon of his humane nature
;t afforded, and fubjedion unto God was due, and al-
:t fo that Obedience to the great and tranfeendent
" Command of fuffering the death oftheCrofs,
" both concur as Caufes of Remiflion and Juftificati-
" on.2. TheScriptures ufually afcribe it to the Blood,
" Death,&Sacrifice of Chrijft,and never to thePerfo-
" nal A&iveObedience of Chrift's to theMoral Law*
" 3, Yet this A&ive Obedience is neceflary,becaufe
" without it he could not have offered that great
" Sacrifice of himfelf without fpot to God. And if
" it had not been without fpot, it could not have
" been propitiatory and effe&ual forExpiation.4.l£
" Chrift as our Surety had performed for us perfect
" and perpetual Obedience, fo that we might have
" been judged to have perfe&ly and fully kept
u the Law by him, then no fin could have been
* c chargeable upon us, and the Death of Chrift had
€t been needlefs and fuperfluous. 5. Chrifts Propi-
¥ tiation freeth the Believer not only from the obli-
" gation unto punifhment of fenfe, but of lofs >
" and procured for him not only deliverance from
" evil deferved, but the enjoyment of all good ne-
Cc ceflary to our full happinefs. Therefore, there is
cc no ground of Scripture for that opinion, that the
cc Death of Chrift and his Sufferings free us from pu-
" nifhments, and by his A&ive Obedience imputed
* c to us we are made righteous,and the heirs of life.
u 6. It Chrift was bound to perform perfedi and
4< perpetual Obedience for us,and he alfo performed
"it
( 74)
t( it for us, then we are freed not only from fin, but
c< Obedience too: And this Obedience as diftindt and
" feparate from Obedience unto death, may be plea-
" ded for Juftification of Life, and will be fufficient
ct to carry the Caufe. For the tenor of the Law
"was this, Do thn and live : And if man do this
Ci by himfelf or Surety, fo as that the Lawgiver and
ct (upreme Judg accept it, the Law can require no
u more. It couid not bind to pertedt Obedience and
<c to punifhment too. There was never any fuch
<c Law made by God or juft men. Before I conclude
" this particular of the extent of Chrifts Merit and
" Propitiation, I thought good to inform the Rea-
<c der, that as the Propitiation of Chrift maketh no
cc man abfolutely, but upon certain terms pardon-
<c able and favable> (bit was never made, either
cC to prevent all fin, or all punifhments : For it pre-
"fuppofeth man both finfulandmiferable : And
cc we know that the Guilt and Punifhment of
"Adams fin, lyeth heavy on all his pofterity to this
" day. And not only that, but the guilt of actual
cc and perfonal fins lyeth wholly upon us, whileft
tc impenitent and unbelieving and fo out of Chrift.
ct And the Regenerate themfelves are not fully freed
"from all puniftunents till the final Refurre&ion
" and Judgment. So that his Propitiation doth not
c * altogether prevent but remove fin and punifh-
cc ment by degrees. Many fins may be faid to be
ct Remiffible by vertue of this Sacrifice, which ne-
<c ver (hall be remitted.] So far Mr. Lawfon.
Here I would add only thefe Animadverfions.
r. That whereas he explaineth Chrifts ferfonating
us in fuflfering by the fimilitude of a Debtor and his
Surety who are the fame perfon ip Law : I note i.
That
( 75 ;
That the cafe of Debt much differeth from the cafe
of Punifliment. 2. That a Surety of Debt is either
antecedently fuch, or confequently : Antecedently^
either firft one that is bound equally with the Deb*
tori 2. or one that promifeth to pay if he do not.
I think the Law accounteth neither of thefe to be
the Perfon of the principal Debtor (as it doth a Ser-
vant by whom he fends the Debt.) But Chrift was
neither of thefe : For the Law did not beforehand
oblige him with us, nor did he in Law-fence un-
dertake to pay the Debt, if we failed. Though
God decreed that he flionld do fo ^ yet that was no
part of the fence of the Law. But confequently, if
a friend of theDebtor when he is in Jayl will, with-
out his requeft or knowledg, fay to the Creditor, I
will pay you all the Debt •» but fo that he (hall be in
my power, and not have prefent liberty Cleft he
abufe it) but on the terms that I (hall pleafe* yea
not at all if he ungratefully rejedt it] This Confe-
qnent Satisfyer, or Sponfor 3 or Paymafter, is not in
Law- fence the fame Perfin with the Debtor: But
if any will call him fo, I will not contend about a
word, while we agree of the thing (the terms of
deliverance.) And this is as near the Cafe between
Chrift and us, as the limilitudc of a Debtor will al-
low.
2. I do differ from Mr. L j0?/w and Partus, and
Vrfine^ and Olevian, and Scultetus and all that fort
of worthy Divines in this*, that whereas they make
Chrifts Holinefsand perfedi Obedience to be but
Jttiiitiaperf)H£,nccciTixy to make his Sacrifice fpot-
lefs and foeifc dual: I think thztofitfelfit is as di-
redtly the gaufe of our Pardotn, Jultification and
Life, as Chrifts Piflion is > The Pillion being fatis-
U ftoiy
( 76 )
factory and fo meritorious, and the perfbnal Holi-
nefs Meritorious and fo Satisfa&ory. For the truth
is, The Law that condemned us was not fulfilled
by Chrifts fuffering for us, but the Lawgiver fatis-
fied inftead of the fulfilling of if : And that Satisfa-
<3:ion lyeth, in the fubftitution of that which as ful-
ly (or more) attaincth the ends of the Law as our
own fuffering would have done. Now the ends of
the Law may be attained by immediate Merit of
Perfection as well as by Suffering > but beft by both.
For i. By the perfect Holinefs and Obedience of
Chrift, the Holy and perfedfc will of God Ispleafed :
whence [This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleafed."] 2. In order to the ends of Government,
Holinefs and perfed Obedience, is honoured and
freed from the contempt which fin would caft upon
it y and the holinefs of the Law in its Precepts is
publickly honoured in this grand Exemplar * In
whom only the will of God was done on Earth ; as it
is done in Heaven. And fuch a Specimen to the
World is greatly conducible to the ends of Govern-
ment : So that Chrift voluntarily taking humane
nature, which as fuch is obliged to this Perfection,
He firft highly merited of God the Father hereby,
and this with his Suffering, went to attain the ends
that our fuffering (hould have attained,much better.
So that at lead: as Meritorious, if not fecondarily as
fatisfaftory, I fee not but Cbrijls Holinefs procureth
the Justifying Covenant for us, equally with his
Death. A Prince may pardon a Traitor foxfome no-
ble fervice of hit Friend, as well as for his fuffering :
much more for boch.This way go Grotius defatisf
Mr. Brad/haw and others.
3. When Mr Laxvfon faith that the Liw binds
not
(77)
not to Obedience and Puni(hmentboth,be meaneth
as to the fame A& : which contradicts not what
Nigrinut and others fay, that it binds a finner to
punilhment for fin paft,and yet to Obedience for the
time to come;(which cannot be entire and perfed:.)
So pag. 311- Cap. 22. §>u. 2. Whether there be
two parts of Juftification, Remiflion and Imputation
of Chrifts Righteoufnefs. i. He referreth us to
what is aforecited againft Imputation of Chrifts
Adtive Righteoufnefs, feparated or abftra&ed for
Reward from thePaffive. 2. He fheweth that Paul
taketh Remiflion of fin and Imputation of Righte-
oufnefs for the fame thing.] So fay many of ours.
In conclufion I will mind the Reader, that by
reading fome Authors for Imputation,I am brought
to doubt whether fome deny not all true Remiflion
of fin, thatis,Remi(Iion of the deferved puni(hment.
Becaufe I find that by Remiflion they mean A non-
Imputation of fin under the formal notion of fin > that
God taketh it not to be our fin, but Chrifts *, and
Chrifts Righteoufnefs and perfe&ion to be fo ours,
as that God accounteth us not as truly tinners. And'
fo they think that the Ream Culp£ as well as ?<zn&
(imply in it felf is done away, W hich if it be fo,then
the Reatus Pan*? the obligation to punifhment, or
the duenefsoi puni(hment,cannot be (aid to be diffol-
ved or remitted, becaufe it was never contracted.
Where I hold, that it is the Reatus ad Pxnamfhc
Duenefs of punifhment only that is remitted,and the
guilt of fin not as in it felf,but in its Caufality of pu-
nifhment. And fo in all common language, we fay
we forgive a man his fault, when we forgive him all
the penalty politive and privative. Not efteeming
him, i. Never to have done the fa eft. 2. Or that
faci
( 78 )
h& not to have been a fault, and hit faulty .but that
punifhment for that fault, is forgiven him, and the
fault fo far as it is a caufe of punifhment. We muft
not feign God to judg falfly.
This maketh me think of a faying of Bp. Vjhers
to me, when I mentioned the Papifts placing Ju-
ftification and Remiffion of fin conjunct, he told me
that the Papifts ordinarily acknowledg no Remiffi-
on. And on fearch I find that Aquinas and the moft
of them place no true Remiffion of fin, in Juftifica-
tion : For by Remiffim (which they make part of
Juftification,) they mean Mortification* or defiroying
finitfelfm the ad or habit. But that the pardon of
the punifhment is a thing that we all need, is not
denyable>nor do they deny it,though they deny it to
be part of our Juftification. For it's ftrange if they
deny Chrift the pardoning power which they give
the Pope. And as Joh. Croctm de Juftif. oft tells
them, They fhould for (hame grant that Chrifts
Righteoufnefsmay be as far imputed to us, as they
fay a Saints or Martyrs redundant merits and fuper-
erogations are.
But if the Guilt of FaS and (juilt of Fault in it
felf confidered, be not both imputed firft to us,that
is, If we be not judged finners, I cannot fee how
we can be judged Pardoned finners *> For he that is
judged to have no fin, is judged to deferve no pu-
nifhment. Unlefs they will fay that to prevent the
form and defert of fm> is eminenter^ though not for-
maliter^ to forgive. But it is another (even Adfrual)
forgivenefs which we hear of in theGofpel, and
pray for daily in the Lords prayer. Of all which fee
the full Scripture-proof in Mr, Hotchkjs of Forgive-
nefs of fin*
CHAP,
V 75? ;
CHAP. III.
A further explication of the Contro-
verfie.
Yet I am afraid left I have not make the ft ate
of the Controverfie plain enough to the un-
exercised Reader >and left the very explicate*
ry diftinftions and proportions^ though need-
ful and fuitable to the matter > jhould be un-
suitable to his capacity, I will therefore
go over it again in afborter vpay-> and make
it as plain as poffibly I can; being fully per*
fwaded^ that it is not fo much Argumenta-
tion^ as help to underftand the matter, and
our own and other mens ambiguous
words , that is needful to end our abomi-
nable Contentions.
§ i. *TpH E Righteoufnefs of a Perfon is formally
A a moral Relation of that Perfon.
§ 2. This moral Relation, is the Relation of that
perfon to the Rule by which he is to be judged.
§ 3. And it is his Relation to fome Caufe^or fup-
pofed Accufation or Queftion to be decided by that
judgment.
§ 4. The Rule of Righteoufnefs here is Gods
Law, naturally or fupernaturally made known.
§5. The
( S° )
§ 5. The Law hath a Preceptive part, determi*
ning what (hall be due from us, and a Retributive
part determining what (hall be due to us.
§ (5. The Precept inftituting Duty, our Anions
and Difpofitions,which are the Matter of that duty,
are phyiically confidercd, conform or difconform to
the Precept.
§7. Eeing Phyfically, they are confequently fo
Morally considered, we being Moral Agents, and
the Law a Rule of Morality.
§ 8. If tht Atfivns be righteous or unrighteous,
confequently the Perfon is fo, in reference to thofe
A&ions* fuppofing that to be his Cwfe&t the Que-'
(iipn to be decided*
§ p. Unrighteoufnefs as to. this Cau(e, is
Guilty or Reatus Culpa ^ and to be unrighteous is to
be Sons-) or Guilty of (in.
§ jo. The Retributive part of the Law is, 1. Pre-
miant, for Obedience * 2. Penal, for Difobedicnce-
§ 1 1. To be Guilty or Unrighteous as to the re-
ward, is, to have no ri^ht to the reward ( that be-
ing fuppofed the Queftion in judgment) : And to
be Righteous here,is to have right to the reward.
§ 12. To be Guilty as to thepenaltyus to be;#-
repuniendm, or Reuspxn^ or obligatus adpxmm.
And to be righteous here, is to have Right to imr
p unity , (quoad pxmm damni &fenfus.)
§ 13. The tirft Law made perfonaU perfett, per-
fevering Innocency both mans duty, and the Condi-
tion ot the Reward and Impunity, and any fin the
condition of punifhment.
§ 14, Man broke this Law, and fo loft his Inno-
cency, and fo the Condition became naturally im-
poffibletohim, defuturo*
§15. There-
( 81 )
§ 15. Therefore that Law as a Covenant, that
is, the Promiflbry part with its Condition,ceaff d;
cejfante capacitate fubditi > and fo did the preceptive
part. 1. As it commanded abfolute Innocency (of
a& and habit.) 2. And as it commanded the fceking
of the Reward on t he Condition and by the means
of perfonal Innocency. The Condition thus paffing
into the nature of a fentence 5 And punilhment re-
maining due for the fin.
§ id. But the Law remained ftill an obligingPre-
cept for future ptrfedt Obedience, and made punifh-
ment due for all future fin : and thefe two parts of
it,as the Law of lapfed Nature 3 remained inforce,be-
tween thehrft fin, and the new-Covenant promife
or Law of Grace.
§ 17. The eternal Word interpofing^a Mediator
is promifed, and Mercy maketh a Law of Grace,and
the Word becometh mans Redeemer by underta-
king, and by prefent adtual reprieve, pardon and
initial deliverance : and the fallen world, the mife-
rablefinners, with the Law and obligations which
they were under,are now become the Redemers jure
Redemptknis^sbefove they were the Creator's jure
Creatienif.
§ 18. The Redeemers Law then hath two parts h
1. The faid Law of lapfed nature (binding to fu-
ture perfect obedience or punifhment) which he
found man under (called vulgarly the Moral Law.)
2. And a pardoning Remedying Law of Grace.
§19. Becaufe man had diihorioured God and
his Law by fin, the Redeemer undertook to take
mans nature without fin, and by perfedt Holinefs
and Obedience, and by becoming a Sacrifice for fin-,
to bring that Honour to God and his Law which
/ G we
f 6* )
we (hould have done, and to attain the Ends of
law and Government infteadofour Perfection ox
Tunijhment) that for the Merit hereof we might be
delivered and live.
§ 2o.This he did in the third perfon of a Media-
tor,who as fuch had a Law or Covenant proper to
himfelf»the Conditions of which he performed, (by
perfe& keeping, i. TheLawoflnnocency* 2. Of
Mofes-,%* And that proper to himfelf alone) and fo
merited all that was promifed to him, for Himfelf
and Us.
$21. By his Law ofGrace (as our Lord-Redeem-
er)he gave firft to all mankind fin Adam^ and after
in Noab.and by a fecond fuller edition at his Incar*
nation) a free Pardon of the deftru&ive punilhment
(but not of all punifhment) with right to his Spirit
of Grace, Adoption and Glory ,in Union with Him-
felf their Head, on Condition initially of Faith and
Repentance, and progreflively of fincere Obedience
to the end, to be performed by his Help or Grace.
§ 22. By this Law ofGrace (fuppofing the Law
of lapfed nature aforefaid, inclusively) all the
World is ruled, and (hall be judged, according to
that edition of it (to Adam or by Chrift; which they
are under. And by it they (hall be Juftified or Con-
demned.
§ 23 . If the queftion then be, Have you kept or
not kept the Conditions of the Law of Grace, Per-
fonai Performance or nothing muft fo far be our
Righteoufnefs, and not Chritts keeping them for us,
or Satisfa&ion for our not keeping them. And this
is the great Cafe (fo oft by Chrift defcribed Mat. 7.
£^25. &c.) to be decided in judgmentjand therefore
the word Righteous and Righteoufnefs are ufed for
what
.(«3 )
what is thus perfonal hundreds of times in Scrip-
ture.
§ 24. But as to the queftion, Have webgptthc
Law of Innocency} we muft confefs guilt and fay, No;
neither Immediately by our felves,nor Mediately by
another, or Inftrument ; for Perfonal Obedience on-
ly is the performance required by that Law > There-
fore we have no Righteoufnefs confiding in fuch Per-
formance or Innocency '•> but muft confefs fin, and
plead a pardon.
§ 2 5. Therefore no man hath a proper Vniverfal
Rigbteeufnefs i excluding all kind of Guilt whatfo-
ever.
§25. Therefore no man is juftifiedby the Law
of Innocency (nor the Law Mofaical as of works
either by the Preceptive or Retributive part : for we
broke the Precept, and are by the Threatning heirs
of death.
§ 27. That Law doth not juftifie us,becaufe
Chrift fulfilled it for us : For it faid not fin words
or fenfe) [Thou or one for thee (hall Perfectly Obey*
or Suffer : ] It mentioned no Subftitute : Eut it is
the Law-giver (and not that Law) that juftifieth
us by other means.
§ 28. But we have another Righteoufnefs imputed
to us injiead of that Perfett Legal Innocency and Re-
wardablenefs, by which we (hall be accepted of(jod,
and glorified at laft as furely and fully (at leaft) as if
we had never finned, or had perfectly kept that
Law i which therefore may be called our ProAegal
Righteoufnefs.
§ 29. But this Righteoufnefs is not yet either
OURS by fuch a propriety as a Perfonal perfor*
nance would have bin, nor OURS to all the fame
G 2 ends
( *4)
ends and putpofes : It faveth us not from all pain,
death or penal defertion, nor conftituteth our Rela-
tion juft the fame.
§ 30. It is the Law of Grace that Juftifieth us,
both as giving us Righteoufnefs, and as Virtually
judging us Righteous when it hath made us fo,and
it is Chrift as Judg according to that Law(and God
by Chrift) that mWfentence us juft> and executively
fo ufe us.
§ 3 r. The Grace of Chrift firft giveth us Faith
and Repentance by effe&ual Vocation : And then
the Law of Grace by its Donative part or A& doth
give us a Right to Vnion with Chrift as the
Churches Head (and fo to his Body) and with him
a right to Pardon of paft fin, and to the Spirit to
dwell and a& in us for the future, and to the Love
of God, and Life eternal, to be ours in pofleflion,if
we fincerely obey and perfeverc.
§32. The total Righteoufnefs then which we
have(as an Accident of which we are the Subje&s,)
is 1. A right to Impunity, by the free Pardon of
all our fins, and a right to Gods Favour and Glory,
as a free gift quoad valorem, but as a Reward of our
Obedience, quoad Ordinem conferendi & rationem
Camparativamtwhy one rather than another is judg-
ed 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 capa-
ble recipients ; which is initially QFaith and Repen-
tance] the Condition -.of our Right begun, and
confequently, (Incere Obedience and Pcrfeverance
(the Condition of continued right, J.
§33. Chrifts perfonal Righteoufnefs is no one
of ihde, and fq is not our Confiitutive Righteoufnefs.
for-
( 8f )
formally and ftri&ly Co called : For Formally our
Righteoufnefs is a Relation, (of right *, ) and it is
the Relation of our own Perfons : And a Relation
is an accident : And the numerical Relation (or
Right3 of one perfon cannot be the fame numerical
Accident of another perfon as the fubjed:.
§ 34. There are but three forts of Caufe s h Effi-
cient, Conftitutive&nd Final.
i.Chrift is the efficient caufe of all ourRighteouf-
nefs : (1. Of our Right to Pardon and Life j 2. And
of our Gofpel-Obedience : ) And that many waies:
1. He is the Meritorious Caufe : 2. He is the Donor
by his Covenant i 3. And the Donor or Operator
of our Inherent Righteoufnefs by his Spirit : 4. And
the moral efficient by his Word, Promife, Exam-
ple, &c.
2. And Chrift is partly the final caufe.
3. But all the doubt is whether his perfonal
Righteoufnefs be the Conflitutive Caufe.
§35. The Conflitutive Caufe of natural bodily
fobitances conliftethof Matter difpofed, and Farm.
Relations have no Matter, but inftead of Matter a
Subject (and that is Our own perfons here, and not
Chrift.) and a terminus and fundamentum.
§ 36* The Fundamentum may be called both the
Efficient Caufe of the Relation (as commonly it is)
and the Matter from which it refulteth : And Co
Chrifls Righteoufnefs is undoubtedly the Meritorious
efficient Caufe, and undoubtedly not the Formal
Caufe of our perfonal Relation of Righteoufnefs ;
Therefore all the doubt is of the Material Caufe.
§ 37. So that all theControverlie is come up to
a bare name and Logical term, of which Logicians
agree not as to the aptitude. All confefs that Rela-
G 3 • tions
( 86 )
lattons have no proper Matter, befides the fubjed:
all confefs that thtFundamentum is loco efficients Jmt
whether it be a fit name to call it the Conftitutive
Matter of a Relation, there is no agreement.
§ 38. And if there were,it would not decide this
Verbal Cofctroverfie : For 1. Titulus eft funda-
mentum Jurii : The fundamentum of our Right to
Impunity and Life in and with Chrift, is the Vona-
tive a& of our Saviour in and by his Law or Cove-
nant of Grace : that is our Title j And from that
our Relation refulteth, the Conditio tituli vel juris
being found in our felves. 2. And our Relation of
Performers of that Condition of the Law of Grace,
refulteth from our own performance as the funda-
mentum (compared to the Rule.) So that both
thefe parts of our Righteoufnefs have a nearer fun-
damentum than Chrifts perfonal Righteoufnefs.
§ 39. But the Right given us by the Covenant
(and the Spirit and Grace) being a Right merited
firft by Chrifts perfonal Righteoufnefs, this is a
Caufa Caufa, id eft, fundamenti, feu Donations :
And while this much is certain, whether it (hall be
called a Remote fundamentum (viz. Caufa funda-
menti) and fo a Remote Confiitutive Material
Caufe, or only (properly) a Meritorious Caufe,
may well be left to the arbitrary Logician, that ufe-
eth fuch notions as he pleafes > but verily is a Con-
troverfie unfit to tear the Church for, or deftroy
Love and Concord by.
§40. Queft. 1. Is Chrifts Righteoufnefs OVRS >
Anf. Yes s In fome fenfe, and in another not.
§ 41. Queft. 2, Is Chrifts Righteoufnefs OVRS ?
'dnf.Ycs i In the fenfe before opened > For all things
are ours h an4 his righteoufnefs more than lower
Caufes. §2 f Queft*
( *7)
§ 42. Queft. 3. Is Cbrijls Righteoufnefs OVRS
as it was or is His own^with the fame fort of propriety ?
Anf No.
§43. Queft. 4. Is the formal Relation of Righte-
ous as an accident of our perfons, numerically the fume
Righteoufnefs ? Anf. No h It is impoffible : Unlefe
we are the fame perfon.
§ 44- Queft. 5. IsChriji and each Believer onepo*
litical perfon ? Anf. Apolitical perfon is an equivo-
cal word: If you take it for an Office (as the King
or Judg is a political perfon) I fay, No ; If for a
Society ^Yeah But noxia & noxa caput fequuntunTnxc
Guilt is an accident of natural perfons, and of Soci-
eties only as conftituted of fuch ; and fo is Righte-
oufnefs } Though Phyfically Good or Evil may for
fociety-fake, befal us without perfonal defcrt or
confent.
But if by [Perfon] you mean a certain State or
Condition (as to bczfubjed ofGod^ or one that is
to fuffer for fin) fo Chrift may be faid to be the fame
perfon with us infpecie^ but not numeric ally >becaufe
that Accident whence his Perfonatity is named, is
not in the fame fubjedi.
§ 45. Queft. 6- Is Chrifls Righteoufnefs imputed
to us ? Anf Yes*, It by imputing you mean reckon-
ing or reputing it ours, fo far as is aforefaid, that is
fuch a Caufe of ours.
§ 46* Queft. 7. Are we reputed ourfelves to have
fulfilled all that Law oflnnocency in and by Chriji, as
reprefenting our perfons % as obeying by him ? Anf. No..
§ 47* Queft. 8. Is it Cbrijls Divine, Habitual^
AUive or PaJJive Righteoufnefs which Jujiifieth us ?
Anf All : viz, the Habitual, Adtive and Paflive
exalted in Meritorioufnefs by Union with the Di-
vine. G 4 §48,Queft.
(88)
§48. Queft. 5?. Is it Chrifls Righteoufnefs^ or our
Faith which U j aid to be imputed to us for Righteouf-
nefs } Rom. 4. Anf. 1. The textfpcaketh of im-
puting Faith, and by Faith is meant Faith, and not
Chrifis Righteoufnefs in the word : But that Faith
is Faith in Chrifi and his Righteoufnefs i and the
Obje&is quafi materia a£ius, and covenanted.
2. Vere, both are Imputed : that is, 1. Chtifls
Righteoufnefs is reputed the meritorious Caufe. 2.
The free-gift (by the Covenant) is reputed the
fundamentum jurti (bothoppofed to our Legal Me-
rit.) 3. And our Faith is reputed the Conditio tituli>
and all that is required in us to our Juftifjcation> as
making us Qualified Recipients o( the free-Gift meri-
ted by Chrift.
§ 4P* Queft. I0# Are vpe any way Juflified by
our own performed Righteoufnefs ? Anf. Yes > Againft
the charge of non- performance, (as Infidels, Impe-
nitent, Unholy,) and fo as being uncapableofthe
free-gift of Pardon and Life in Chrift.
CHAR
V vy )
CHAR IV.
FheReafons of our denying the fore-defcri-
bed rigid fence of Imputation.
though it vcere mojl accurate to reduce what
roe deny to fever al Proportions, and to con-
fute each one argument atively by it [elf Jet
I /hall now choofe to avoid fuch prolixity ;
and for brevity and the fat isf action of fuch
as look more at the force of 'aReafon, than
the form of the Argument > Ifhall thruft to-
gether our denyedSence 7 with the manifold
Reafons of our denyaL
"TTTE deny, that God doth fo Impute Ch rifts
" V V Righteoufnefs to us, as to repute or ac-
€t count us to have been Holy with all that Habitu-
" al Holinefs which was in Chrift, or to have done
. cc all that he did in obedience to his Father, or in
" fulfilling the Law, or to have fuftered all that he
cC fuffered, and to have made God fatisfa&ion for
cc our own fins, and merited our own Salvation and
cc Justification, in and by Chrift s or that he was-,
cc did and }uffered-> and merited, all this ftri&ly in
cc the perfon of every finner that is faved j Or that
4C Chrifts very individual Righteoufnefs Material or
" Formal, is fomadc ours in a Arid: fenfe, as that
" we are Proprietors, Subjects, or Agents of the
CI yer y
( 9o )
cc very thing it felf (imply and abfolutely, as it is
" diftin<a from the effedte * or that Chrifts Indivi-
cc dual Formal Righteoufnefs, is made our Formal
" Perfonal Righteoufnefs j or that as to thzeffe&s,
U we have any fuch Righteoufnefs Imputed to us,
cc as formally ours, which confifteth in a perfedt Ha-
cc bitual and Adual Conformity to the Law of In-
c 'nocency, that is, that w£ are reputed perfectly
cc Holy and finlefs, and fu^h as (hall be Juftified by
cc the Law of Innqcency* which faith, VerfeUly Obey
cc and Live j or fin ay(idie7\ All this we deny.
Let him that will anfwer me, keep to my words,
and not alter the fenfe by leaving any out* And
that he may the better underftand me,I add,i. I take
itfor granted that the Law requireth Habitual Ho-
linefs as well as A&ual Obedience, and is not ful-
filled without both. 2. That Chrift loved God
and man with a perfed: conftant Love, and never
finned by'Omiffion or Commiflion. 3. That
Chrift died not only for our Original fin, or fin be-
fore Converfion, but for all our fin to our lives end.
4. That he who is fuppofed to have no fin ofO-
miflion, is fuppofed to have done all his duty. £.
That he that hath done all his duty, is not cotidem-
nable by that Law,yea hath right to all the Reward
promifed on Condition of that duty. <5. By Chrifts
Material Righteoufnefs, I mean, thofe Habits, Ads
and Sufferings in which his Righteoufnefs did con-
fift* or was founded. 7. By his and our Formal
Rigbteoufnefs-i I mean the Relation it felf of being
Righteous. 8. And I hold that Chrifts Righteouf-
nefs, did not only Numerically (as aforefaid) but
alfo thustotAfpeciejui kind differ from ours, that his
was a perfeft Habitual and AUual Conformity to the
Law
( 91 )
Law ofInnocency y together with the peculiar Laws of
Mediator- floipyby which he merited Redemption for us y
and Glory for himfelf and us : But o#rs is the Tar don
vf fin-> and Right to Life , Pur chafed, Merited and
freely given us by Cbrift in and by a new Covenant^
whofe condition is Faith with Repentance, as to the
gift of our Jujiification now, andfincere Holinefs>0-
bedience, Viftory and Perfeverance as to our pojfejfion
of Glory.
Now our Reafons againft the denyed fence of Im-
putation are thefe.
i. In general this opinion fetteth up and intro-
duced all Antinomianifm or Libertiniim, and Un-
godlinefs, and fubverteth the Gofpel andallfrue
Religion and Morality.
I do not mean that all that hold it, have fuch ef-
fects in themfelves, but only that this is the tenden-
cy and confequence of the opinion: For I know
that many fee not the nature and confluences of
their own opinions, and the abundance that hold
damnable errors, hold them but notionally in a pee-
vifh faction, and therefore not dammingly,but hold
practically and effe&ually the contrary faving truth.
And if the Papifts (hall perfwade Men that our de-
xtrine, yea theirs that here miftake, cannot confift
with a godly life,Iet but the lives of Papifts and Pro-
teftants be compared. Yea in one of the Inftances
before given > Though fome of the Congregational-
party hold what was recited, yet fo far are they
from ungodly lives, that the greateft thing in which
I differ from them is, the overmuch unfcriptural
ftridfriefsoffomeofthem, in their Church-admif-
Gons and Communion, while they fly further from
uch as they think not godly, than I think God
would
would have them do, being generally perform fear-
ing God themfelves : (Excepting the finful aliena-
tion from others, and eafiAefs to receive and carry
falfe reports of Dilfenters, which is common to all
that fall into fidings.) But the errors of any men
are never the better if they be found in the hands of
godly men : For if they be pradtifed they will make
them ungodly.
2. It confoundeth the Perfon of the Mediator ,and
of the Sinner : As if the Mediator who was proclai-
med the Beloved of the Father, and therefore ca-
pable of reconciling us to him, becaufe he was ftill
rvell-pleajed in him, had (not only fufifered in the
room of the (inner by voluntary Sponfion 5 but alfo)
in fufferingand doing, been Civilly. the very perfon
of thefinner himfelf* that (inner I fay, who was
an enemy to God, and fo efteemed.
3. It maketh Chrift to have been Civilly as many
perfons as there be eledt finners in the World: which
is both befide aiid contrary to Scripture.
4. It introduceth a falfe fence and fuppofition of
our fin imputed to Chrift,as if Imputatively it were
his as it is ours, even the finful Habits, the finfitl
j48s>> and the Relation oievil, IVichedjUngodly and
Unrighteous which refulteth from them : And fo it
maketh Chrift really hated of God ; For God cannot
but bate any one whom he reputeth to be truly
ungodly, a Hater of God, an Enemy to him, a Re-
bel, as we all were : whereas it was only the Guilt
of Pii'nifliment, and not of Crime &% fuch that Chrift
aflumed: He undertook to fuffer in the room of
finners > and to be reputed one that had fo underta-
ken; But not to be reputed really a (inner, an un-
godly perfon, hater of -Godson? that h^d the Image
of the Devil. 5. Nay
(93 )
5* Nay it maketh Chrift to have been incompa-
rably the worft man that ever was in the World by
juft reputation y and to have been by juft impu-
tation guilty of. all the fins of all the Eled that ever
lived, and reputed one of the Murderers of himfelf,
and one of the Perfecutors of his Church, or rather
many : and fhe language that Luther ufed Catechre-
ftically, to be ftridtly and properly true.
6. It fuppofeth a wrong fence of the Imputation
of Adams fin to his pofterity : As if we had been
juftly reputed perfons exiflent in bisperfon, and fo in
him to have been perfons that commited the fame fin \
whereas we are only reputed to be now {not then)
perfons who have a Nature derived from him,which
being then feminaliy only in him, deriveth by pro-
pagation an anfwerable Guilt of his (infill fadt, to-
gether with natural Corruption*
7. It fuppofeth us to be Juftifiable and Juftified
bv the Law of Innocency-made to Adam, as it faith
[Obey perfectly and Live. ~] As if we fulfilled it by
Chrift : which is not only an addition to the Scrip-
ture, but a Contradiction. For it is only the Law
or Covenant of Grace that we are Juftified by.
8. Itputteth, to that end, a falfe fence upon the
Law of Innocency : For whereas it commandeth
Terfonal Obedience, and maketh Terfonal punifti-.
ment due to the offender : This fuppofeth the Law
to fay or mean[Ei//?er thou.or one for thee (hall Obey >
or, Thou jh alt obey by thy f elf, or by another : And if
thoufinthoujhaltfujferbytbyfelf, or by another.
Whereas the Law knew no Subftitute or Vicar,no
nor Sponfor * nor is any fuch thing faid of it in the
Scripture : fo bold are men in their additions.
p. It falfly fuppofeth that we are not Judged and
Jurti-
( 94 )
Juftificd by the new Covenant or Law of Grace*
but (but is faid) by the Law of Innocency.
10. It fathereth on God an erring judgment, as
if he reputed, reckoned or accounted things to be
what they ate not, and us to have done what we
did not. To repute Chrift a Sponfor for finners
who undertook to obey in their nature^ and fuffer
in their place and ftead, as a Sacrifice to redeem
them, is all juft and true : And to repute us tbofe
for whom Chrift did this. But to repute Chrift to
have been really and every one of us, or a iinner, or
guilty of fin it (elf ^ or to repute us to have been ha-
bitually as Good as Chrift was, or actually to have
done what he did, either Naturally or Civilly and
by Him as our fubftitute, and to repute us Righte-
ous by pofTeffing his formal perfonal Righteoufnefs
in it felf -, Al! thefe are untrue, and therefore not to
beafcribedtoGod. To Impute it to us, is but to
Repute us as verily and groundedly Righteous by
his Merited and freely-Given Pardon, and Right to
Life, as if we had merited it our felves.
n. It feigneth the fame Numerical Accident
(jheir Relation of 'Righteoufnefs'] which was in one
fubjed to be in another, which is Impoflible.
12. It maketh us to have fatisfied Divine Juftice
for our felves, and merited Salvation (and all that
we receive) for our felves,in and by another : And
fo that we may plead our own Merits with God for
Heaven and all his benefits.
13 . The very making and tenor of the new Co-
venant, contradideth this opinion : For when
God maketh a Law or Covenant, to convey the ef-
fects of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, by degrees and
upon certain Conditions, this proveth that the very
Righ-
( 95 )
Righteoufnefs in it felf (imply was not ours : elfe
we fhould have had thefe effeds of it both prefently
and immediately and abfolutely without new Con-
ditions.
14. This opinion therefore maketh this Law of
Grace, which giveth the benefits to us by thefe de-
grees and upon terms, to be an injury to Believers,
as keeping them from their own.
1 5. It feemeth to deny drifts Legiflation in the
Law of Grace, and confequently his Kingly Office*
For if we are reputed to have fulfilled the whole
Law of Innocency in Chrift, there is no bufinels for
the Law of Grace to do.
id* It feemeth to make internal San&ification
by the Spirit needlefs,or at leaft,asto one half of its
ufe : For if we are by juft Imputation in Gods ac-
count perfectly Holy, in Chrifts Holinefs the tirft
moment of our believing, nothing can be added to
Perfe&ion*, we are as fully Amiable in the fight of
God, as if we were fan&ified in our felves > Becaufe
by Imputation it is all our own.
17. And fo it feemeth to make our after-Obedi-
ence unneceffary, at leaft as to half its ufe; For if
in Gods true account, we have perfectly obeyed to
the death by another, how can we be required to do
it all or part again by our felves ? If all the debt of
our Obedience be paid, why is it required again?
18. And this feemeth to Impute to God a nature
lefs holy and at enmity to fin, than indeed he hath*
if he can repute a man laden with hateful fins^to be
as perfedty Holy, Obedient and Amiable to him as
if he were really fo in himfelf, becaufe another is
flich for him.
i£. If we did in our own perfons Imputatively
what
( 96 )
what Chrift did, I think it will follow that we fin-
ned i that being unlawful to us which was Good in
him. It is a lin for us to be Circumcifed, and to
keep all the Law of Mofes^ and fend forth Apo-
ftles, and to make Church-Ordinances needful to
Salvation* Therefore we did not this in Chrift :
And if not this, thev that diftinguifh aqd tell us
what we did in Chrift, and whatnot, muft prove
it.I know that Chrift did fomewhat which is a com-
mon duty of all men,and fomewhat proper to the
Jews, and fomewhat proper to himfelf : But that
one fort of men did one part in Chrift, and another
fort did another part in him,is to be proved*
20. If Chrift iiifFered but in the Perfon of finful
man, his fufft rings would have been in vain, or no
Satisfaction to God : For finful man is obliged to
perpetual punilfcment > of which a temporal one is
but a final! part ; Ourperfons cannot make a tempo-
ral fuffering equal to that perpetual one due,to
man : but the tranfeendent perfon of the Mediator
did.
Obj . Chrift bore both his own perfon and ours : It
belongeth to htm as Mediator to perfonate the guilty
finner.
Anfi It belongeth to him as Mediator to under-
take the finners puniflhment in his own peifon. And
if any will improperly call that, the Verfonating and
Reprefenting of the finner, let them limit it, and
confefs that it is not fimply, but infantum, Co far*
and to fuch ufes and no other, and that yet finners
did it not in and by Chrift, but only Chrift for chem
to convey the benefits as he pleated > And then we
delight not to quarrel about mere words > though
we like the phrafe of Scripture better than theirs.
21, If
( 91 )
2i. If Chrift was perfe&ly Holy and Obedient
in ou* perfons, and we in him, then it was either
in the Perfon of Innocent man before we finned, or
of (inful man. The firft cannot be pretended : For
man as Innocent had not a Redeemer. If of finful
man, then his perfect Obedience could not be meri-
torious of our Salvation: For it fuppofeth him to
do it in the -perfon of a (inner : and he that hath
once finned, according to that Law, is the Child
of death, and uncapable of ever fulfilling a Law,
which is fulfilled with nothing but finlefs perfedt
perpetual Obedience.
Obj. He firft fuffered in our ft fad and perfons as
finnerS) and then our fin being pardmedhe after in our
ferfons fulfilled the havp^infteadofour after-Obedience
to it.
Anf. i. Chrifts Obedience to the Law was be-
fore his Death. 2. The (ins which he fuffered for,
were not only before Converfion,but endure as long
as our lives ; Therefore if he fulfilled the Law in
our perfons after we have done finning, it is in the
perfonsonly of the dead. 3. We are ftill obliged to
Obedience ourfelves.
Obj. But yet though there be nofuch difference in
Time^ God doth firft Impute his Jujferings to us for
-pardon of all our fins to the deaths and in order of na-
ture-y his Obedience after it, as the Merit of our Sal-
vation.
Anf 1. God doth Impute or Repute his fu fife r-
ings the fatisfying caufe of our ParJon, and his Me-
rits of Suffering and the refi of his Holincfs and O-
bedience^as the meritorious caufe of our Pardon and
our Justification and Glory without dividing them.
But 2. that implyeth that we did not our fchd re-
H puc^a-
(9* )
putativcly do all this in Chrift: As (hall be further
proved*
22. Their way of Imputation of the Satisfa-
ction of Chrift, overthroweth their own do&rine
of the Imputation of his Holinefs and Righteouf.
ncfs. For if all fin be fully pardoned by the Impu-
ted Satisfaction, then (ins of Omiflion and of habi-
tual Privation and Corruption are pardoned > and
then the whole punifhment both of Senfe and Lofs is
remitted : And he that hath no fin of Omiflion or
Privation-^ is a perfe& doer of his duty, and holy >
and he that hath no punifhment of Lofs, hath title
to y fe> according to that Covenant which he is re-
puted to have perftdly obeyed. And fo he is an
heir of life, without any Imputed Obedience upon
the pardon of all hisDifobediencc.
Obj. But Adam muft have obeyed to the Death if he
would have Life eternal : Therefore the bare pardon of
\m fins did not procure his right to life*
Anf True, if you fuppofc that only his firft fin
was pardoned : Eut i . Adam had right to heaven
3s Jong as he was finlefs. 2. Chrift dyed for all
Adams fins to the laft breath, and not for the firft
only; And ft) he did for all ours. And if all the
fins of omiflion to the death be pardoned,Life is due
to us as righteous.
Obj. A Stone may be finlefs ^ and yet not righteous
nor have Right to life.
Anf. True: becaufe it is not a capable fubjecft.
JBut a man cannot be imlefs,but he is Righteous, and
hath right to life by Covenant.
Obj. But not topunifb is one thing and to Reward
is another ?
Anf They arediftind formal Relations and No-
tions :
tions : cut vvnere felicity is a utft and caned a
Reward only for the terms and order of Collation,
and where lunocency is the fame with perfeft 'Duty*
and is the title-Condition \ there to be puniflied is
to be denyed the Gift* and to be Rewarded is to have
that Gift as qualified perfons : and not to Reward*
is materially topunijh > and to be reputed innocenc
is to be reputed a Meriter. And it is impoffible that
the moft Innocent man can have any thing from
God, but by way of free-Gift as to the 'thing in Va-
lue* however it may be merited in point of Govern-
ing Paternal Juftice as to the Order of donation.
Obj. But there is a greater Glory merited by Cbrifi*
than the Covenant of works promifed to man*
Anf i. That's another matter, and belongeth
not to Juftification,but to Adoption. 2. Chrifts Suf-
ferings as well as his Obedience, confidered as me-
ritorious, did purchafe that greater Glory, 3. We
did not purchafe or merit itinChrift, butChrift
for us.
23 . Their way of Imputation feemeth to me to
leave no place or poflibility for Pardon of fin, or at
leaft of no fin after Converfion. I mean, that ac-
cording to their opinion who think that we fulfilled
the Law in Chrift as we are eled from eternity, it
leaveth no place for any pardon : And according to
their opinion who fay that we fulfilled it in him as
Believers* it leaveth no place for pardon of any fin
after Faith. For where the Law is reputed perfectly
fulfilled^ Habit & Ad) there it is reputed that the
perfon hath no fin. We had no i\n before we had aBe-
ing > and if we are reputed to have perfectly obey-
ed in Chrift from our firft Being, we are reputed
(inlcfs. But if we are reputed to have obeyed in
H 2 him
( ioo ;
him only fince our believing, then we are reputed
to have no fin fince our Believing. Nothing ex-
cludeth fin, if perfect Habitual and A&ual Holinefe
and Obedience do not.
24. And confequently Chrifts blood fhed and Sa-
tisfaction is made vain, either as to all our lives* or
to all after our hrft believing.
2 5. And then no believer muft confefs his fin,nor
his defert ofpuniflunent nor repent of it,or be hum-
bled for it.
26. And then all prayer for the pardon of fiich fin
is vain,and goeth upon a falfe fuppofition, that we
have fin to pardon.
27. And then no man is to be a partaker of the
Sacrament as a Conveyance or Seal of fuch pardon \
nor to believe the promife for it.
28. Nor is it a duty to give thanks to God or
Chrift for any fuch pardon.
29. Nor can we expeft Juftification from fuch
guilt here or at Judgment.
30. And then thcfe in Heaven praife Chrift in er-
rour, when they magnifie him that wafiied them
from fuch fins in his blood.
3 1. And it would be no lie to fay that we have
no fin, at teaft, fince believing.
32, Then no believer {hovAd fear finning, becaufe
it is Irnpoffihle and a Contradiction, for the fame per-
fon to be perfe&ly innocent to the death, and yet a
{inner.
33* Then the Con fciences of believers have no
work to do, or atleaft, no examining, convincing,
fclf-accufingand (elf- judging work.
34. This chargeth God by Confequence of
wronging all believers whom he layeth the leaftpu-
nifhment
( iox )
nifhment upon : For he that hath perfe&ly obeyed,
or hath perfe&Iy fatisfied, bv himfelf or by another
in his perfon,cannot juftly be puniftied. But I have
elfewhere fully proved, that Death and other Cha-
ftifements are puniftunents, though not deftru&ive,
but corrective : And fo is the permiffion of our fur-;
ther finning.
35. ItintimateththatGod wrongcth believers,
for not giving them immediately more of the Holy
Ghoft, and not prefent perfecting them and freeing
them from all tin : For though Chrift may give us
the fruits of his own merits in the time and way
that pleafeth himfelf > yet if it be we ourfelves that
have perfe&ly fatisfied and merited in Cbrifi^ we
have prefent Right to the thing merited thereupon,
and it is an injury to deny it us at all.
3d. And accordingly it would be an injury to
keep them fo long out of Heaven, if they themfelves
did merit it fo long ago.
37. And the very ^breaming of PunKhment in
the Law of Grace would feem injurious or incon-
gruous,to them that have already reputatively obey-
ed perfectly to the death.
3 8. And there would be no place left for any Re-
ward from God, to any adt of obedience done by our
felves in our natural or real perfon : Becaufe having
reputatively fullilled all Righteoufnefs, and defer-
ved all that we are capable of by another, our own
a&s can have no reward.
3$>. And I think this would overthrow all Hu-
mane Laws and Government : For all true Gover-
nours are the Officers of God, and do what they do
in fubordination to God \ tmd therefore cannot
H 3 juftly
( *°* )
juftly punifh any man, whom he pronounceth er-
fe&ly Innocent to the death.
40.. This maketh every believer Cat leaft) as j
Righteous as Chrift himfelf, as having true-propri-
ety in all the fame numerical Righteoufnefs as his
own. And if we be as Righteous as Chrift, are
we not as amiable to God ? And may we not go
to God in our Names as Righteous >
41. This maketh all believers fat leaft) equally \
Righteous in degree, and every one perfeS^ and no
difference between them. David and Solomon as
Righteous in the a6t of finning as before, and every I
weak and fcandalous believer, to be as Righteous as
the beft. Which is not true,though many fay that
Juftification hath no degrees, but is perfect at firft »
as I have proved in my Life ef Faith ^nd eHewhere.
42. This too much levelleth Heaven and Earth s
For in Heaven there can be nothing greater than
perfection.
43 . The Scripture no- where calleth our Imputed
Righteoufnefs by thenameof Innocency, or finlefe
Perfection, nor Inculpability Imputed, Nay when
the very phrafe of Imputing Chrifts Righteoufnefs is
not there at all, to add all thefe wrong defcriptions
of Imputation, isfuch Additions to Gods words
as tendeth to let in almoft any thing that mans wit
(hall excogitate, and ill befeemeth them, that are
for Scripture-fufficiency and perfe&ion, and againft
Additions in the general. And whether fome may
not (ay that we are Imputatively Chrift himfelf,
Conceived by the Holy Ghoft, Born of the Virgin
&?ary, fuffered under Pontius Pilate, Crucified, &c,
I cannot telL
*Vr h ■ To
To conclude,the honeft plain Chriftian may with-
out difquieting the Church or himfelf, be fatisfied
in this certain fimple truth \ That we are finners
and deferve everlafting mifery : That Chrift hath
fuffered as a Sacrifice for our fins in our room and
ftead, and fatisfied the Jufiice of God: That he hath
byhisperfedt Holinefs and Obedience withthofe
fufferings, merited our pardon and life: That he
never hereby intended to make us Lawlefsor have
us Holy, but hath brought us under a Law of
Grace : which is the Inftrument by which he par-
doneth 5 juftifieth and giveth us Right to life : That
by this Covenant he requireth of us Repentance and
true Faith to our firft Juftification, and fincere Obe-
dience, Holinefs and Perfeverance to our Glorifica-
tion, to be wrought by his Grace and our Wills ex-
cited and enabled by it : That Chrifts Sufferings
are to fave us from fuffering h but his Holinefs and
Obedience are to merit Holinefs,Obedience & Hap-
pinefsforus, that we may be like him, andfobe
made perfonally amiable to God : But both his Suf-
ferings and Obedience, do bring us under a Cove-
nant, where Perfe&ion is not neceflary to our Sal-
vation.
H 4 chap.
CHAR V.
The Objections Anfwered.
" Obj. I. \70 V confound a Natural and a Politi-
X cc cal perfon : Chrift and the fever al be-
cc liepingfinners are nottbejame natural Perfon, but
" they are the fame Political. As are with us, faith
"Dr.Tullie, the Sponjor and the Debtor, the Attor-
cc ney and the Clyent, the "tutor and the Pupil > fo are
<c all the faithful in Chrift:, both as to, their Celeftial
"regenerate nature, of which he is the firji Father, who
cc begetteth fons by his Spirit and feed oftheWord to his
cc Image, and as to Righteoufnefs derived by Legal
iC Imputation. Vid. Dr. Tulliejuftif. Paul.p.8o 5 8i.
"It's commonly faid that Chrifi as our furety is our
"Perfon.
Anf i. The diftindtion of a P erf on into Natural
and Political or Legal, is equivoci infua equivocata :
He therefore that would not have contention che-
rifhed and men taught to damn each other for a
word not underftood>muft give us leave to ask what
thefe equivocals mean. What a Natural P erf on fig-
nifieth, we are pretty well agreed vbut a Political
Perfon is a word not fo eafily and commonly under-
flood, Calvin tells us that Perfona definitur homo
qui caput habet civile. (For omnis perfona eft homo fed
non vicijjim : Homo cum efi vocabulum nature \ Per-
fona juris civilis*) And fo (as Albenius) civitas,
piunicipwm&aftrum, ColUgiumfVniverfrtasfo quod-
\ibet corpus^ Perfona appellatione conthtetur > ut Spi-
get*
gel. But if this Definition be commenfurate to the
common nature of a civil perfon, then a King can
be none > nor any one that hath not a civil head.
This therefore is too narrow. The fame Calvin
{inn*Perfon&) tells us, that Seneca Per fonam vocat^
cum pr£Jfefert aliquis, quod non eft } A Counterfeit :
But fure this is not the fence of the Obje&ors. In
general faith Calvin^ 'Tarn bominem quam qualitatem
bominx, \eu Conditioner** fignificat* But it i$ not
fure every Quality or Condition : Calvin therefore
giveth us nothing fatisfa&ory, to thedecifion of
the Controverfie which thefe Divines will needs
make, whether each believer and Chrift be the fame
Political Perfon. Martinw will make our Contro-
verfie no eafier by the various fignifications gather-
ed out oiVet* Vocab. GeU Scaliger, Valla h Which
he thus enumerateth. i. Perfona eft accidens condi-
tio bominis>> qualitas qua homo differt ab homine, turn
in animojum in corpore^ turn in externir. 2. Homo
qualitate difla proditus : 3. Homo inftgni qualitate
-pr&ditus babens gradum eminently, in Ecclefia Dei y
&c* 4. Figurafcu faciei fit! a, larva bifirionica^ &c*
5.1lk quifub bujufmodi ftgura aliquant reprefemat^&Cs
6. Figura emiuens in adificiis qu<e ore aqxamfun*
dit-> &c. Individttafubfiantiabumanaifeufwgula-
rvs homo. 8. Individua fubftantia Intelligens quslibeU
Now which of thefe is Perfona Politica vel Legalis.
Let us but agree what we mean by the word and I
fuppofe we (hall find that we are agreed of the Mat-
ter. When I deny the Perfon of Chrift and the (in-
ner to have been the fame, or to be fo reputed by
God, I mean by Perfon, univocally or properly, An
Individual Intelligent fubftance. And they that mean
Qtherwifeare obliged to Define > For Analogum per
( io6 )
fi pofttum fiat pro fuo ftgnificato famofiore. If they
mean that Chrift and the Believer are the fame as
to fome Quality * or Condition* let them tell us
what Quality or Condition it is, and I think we
fhall be found to be of one mind.
But I think by the fimilitudes of a Sponfor* Attor-
ney, and Guardian* that they mean by a Political
Perfon (not as zfociety* nor fuch as agree in Quali-
ty*h\xt) A natural Perfon fo related to another Natural
perfon* as that what he doth andfufereth* Is or Hath*
is limitedly to certain ends and ufes as effettual as if
that other perfon himfelfdid andfujfered* Were or Had
numerically the fame thing. I obtrude not a fenfe on
others, but muft know theirs before I can know
where we differ. And if this be the meaning, we are
agreed: Thus far (though I greatly diflikc their
way that lay much ftreft on fuch humane phrafes,)
I grant the thing meant by them. Chrifts Holinefs
Habitual and Adfrual, and his Merits and Satisfa-
ction are as effe&ual to a believers Juftification and
Salvation upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace
(which is fealed by baptifm ) as if we had been,done
and fuffered the fame our felves. Eut ftill remem-
ber that this is only [limitedly] tothefeufes* and
on thefe termes and no other,and I think that this is
the meaning of moft Divines that ufe this phrafe.
But the fenfe of thofe men that I differ from and
write againft Cthe Libertines and Antinomians* and
fome others that own not thofe names,) is this: that
A Legal Perfon is onefo Related to another s Natural
perfon as that what he Hath*Doth*or Suffer eth in fuch
a cafe* is (not only effectual as aforefaid to others,
but) is in itfelf fmply Reputed or Imputed to be
Morally* though not physically* the Habit* Aft and
Sufferings
( io8 )
Sufferings the Merit andfatisfaBory Sacrifice of the
other perfon : Andfo being the reputed Haver, Doer or
Sufferer, Meriter or Satisfyer himfelf, he hath abfo-
lute right to all the proper refults or benefits.
And fo a man may indeed many ways among us
Keprefent or Perfonate another. If I by Law am
Commanded to dp this or that fervice per meipfum
ant per alium, I do it in the Moral or Law-fence,
becaufe the other doth it in my name and I am al-
lowed fo to do it. So if I appear or anfwer by any
Proftor or Attorney ; if the Law make it equal to
my perfonal appearance and anfwer, it isfaid that
I did it by him : (but only fo far as he doth it as my
Keprefenter ox in my name) : So if I pay a debt by the
hand of my Servant or any Meffcnger, if fo allowed,
I do it by that other.So indeed a Pupil, doth by his
Guardian what his Guardian doth, only fo far as
the Law obligeth him to confent or ftand to it.
We did not thus our felves fulfil all the Law in
andbyChrift ; Nor are we thus the Proprietors of
his Habitual perfection, Merits or Satisfaction.
The common reafon given by the contrary-mind-
ed is, that he was our Surety, or Spotsfor, or fide-
jujfor : and fo we tranilate Zyy\j& Htb. j. 22. and
I remember not any other text of Scripture allega-
ble for that title, But this word doth not necefla-
rily fignihe any fuch Keprefenter of our Perfons as a-
forefaid. Nay when he is called thus the fideiujfor
of abetter Covenant, it ftemeth plain that it is Gods
Covenant as fuch, and fo Gods Sponfor that is
meant? and as Grotius faith Mofespro Deo fpofpov-
dit in Lege Veteri : Jefus pro Deo in Lege Now. Lex
utraqtte & pattum continet, promiffa babet. Sponfo-
srem darefolent minus nati ; & Mfes & Veus hemini-
bus
( lop )
bus melius nati erant quam Veus qui inconfpicuus. So
alfo Dr. Hamond [He was Sponfor and Surety for
(jody that itjbould be made good to us on Gods part,
on Condition that we performed that which was requi-
red of us :] And here they that tranflate AiolShm a
Teftament,never intended that it was ouvPart of the
Covenant that is meant by a ft/lament : But (the
moft Judicious expofitor,) <c Mr. Lawfon on the
<c text,truly faith [The Scriptures oiMofes and the
" Prophets tranflated into Greek will tell us > That
cc AiolSvi'kv) always fignifieth a Law or a Covenant,
u and for the moft part both : fo it doth in the
<c writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts where it
" feldom fignifieth the laft Will and Teftament of a
cc man. The fame thing is a Law in refpedt of the
c< precepts, &c > Ejyu©- r turned Surety, fignifieth
" one that undertaketh for another to fee fomething
<c paid or performed : And though the word is not
ct found in theNew Teftament except in this place,
" &c. But Varnius tells us that 'e^u©-* is Mioirm,
* c a Mediator h and fo it is taken here as it's ex-
a pounded by the Apoftle in the Chapter following :
"And becaufe a Prieft doth undertake to procure
" from God 5 both the Confirmation and performance
!• of the promifes to the people,and to that end me-
<c diates between both > therefore he is a Surety and
cc Mediator of the Covenant, and in this refpedfc the
C€ Surety and Mediator of the Covenant is a Prieft.]
So Calvin (though almoft paffing it by) feemeth
to intimate that which I think is the truth, that
Chrift is called 'Ejyu(Gp of Gods Covenant from the
facerdotal appropinquation, mentioned verf 19. 8$c.
" And M*rlorate aftc xtheophia^t^Spnforem pro Me*
" diatore & inurcejforepofmt.
"So
( 109 )
cc So Varans in loc.Efi novif<ederisSponforCbriftus y
" quia novum fedus [anguine & mortefua obfignavit*
So the Dutch Annou and many others, befides the
Ancients, by a Sponfor^ tell us is meant a Mediator*
And we grant that a Mediator is not of one, but
doth fomewhat on the behalf of both "parties. But
that as Mediator he Is, Hath,Doth,Suflfereth,Merit-
teth, Satisfyeth y fo as the Reprefenter or perfon of
each believer, as that every fuch Perfon is fuppofed
in Law to have Been, Done, Suffered, Merited, thus
in and by the Mediator , is neither fignified by this
or any other text.
2. And they that diftinguifh of a Natural and
Political Perfon, do but darken the cafe by an ill—
exprelTed diftin&ion, which indeed is not of two
forts of Perfonr, but between Reality and Accept a-
Hon, taking Perfon properly for a Natural Perfon :
It's one thing to be fuch a Perfon, and another thing
to have the Jfct, Pajfion, Merit, &c. Accepted for
that other Perfon: And this latter fignifieth,either
I. That it was done by the other perfon mediately, 1 ^
being a cheifCaufe aftitig by his Injirument. 2. Or
that it was dme for that other Perfon by another.
The firft is our denyed fence, and the fecond our
affirmed fence.
Among us Sureties and Sponfors are of feveral
forts : Grotius de Jure Belli tells you of another
fenfe ofSponfwn in the Civil Law, than is pertinent
•to the objectors ufe: And in Baptifm the fame word,
hath had divers fenfesas ufed by perfons of differ-
ent intentions. The time was when the Spon-
for was not at all taken for the Political Perfen (as
you call it) of Parent or Child, nor fpake as their
Injirument, in their name : But was a Third perfon,
who
( «o)
who (becaufe many parents Apojlatized, and more
Vied in the Childs minority) did pafs his word,
I . That the Parent was a credible Perfon, 2 . That if
he Dyed fo foon or Apojlatized^ he himfelf would
undertake the Chriftian Education of the Child.
But the Parent himfelf was Sponfor for the Child in a
ilridter fenfe, fas alfo Adopting Pro-parents were,
& as fome take God-fathers to be now,) that is,they
were taken for fuch, whole Reafon,will and word,
weauthorifed todifpofeof the Child as obligingly,
as if it had been done by his own reafon will and
word, fo be it, it were but ForhUgood^ and the
Child did own it when he came to age: And fo
they were to fpeak as in the Childs name, as if Na-
ture or Charity made them his Reprefenters, in the
Judgment of many. (Though others rather think
that they were to (peak as in their own perfons, e.g.
I dedicate this Child to God, and enter him into the
Covenant as obliged by my Confenit) But this
fenfe of Sponfwn is nothing to the prefent Cafe.
They that lay all upon the very Name of a Surety
as if the word bad but one fignification, and all
Sureties properly reprefented the perfon of the Prin-
cipal obliged perfon, do deal very deceitfully :
There are Sureties or Sponfors* i. For fome Duty,
2. For Debt, 3. For Punifhment.. 1. It is one
thing to undertake that another fhall do aComman-
ded duty : 2. It's another thing to undertake that
elfe I will do it for him : 3. It's another thing to be
Surety that he (hall pay a Debt, or elfe I will pay it
for him : 4. It's another thing to undertake that he
(hall fuffer a penalty* or elfe tofufFer for him, or
make a Valuable Compensation.
1. And it's one kindofSuxety that becometha
f&ond
( III >
fecond party in the bond* and fo maketh himfelf a
debtor h 2. And its another fort of Surety that ttn-
dertaketb only the Debt afterward voluntarily as a
Friends who may pay it on fuch Conditions as
he and the Creditor think meet, without the Deb-
tors knowledg. Every Novice that will but open
Calvin may fee that Fidejujfor and Sponfor are
words of very various fignification > and that they
feldom or never fignifie the Perfon Natural or Politi-
cal (as you call it) of the Principal: Sponforefi qui
fponte & non rogatus pro alio promittit, ut Accurf
vel quicunque fpondet, tnaxitne pro aliis : Fidejube.-
re efifuo periculofore id, de quo agitur, recipere : Vel,
fidemfuampro alio obligare. . He is called Adpromif-
for-, and he is Debtor, but not the fame perfon with
the Principal* but his promife is accejforia obligatio,
non principalis. Therefore FidevufforfiDe Intercejfor
non efi cmveniendus, nifi prius debitore principali
convento : Fidejujfores a correis it a dijferunt, quod hi
fuo drproprio morbo labor ant, illi vero alieno tenentur:
Quare fideijujfori magis fuccurrendum cenfent : Ve-
nia namque digni funt qui aliena tenentur Culpa, cx-
jufmodifunt fidejujfores pro alieno debito obligati, in-
quit Calv.
There muft be fomewhat more than the bare
name £jyu(Gp once uiitd of Chrift as Mediator of
Gods Covenant, or the name of a Surety as now u-
fed among men, that muft go to prove that th£ Me-
diator and the feveral finners are the fame Legal
Perfons in Gods account.
But feeing Legal-Perfonality is but a Relation of
our Natural perfon, to another Natural perfon , that
we may not quarrel and tear theChurch when really
wc
( I" )
we differ not i. Let our agreement be noted. 2.0ur
difference intelligibly ftated.
i. It is granted (not only by Dr. Tullie, but o-
thers that accurately handle the Controverfie,) i.
That Chrift and the Believer never were nor are our
Natural perfon > and that no union with him
inaketh us to be Chrift, or God, nor him to be Pe-
ter, John or Paul, &c. That we know of no third
furt of Natural perfon, (which is neither Jefus, nor
Peter, John, &o; But compofed of both united,
which is conftituted by our Union. For though it
be agreed on,thaf the fame Spirit that is in Chrift is
(operatively) alfo in all his Members, and that
therefore our Communion with him is more than
Relative, and that from this Real-Communion> the
name of a Real-Union may be ufed > yet here the
Real-Vnion is not Perfonal fas the fame Sun
quickeneth and illuminateth a Bird and a Frog and
a Plant, and yet maketh them not our perfon:)
Therefore he that will fay we atePhyfwally one with
Chrift, and not only Relatively, but tell us [ONE
IVhat ? ] and make his words Intelligible ; and
muft deny that we are ONE PERSON: and that
by that time we are not like to be found differing.
But remember that while Physical Communion, is
confeffed by all, what VNl&N we fhall from thence
be faid to have (this Foundation being agreed on)
is like to prove but a queftion, derealitione & w-
rnine.
2. Yea all the world muft acknowledg that the
whole Creation is quoad pr&fentiam & derivationem
more dependant on God than the fruit is on the
Tree, or the Tree on the Earth, and that God is the
infepsratc Caufc o't our Bung, Station, and Life i
And
^"5J
And yet this natufral intimatenefs, and influx, and
caufality, maketh not GOD and every Creature
ablblutely or perfonally One.
3. It is agreed therefore that Cbrift's Righeouf
nefi is neither materially nor formally -> any Acci~
dent of our natural Perfons i ( and an Accident it is )
wnlefsit can be reduced to that of Relation.. i« The
Habits of our Perfon,cannot poffibly be the habits of
another inherently.2.The attions of one cannot poffi-
bly be the aQions of another, as the Agent, unlcfs as
that other as a -principal Caufe, að by the other
as his Injlrurnent or fecond Caufe. 3. The fame
fundamentum relatione inherent in One Perfon, is
not inherent in another if it be a perfonal Relati-
on : And fo the fame individual Relation that is
one Mans, cannot numerically be another Mans, by
the fame fort of in-being, propriety, or adherence*
Two Brothers have a Relation in kind the famejout
not numerically.
4. And it is agreed that God judgeth not falfly,
and therefore taketh not Chrift's Righteoufnefs td
be any more or otherwife ours*> than indeed it is 5
nor imputeth it to us erroneouily,
5. Yet it is commonly agreed, thztChrifl's Ri$b-
teoufnefs is OV RS in fdme fenfe h And fo far is
juftly reputed Ours-, or imputed to us as being
Ours.
6. And this ambiguous fyallable [ V R S 3
( enough to fet another Age of Wranglers into bit-
ter Church-tearing ftrife'if not hindred by fonrje
that will call them to explain an ambiguous word)
is it that muft be underftood to end this Controver-
lie. Propriety is the thing, fignified. 1; In the
ftri&eft fenfe that is called Ours-, which inhereth iri
I us,
us, or that which is done by us. 2. In a larger
( Moral ) fenfe, that which a Man as the principal
Caufe, doth by another as his Inftrument> by au-
thorising, commanding, perfwading, &c. 3. In
a yet larger fenfe that may be called OVRS> which
a third perfon doth partly infteadoi what we fhould
have done ( bad, or fuffered ) and partly for our
ufe, or benefit. 4, In a yet larger fenfe that may
be cailed OVRS> which another bath, or <&*&, or
fufferetb for our Benefit, ( though not in our ftead )
and which will be for our good, ( as that which a
Friend or Father hath, is his Friends or Childs, and
all things are Ours, whether Paul, or &c. and the
Godly are owners of the World, in as much as
God mil ufe all for their good).
. 7. It is therefore a Relation which Chrift's Righ-
teoufhefs hath to us, or we to it, that muft here be
meant by the word Q V R S J : Which is our
RIGHT! ox Ju*\ And that is acknowledged to
be no Jus or Right to it in the forefaid denied fenfe >
And it is agreed that fome Right it is. Therefore,
to underftand what it is, the *fituius feu Funda-
mentum jurii muft be known.
8. And here it is agreed , 1. That we are before
Converfion or Faith related to Chrift as part of
the Redeemed World, of whom it is faid, 2 Cor.<$«
19. \that God wm in Chriji, reconciling the World to
himfelf % not imputing to them their fins y &c.
2. That we are after Faith related to Chrift as his
Covenanted People, Subjects, Brethren, Friends,
and Political Members * yea, as fjch that have
Right to », and PoJfeJJion of Real Communion with
him by his Spirit : And that we have then Right
to Pardon, Juftification, and Adoption^ (or have
Right
Right to Impunity in tht promifed degree, and to
the Spirits Grace, and the Love of God, and Hea~
venly Glory). This Relation to Chrijl and this
K/g/tf 5 to the Bienefitf of his Right e oh fnefs are agreed
«m ; And confequently that his Righteoufnejl is
OVRS> and fo may be called, as far as the toreiaid
Relations and Rights import.
II. Now a Relation ( as Ockam hath fully pro-
ved ,) having no real entity, betide (he quid alfolu-
turn, which is the Subjett, Fundamentum, or Ter-
tninufy he that yet raileth at his Brother as not fay-
ing enough, or not being herein fo wife as he, and
will maintain that yet thrift's Rigbteoufnefs is fur-
ther OVRS, muft name the Fundamewum of that
Right or Propriety ; What more is it that you mean ?
I think the make-bates have here little probability
of fetching any more Fuel to their Fire, or turning
Chrift's Gofpel into an occalion of ftrife and mutu-
al enmity, 1f they will but be driven to a diftindi
explication, and will not make confufton and ambi
gttous words their defence and weapons, tf you
fet your quarrelfome Brains on work, and ftudy vs
hard as you can. for matter of Contention, ir will
not be eafie for you to find it, unlefs you will raze
out the' names of Popery, Socimanifin, Armir.ia-
nifm, or Solijidtanifm-, Herefie, &c inftead of real
Difference. But if the angrieft and lo&dejl Speak-
ers be in the right, Bedlam and Billingsgate may be
the moft Orthodox places.
Briefly, i. The forefaid Benefits of drift's
Righteoufnefs, (Habitual, A&ive andPaffive } as
a Meritorious, Satisfactory, Purchafing Caufe, are
ours,
I 2 ii To
(ii6)
2; To fay that the Benefits are Ours* importeth
that the Caufal Righteoufnefs of Chrift is related to
tfj, and the Effects as fuch aCaufe: and fo is it felf
OVRS, in that fenfe, that is, fo related.
3. And Chrift himfelf is OVRS, as related to
us as our Saviour > the Procurer and Giver of thofe
Benefits. And do you mean any more by [OVRS~\ >
If you fay that we deny any Benefits of Chrift's
Ilighteoufnefs which you affert, name what they
are. If you fay that we deny any true Funda*
mmtum )urti*> or reafon of our title, name what
that is. If you fay that we deny any true Relation
to Chrift himfelf, tell us what it is : If you cannot,
fay that you are agreed.
1. If you fay that the Benefit denied by us, is
that we are judged by God, as thofe that (habi*
tually and a&ively) have perfectly fulfilled the Law
of Innocencyour felves, though not in our natu-
ral Perfons,^ yet by Chrift as reprefenting us, and
fo (hall be juftified by that Law of Innccency as the
Fulfiller of it, we do deny it, and fay, That you
fubvert the Gofpel, and the true Benefits which we
have by Chrift.
2. If you fay that we deny that God efteemeth
or reputeth us, to be the very Subje&s of that Nu-
merical Righteoufnefs, in the Habits, Ads, Pat
fion or Relation, which was in the Perfon of
Chrift, or to have done* fuffered, or merited our
[elves in and by him, as the proper Reprefenter of
our Perfons therein \ and fo that his Righteoufnefs
is thus imputed to us as truly in it felf our own pro-
piety i we do deny it, and defire you to dofoalfo,
kit you.deny Chriftianity.
2. If
(ii7)
2. If you blame us for faying, That we had or
have no fach Rdation to Chrift, as to our Inftru-
merit, or the proper full Reprefenter of each Belie-
vers particular Perfon, by whom we did truly ful-
fil the Law of Innocency, habitually and a&ively,
and fatisfied, merited, &c. We do ftill fay fo, and
wi(h you to confider what you fay, before you pro-
ceed to fay the contrary.
But if you come not up to this, where will you
find a difference.
Objeft. 2. Cbrift U called "the Lord our Righte-
enfnefsy and be is made Rigbteoufnefs to us^ and we
are made the Righteoufnejs of God in bim> 2 Cor. 5.
21, &c. And by the Obedience of one^ many arc
made Righteous*
Anfxv* And are we not all agreed of all this ?
But can his Righteoufneft.te Ours no way but by
the forefaid Perfonation Rcprefentating ? How
prove you that ? He is Our Right eouftefs^ and his
Obedience maheth us Righteous.
i, Becaufethe very Law of Innocency which we
difhonoured and broke by fin, is perfectly fulfilled
and honoured by him, as a Mediator, to repair the
injury done by our breaking it.
2. In that he fuffered to fatisfie Juftice for cur
fin.
3. In that hereby he hath merited of God the
Father, all that Rigbteoufnefs which we are truly fhc
Subje&s of, whether it be Relative, or Qualita-
tive, or A&ivei> that is, 1. Our Right to Chrift
in Union to the Spirit, t<j Impunity, and to Glory j
And, 2. The Grace of the Spirit by which' we arc
made Holy, and fuhil the Conditions of the Law
I 3 of
( ii8 )
of Grace, We are the Subjetts of thefc, and he is
ihz Minitler, and the meritorious Caufeof our Life,
is well called Out Righteoufntjs, and by many the
material Caufe, (as our own perfed Obedience
would have been ) becaufe it is the Matter of that
Merit,
. 4. And alfo Chrift's Interceffion with the Fa-
ther, ftill procureth all this as the Fruit of his
Merits.
5. And we are F>e!ated as his Members (though
not parts of his Perfon as fuch) to him that thus
pierited for us.
6* And we have the Spirit from him as our
Head.
7. And he is our Advocate, and will juftifie us
as our Judg,
8. A nc * a ^ t his is God's Righteoufnejs defigned
for us, and thus far given us by him.
p. And the perfed Juftice and Holinefs of God,
is thus glorified in us through Chrilh And are not
all thefe Cct together enough to prove, that we juiV
lypvyn all aflerted by thefe Texts? But if you think
that you have a better fenfe of them, you mufi:
better prove it, than by a bare naming, of the
words.
-\
Objeft. 3. If CbrijPs Right eoufnefs be Ours,
then we are Righteous by it as Ours *, and fo God re~
jputeth it but as it U : But it vs Ours ; • 1 . By our Vni-
on with him. 2. And by his Gift, and fo confequently
by God's Imputation*
Anfiv. 1. I have told you before that it is con-
fefled to be Oms \ but that this fyllable OVR& hath
|Tiany fenfes j and I have told you in what fenfe,
and
( IIP)
and how far it is OVRS, and in that fenfe we are
juftified by it, and it is truly imputed to us, or re-
puted or reckoned as OVRS : But not in their fenfe
that claim aftridt Propriety in the fSme numerical
Habits, A&s, Sufferings, Merits, Satisfa&icn,
which was in Chrift, or done by him, as if they
did become Subjects of the fame Accidents > or, as
if they did it by an inftrumental fecond Caufe. But
ijt is OVRS, as being done by a Mediator, inftead of
what we ihould have done, and as the Meritorious
Caufe oi all our Righteoufnefs and Benefits, which
are freely given us for the fake hereof.
• 2. He that is made Righteoufnefs to us, is alfo
made Wifdom, San&ification and Redemption to
us : but that fub genere Caufe Efficientis^ nan ant em
Caufe CoHJiitutiv£ : We are the Subjects of the
fame numerical Wifdom and Holinefs which is in
Chrift. Plainly the Queftion i$, Whether Chrift
or his Righteoufnefs, Holinefs, Merits, and Satif-
fa&ion, be Our Righteoufnefs Cmjlhutively* or only
Efficiently ? The Matter and Form of ChrilVs Per*
fonal Righteoufnefs is OVRS, as an Efficient Caufe,
but ic is neither the neareft Matter, or the form of
that Righteoufnefs which is OVRS as the Subje&s
of it '•> that is, It is no t a Conirkutive Caufe nextly
materhl, or formal of it.
3^ If our Union with Chrift were Perfonal,
(making us the fame Perfon) then doubtlefs the Ac-
cidents of his Perfon would be the Accidents of ours,
andfo not only Chrift's Righteoufnefs, but every
Chriftians would be each of Ours : But that is not
fo. Nor is it fo given us by him#
I 4 Obje&c
( I* )
Qbje6h 4. You do feem to fuppofe that we have
none of that kind of Righteoufnefs at all, which con-
fifteth in perfett Obedience and Holinefs, but only a
Right to Impunity and Life, with an imperfett Inhe-
rent Righteoufnefs in our felves : 'the Papifts are for-
ced to confefs, that a Righteoufnefs we mu(l have which
confijieth in a conformity to the preceptive part of the
Tl,*w, and not only the Retributive part: But they
fay. It is in our felves, and we fay it is ChrijVs im-
puted to us.
Anfw. 1. The Papifts (e.g. Learned Vafquer
in Rom. 5. ) talk fo ignorantly of the differences of
the Two Covenants, or the Law of Ipnccency and
of Grace, as if they never underftood it. And
hence they 1. feem to take no notice of the Law
of Innocency, or of Nature now commanding our
perfcd Obedience, but only of the Law of Grace*
2. Therefore they ufe to call thofe "Duties but
Perfections* and the Commands that require them*
batCounfels, where they are not made Conditions
of Life : and fins not bringing Damnation, fome
call Venial, (a name not unfit ) and fome expound
that as properly no fin, but analogically. 3. And
hence they take little notice, when they treat of Ju-
flification, of the Remitting of Punifhment h but by
remitting Sin, they ufually mean the destroying the
Habits : As if they forgot all attnal fin paft, or
thought that it deferved no Punifhment, or needed
po Pardon : For a paft A& in it felf is now no-
thing, and is capable of no Remiflion but Forgive-
ncCs. 4. Or when they do talk of Guilt of Pu-
nilhmenc, they lay fo much of the Remedy on
Man's" Satisfaction, as if Chrift's Satisfaction and
Merits
( fc« )
Merits had procured no pardon, oratleafr, of no
temporal part of Punifhment. 5. And hence they
ignorantly revile the Protcftants, as if we denied
all Perfonal Inherent Righteoufnefs, and trufted only
to the Imputation of Chriit s Righteoufnefs as
juftifying wicked unconverted Men : The Papifts
therefore fay not that we are innocent or finlefs,
( really or imputatively ) * no not when they dream
of PerfeQlon and Super err oga'ion, unlefs when they
denominate Sin and Perfection only from the Con-
dition of the Law of Grace, and not that of In-
nocency.
2. But if any of them do as you fay, no wonder
if they and you contend : If one fay, We are In-
nocent, or Sinlefs in reality, and the other 7 wearefo.
by Imputation, when -we are fo no way at all ( but
finners really, and fo reputed ) 5 what Reconcilia-
tion is there to be expe&ed, till both lay by their
Errour ?
Objedt. 5, How can God accept him a* /«/?, who
is really and reputedly ji Sinner ? This dijhonoureth h'vt
Holinefs and Juflice.
Anfw. Not fo : Cannot God pardon fin, upon a
valuable Merit and Satisfadion of a Mediator ?
And though he judg us not perfeVx now, and accept
usnotasfuch, yet 1. now he judgethus Holy,2.and
the Members of a perfedt Saviour •> 3. and will
make us perfect and fpotlefs, and then fo judg us,
having wafhed us from our tins in the Blood of the
Lamb. ,
Objedh 6. ihus you nuke the Reatus Culpa?, not
pardoned at aU 3 but only the Reatus pcenx. .
( 122 ;
Anfw. i. If by Reatus Culpa be meant the Re-
lation of a Sinner as he is Revera Peccator y and Co
to be Reus* is to be Reveraipfe qui peccavit j then
wemuft confider what you mean by Pardon : For
if you mean the nullifying of fuch a Guilty (or
Reality ) it is impoffiole, becaufe necejji ate exifteu-
ti&-> hethathath once finned, will be itill the Per-
{on that finned, while he is a Perfon, and the Re-
lation of one that finned will cleave to him : It will
eternally be a true Proportion, L ^ etcr an d ? an l
did fin 3 \ But if by Pardon you mean, the par-
doning of all the penalty which for that fin is due,
( damni pel fenfws ) fo it ii pardoned v and this is
indeed me Reatus pxna : Not: only the Penalty, but
the JDnencfsoC that Penalty, or the Obligation to
it, is remitted and nullified. .
2. Therefore if by Reatus Culpa you mean an
Obligation to Punishment for that Faulty this being
indeed the Reatus poena-, as is faid, is done away.
So that we are, I think, all agreed de re \ And de
nomine you may fay that the Reatus Culpa is done
away or remitted, or not, in feveral fenfes : In fe<>
it is not nullified, nor carl be : But as Duenefs of
Punilhment followeth, that is pardoned.
Objed. 7. Tots have faid, 'That though we were
not perfonally but fminajly in Adam when he faned,
yet when^mzare Perfons; we are Persons guilty of his
aftual fin : And fo we muji be Perfons that are Par-
takers of Chrift's AUual Righteoufnefs, and not only
of its Ejfecls, as foon as we are Believers. For
Chrift being the Second Adam, and ..publicly Terfon*
we have our part in his Right eoufnefs, at truly and as
much as in AdarnV fin,
Avfa
( 1*3 )
Anfa* T. We mud firil underftand how fa*
Adam's fin is ours : And firft I have elfewhere pro-
ved that our Covenant-Union and I*/flv/?.fuppofeth
our Natural Vnion and Intereji '<> and that it is an
adding to God's Word and Covenant, to fay, That
he covenanted that Adam (hould perfonate each one
of his Poftcrity in God's imputation or account,
any further than they were naturally in him s and
fo that his innocemyor fin (hould be reputed theirs,
09 far as if they had been perfonally the Subje&s
and 'Agents. The Perfon of Peter never was in
Reality or Gadfs Reputation^ the Perfon of Adam.
( Nor Adams Perfon the Perfon of Peter ) : But
Peter being virtually and feminally in Adam y when
he finned, his Perfon is derived from Adam's Per-
fon : And fo Peters Guilt is not numerically the
fame with Adams^ but the Accident of another
Subjedt, and therefore another Accident, derived
with the Perfon from Adam ( and from nearer Pa-
rents ). The Yundamqutum of that Relation (of
Guilt) is the Natural Relation of the Perfon to
Adam y ( and fo it is Relatio in Relatione fundaia ).
The Fundamentum of that natural Relation^ is Ge-
neration yeaa/rnVj* of Generations from Adam to
that Perfon : And Adams Generation being the
Communication of a Guilty Nature with perfmality
to his Sons and Daughters, is the fundamentum next
following his fterfonal Vault and Guilt charged on
him by the Law : So that here is a long jeries of
efficient Caufes, bringing down from Adanfs Perfon
and Guilt a dijhnll numerical Perfon and Guilt of
£ very one of his later Pofterity.
2. And it is not the fame fort of Guilt, or fo
plenary, which is on us, for Adam's A ft, as was
on
( 5*4 ) .
pri him, but a Guilt Analogical, or of another
fort : that is, He was guilty of being the wilful
finning Perfon, and fo are not we, but only of be-
ing Perfons whofe Being is derived by Generation
' from the wilful finning Perfons, ( befides the guilt of
our own inherent pravity ) : That is, Tib* Relation is
fuch which our Perfons have to Adam 3 / Perfon^as ma\e
it jufi with God to defert us^ and to pumjh us for
that and our fravity together. This is our Guilt of
Original fin.
3. And this Guilt cometh to us by Natural Pro-
pagation, and refultancy from our very Nature fo
propagated. And now let us confider of our con-
trary Intereft in Chrift.
- And, 1. Our Perfons are not the fame as ChrifFs
Perfon, (nor Chrift's as ours) nor ever fo judged or
accounted of God.
2. Our Perfons were not naturally, feminally*
and virtually in Chrift -s Perfon ( any further than
he is Creator and Caufe of #11 things ) as they were
in Adams* t
3. Therefore we derive, not Righteoufnefs from
him by Generation, but by his voluntary Donation
or Contract.
4. As he became not our Natural Parent, fo our
Perfons not being in Chrijl when he obeyed, are not
refuted to have been in him naturally fit to have obey-
ed in and by him.
5. If Chrift and we are reputed one Perfon, ei-
ther he obeyed in our Perfon, or we in bti, ox both.
If he obeyed as a Reputed Sinner in the Perfon of
each Sinner, his Obedience could not be meritori-
ous, according to the Law of Innocency, which
acquired finlefs Peifedion > Ani he being fuppo T
fed
( 12 5 )
fed to have broken the Law in our Perfons, could
not fo be fuppofed to keep it. If we obeyed in
his Per/on-, we obeyed as Mediators, or Chrift's, of
which before.
6. But as is oft faid, Chrift our Mediator under-
took in a middle Perfon to reconcile God and Man,
(not by bringing God erroneoufly to judg that he or
we were what we are not, or did what we did not,
but ) by beings doing, and fuffering for us, that in
bis qvph Perfon, which fhould better anfwer God's
Ends and Honour, than if we had done and fuffer-
ed in our Perfons, that hereby he might merit a free
Gift of Pardon and Life ( with bimfelf ) to be gi-
ven by a Law of Grace to believing penitent Ac-
cepters. And fo our Righteoufnefs, as is oft open-
ed, is a Relation refulting at once from all thefe
Caufes as fundamental to it, viz. Chrift's Merito-
rious Righteoufnefs, his free Gift thereupon, and
our Relation to him as Covenanters or United Be-
lievers. And this is agreed on.
Object. 8. As Chrift is a Sinner by imputation of
mr fin-, fo we are Righteous, by the imputation of
bis Righteoufnefs. But it is our fin it felf that is
imputed to Chrijl : 'Therefore it is bis Righteoufnefs it
felf that is imputed to us.
Anfrv. i. thrift's Perfon was not the Subjedt of
our perfonal Relative Guilt, much lefs of our Ha-
bits or Aft s*
2. God did not judg him to have been fo.
3. Nay, Chrift had no Guilt ci the fame hind
reckoned to be on him \ elfe thofe unmeet Speeches,
ufed rafhly by fome,wouId be true, viz. That Chrift
was the greateii Murderer, Adulterer, Idolater,
, B:aiphe-
126 )
Blafphemer. Thief, &c. in all the World, and con-
fequently more hated of God, (for God muft needs
hate a finner as fuch). To be guilty of fin as we
are, is to be reputed truly to be the Perfon that com-
mitted it: But fo was nor Chrift, and therefore
not fo to be reputed. Chrift was but the Mediator
that undertook to fuffer for our fins, that we might
be forgiven *, and not for his own fin, real or juftly
reputed : Expofitors commonly fay that to be
[ made fin for us ], is but to be made [ a Sacrifice
fir fin ]. So that Chrift took upon him neither our
-numerical guilt of fin it felf, nor any of the fame
Jpecies 5 but only our Keatum ¥xn&, or Debt of Pu~
nijhment) or (left the Wrangler make a verbal quar-
rel of it) our Keatum Culpa non qua talent & in /£,
fed quatenus efi fundamentum Reatus pcen* : And
fo his Rigbteoufnefs is ours s not numerically the
fame Relation that he was the Subjedfc of made that
Relation to us *, nor yttz Rigbteoufnefs of the fame
Species as Chrift's is given us at all, ( for his was a
Mediators Rigbteoufnefs, confifting in, 1. perfett
Inmcency s 2. And that in the J^ri^r of the Jew-
ish Lapp , which bind us not h 3 , And in doing his
peculiar Worlds , as Miracles , RefurreSion , &Cc.
which were all His Rigbteoufnefs as a conformity to
that Law, and performance of that Covenant, which
was made with, and to him as Mediator). 'But
his Rigbteoufnefs is the Meritorious Caufe and Rea-
fon of another Righteoufnefs or Juftitication ( di-
Itind from his ) freely given us by the Father and
himfelf by his Covenant. So that here indeed the
Similitude much cleareth the Matter , And they that
will not blafpheme Chrift by making guilt of fin it
Celf in its formal Relation to be his own, and fo
Chrift
i 127 ;
Chrift to be formally as great a finner as all the Re-
deemed fet together, and they that will not over-
throw the Gofpel, by making us formally as Righ-
teous as Chrift in kind and meafure, muft needs be
agreed with us in this part of the Controvcrfie.
Object, p. When you infer, 'that if we are reckoned
to have perfectly obeyed in and by Chrift, we cannot be
again hound to obey our felves afterward, nor be guilty
of any Jin > you muft know that it's true, That we
cannot be bound to obey to the fame ends as Chrift did,
C which is to redeem us , or to fulfil the Law of
Works ) But yet we muji obey to other ends, viz. I#-
gratitude, and to live to God, and to do geod, and
other fuch like.
Anfxv. 1. This is very true, That we are not
bound to obey to all the fame ends that Chrift did,
as to redeem the World, nor to fulfil the Law of
Innocency. But hence it clearly followeth that
Chrift obeyed not in each of our Perfons legally, but
in the Perfon of a Mediator, feeing his due Obedi-
ence and ours have fo different Ends, and a diffe-
rent formal Relation, (his being a conformity proxi-
mately to the Law, given him as Mediator) that
they are not fo much as of the fame fpecies, much
lefs numerically the fame.
2 . And this fully proveth that we are not reckon-
ed to have perfectly obeyed in and by him : For
elfe we could not be yet obliged to obey, though to
other ends than he was : For either this Obedience of
Gratitude is a Duty or not •, If not, it is not truly
Obedience, nor the omiffion fin : If yea, then that
Duty was made a Duty by fome Law : And if by
a Law we are now bound to obey in gratitude ( or
for
f 128 J
£qi what ends foever ) either we do all that
we are fo bound to do, or not. If we do it ( or
any of it ) then to fay that we did it twice, once
by Chrift, and once by ourfelves, is to fay that we
were bound to do it twice, and then Chrift did not
all that we were bound to, but half: But what
Man is he that finneth not ? Therefore feeing it is
certain, that no Man doth all that he is bound to do
by the Gofpel, (in the time and meafure of his
Faiths Hope, Love^ Fruitfulnefs^ &c) it followeth
that he is a finner, and that he is not fuppofed to
have done all that by Chrift which he failed in,both
becaufe he was bound to do it himfelf, and becaufe
he is a finner for not doing it.
3. Yea, the Gofpel binds us to that which Chrift
could not do for us, it being a Contradiction. Our
great Duties are, 1. To believe in a Saviour. 2. To
improve all the parts of his Mediation by a Life of
Faith. 3. To repent of our fins. 4. Tomortifie
finful Lufts in our felves. 5. To fight by the Spi-
rit againft our flefti; <5. To confefs our felves fin-
ners. 7. To pray for pardon. 8. To pray for
that Grace which we culpably want. p. To love
God for redeeming us. 10. Sacramentally to co-
venant with Chrift, and to receive him and his
Gifts* with many fuch like \ which Chrift was not
capable of doing in and on his own Perfon for us,
though as Mediator he give us Grace to do them,
and pray for the pardon of our (ins, as in our
felves* : -
4. But the Truth which this Objection intima-
teth, we all agree in, viz. That the Mediator per-
fectly kept the Law of Innocency, that the keeping
of that Law might not be neceffary to our Salvati-
on 5
(129)
on, (and fo fuch Righteoufnefs neceflary in oijr
felves) but that we might be pardoned for want of
perfe<3: Innocency, and be faved upon our fincere
keeping of the Law of Grace, becaufe the Law of
Innocency was kept by our Mediator, and thereby
the Grace of the New-Covenant merited^ and by
it Chrift, Pardon, Spirit and Life, by him freely
given to Believers.
Objedt. 10. "the fame Perfon may be really a
futner in bimfelf and yet perfe&ly innocent in Chrift y
and by imputation.
Anfo. Remember that you fuppofe here the Per-
fon and Subjeti to be the fame Man : And then that
the two contrary Relations of perfeft Innocency^ or
guiltlefnefs^ and guilt of any^ ( yea much fmj can
be confident in him, is a grpfs contradiction. In-
deed he may be guilty, and not guilty in fevcral
partial refpedrs j but a perfection ot guiltlefnefs ex-
cludcth all guilt. But wc are guilty of many a fin
after Convulion, anJ need a Pardon. All that you
fliould fay is this We are finners our fellies, but rve
have a Medator that finned not-, who merited Pardon
and Heaven for fmners.
2. Eufif you mean that God reputeth us to be
perfe&Iy innocent when we are not, becaufe that
Chriltwasfo, it is to impute Error to God : He
rrp.it' th bo Mm to b: otherwifc than he is : But he
doth indiei iirft give, aad then impute a Righte-
qufneis Evangelical to us, initead of perfect InnOf
crncy, winch tyall as cectainly bring us to Glory •,
and tint is, He giyeth us both the -Renovation of
K his
his Spirit, ( to Evangelical Obedience) and a Right
by free gift to Pardon and Glory for the Righteouf-
nefs of Chrift that merited it h And this thus given
us, he reputeth to be an acceptable Righteoufnefs
iri us. ;
CHAP. VI.
'Ammmiv ergons on feme of Dr. T. Tullies
Strictures.
§. i. T Suppofe the Reader defireth not to be wea-
JL ried with an examination of all Dr. 2W-
lies words, which are defective in point of Truth,
Juflice, Charity, Ingenuity, or Pertinency to the
Matter, but to fee an anfwer to thofe that by ap-
pearance of pertinent truth do require it, to dip
abufe the incautelous Readers ; Though fomewhat
by the way may be briefly faid for my own Vindi-
cation. And this Tradate being conciliatory, I
think meet here to leave out moil: of the vpords^ and
-pergonal part of his contendings, and alfo to leave
that which concerneth the interefi of Worlds ( as
they are pleafed to call Man's performance of the
Conditions of the Covenant of Grace) in our Juftifi-
cation, to a fitter place, viz. To annex what I
think needful to my friendly Conference with
Mr. Chrifiopher Cartwright on the Subjed", which
Dr. TuBes Aflault perfwadeth me to publiih.
§•2.
(ISO
§. 2. pag. 7 1. jM*/« Paulin. This Learned Do-
ctor faith 3 | 'the Scripture mentioneth no Juftificati-
on in foto Dei ** <*//, £#* *W 0#e, wWcfc is Abfolu-
tion from the Maledi&ory Sentence of the Law.
Anfw. i If this be untrue, it's pity fo worthy
a Man ftould unworthily ufe it againft peace and
concord. If it be true, I crave his help for the ex-
pounding of fcveral Texts.
Exod. 23. <5> 7. 'thou fhalt not wreft the Judg-
ment of thy Poor in his Caufe : Keep thee far from a
falfe Matter, and the Innocent and Righteous flay
thou not 5 for I will not ]uftifre the wicl^d']. Is the
meaning only, I will not abfolve the wicked from
the Maledi&ory Sentence of the Law (of Innocen-
cy) ? Or is it not rather, [ I will not misjudg the
wicked to be juil, nor allow his wickednefs, nor
yet allow thee fo to do, nor leave thee unpunifhed
for thy unrighteous judgment, but will condemn
thee if thou condemn the Juft ~\.
Job 25. 4. Hoiv then can Man be jujlified with
God ? or, H m? can he be clean that U born of a Wo-
man ? Is the fenfe, Hofr can Man be abfolved
from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law ? ~| Or ra-
ther, [ How can he be maintained Innocent ? ]
Pfal. 143. 2. In thy fight (hall no Man living be
jufiified* Is the fenfe, [ No Man living fhall be ab-
solved from the Maledictory fentence of the Law ?
Then we are all loll for ever : Or rather no Man
fhall be found and maintained Innocent^and judged
one that defrved not pinijhment~\\ (Therefore we
are not judged perfect fulfillers of that Law by ano-
ther or our felves ).
Objedt. But this is for us and againft you : for it
denyeth that there is any fuch Jujlification.
i\ z Anfw.
OS*)
Anfa* Is our Controverfie de re, or only de no-
mine, of the fenfe of the word Juftifie I If de re y \
then his meaning is to maintain, That God never
doth judg a Believer to be a Believer, or a Godly
Man to be Godly, or a performer of the Condition
of Pardon and Life to have performed it, nor will
juftifie any believing Saint againft the falfe Accufa-
tions, that he is an Infidel, a wicked ungodly Man,
and an Hypocrite, (orelfehe writeth againft thofe
that he underftood not> But if the Queftion be
(asitmuftbe) denomine, whether the word Ju-
ftifie have any fenfe befides that which he appropria-
ted to it, then a Propofition that denieth the Exi-
jhntiam rei, may confute his denyal of any other
fenfe of the word*
So Ifa. 43. p, 26. Let them bring forth their Wit-
nejfes that they may jujiified : Declare thou that thou
mayeji be jujiified j that is, proved Innocent.
But I hope he will hear and reverence the Son i
Matth. 12. 37. By thy words thou (halt be Jujiified^
and by thy words thoufhalt be Condemned'] (fpeaking
of Gods Judgment) which I think meaneth {de re
& nomine) 'thy 'Righteous or unrighuous words (hall
be a part of the Caufe of the day, or Matter,for or ac-
cording to which, thou (halt be judged obedient or
difobedient to the Law of Grace, and fo far juft or
unjult, and accordingly ftntenced to Heaven or
Hell, as isdefcribed Matth* 25. But it feems this
Learned Doftor undcrftands it only, By thy words
ihnt ' Jhalt be abfolved from the Maledictory Sentence
of the Law, and by thy words contrarily condem-
ned.
Lu\. 18. 14. The Publican [_went down to his
Hoafe jujiified rather than the other ] •> I think not
only
d33)
only [ from the Maledittory Sentence of the Law of
Innocency] but [ by God approved a fincere Penitent^
andfoa fit Subjed of the other part of Juftuica-
tion.
Ads 13-30. is the Text that fpeaketh moft in
the fenfe he mentioneth > And yet I think it inclu-
deth more, viz. By Chriji-, 1 . we are not only ab-
folved from that Condemnation due for our fins i
2. but alfb we are by his repealing or ending of the
Mofaick^Law juUihed againfl the Charge of Guilt
for our not obferving it ^ and 3. Augujiine would
add, That we are by ChriH's Spirit and Grace made
juft (that is, fincerdy Godly) by the deftru&ion
of thofe inherent and adherent fins, which the Law
of Mofes could not mortihe and fave us from, but
the Spirit doth.
Rom. 2. 13. Not the Hearers of the Law are juft
before God y but the Doers of the Law Jhall be jujii-
fied ]. Is it only, 'the Doers Jhall be Abfolved from
the Maledittory Sentence., &c ? Or firft and chiefly,
They Jhall be judged well- doers-, fo far as they do
well-, and fo approved and juftitied, fo far as they
do keep the Law ? ( which becaufe no Man doth
perfectly, and the Law of Innocency requireth
Perfection, none can be juftified abfolutely, or to
Salvation by it >
Objedt. 'The meaning is, ( fay fome ) 'The Doers
of the Law Jhould be jujlified by it > were there any
fuch.
Anfw. That's true, of abfolute Juftification unto
Life : But that this is not all the fenfe of the Text,
the two next Verfes fiiew, where the Gentiles are
pronounced partakers of fome of that which he
meaneth inclufively in doing to purification: There-
K 3 fore
( 134 )
fore it muft include that their Actions and Perfons
are fo far juftified, (more or lefs) as they are
Doers of the Law, as being fo far a&ively juft.
Rom. 8, 30. Whom be juftified, them he alfo glo~
rifted y And 1 Cor. 6* 11. Te are juftified in the
Name of the Lord Jefus, and by the Spirit of our
God. Many Proteftants, and among them Beza
himfelf, expound (in the Papifts and Auftins fenfe
of Justification ) as including Sandification alfo,
a* well as Abfolution from the Curfe : And fo Arch
Bifhop VJher told me he underfxood them. As
alfo *tiu 3. 7. "that being juftified freely by his
(3 race.
And many think fo of Rom. 4. 5. he [[ jufiifietb
the Vngodly ] fay they, by Converting, Pardon-
ing, and Accepting them in Chrift to Life.
And Rom. 8-33. Who JhaV condemn ? it U God
that juftifietb, £ttmtt\\to me more than barely to
fay, God abfoiveth us from the Curfe, becaufe it is
fet againft Man's Condemnation, ( who reproached,
flandered and peffecuted the Chriftians as evil Do-
ers, as they did Chrift, to whom they were pre-
deftinated to be conformed ). And fo muft mean,
God will not only abfolve w from his Curfe, but alfo
juftifie our Innoccncy againft all thefalfe Accufati-
ons of our Enemies. _ .
And it feemeth to be fpoken by the Apoftle, with
refped to Ifa. 50. 8. He is near that juftifieth me,
who will contend with me ? Which my reverence to
this Learned Man fufficeth not to make me believe,
is taken only in his fenfe of Abfolution.
Rev. 22. 11. He that is Righteous, let him be ju-
ftified fiiit, ( &>ctf tof&wTO ) which not only our
Tranflaters, but almoft ail Expolltors take as in-
clufive
( *35 )
cluGve of Inherent Righteoufnefs, if not princi-
pally fpeaking of it*
To fpeak freely, I remember not one Text of
Scripture that ufeth the word Q Jufiifie 1 in this
Doctor's fenfe » that is, Only for the faid abfoluti-
on from the Curfe of the Law : For all thofe other
Texts that fpcak for jufiification by Chrift's Grace,
and Faith, and not by the Works of the Law ^ (as
Rom. 3. 20,24,28,30. and 4. 2,5,25. & 5.1,
p, id, 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. GaU 2. 16, 17. & 3. 8, n>
24. & 5. 4, &c> ) do all feem to me to mean, not
only ' that [ we are abfolved from the MalediUory
Sentence of the Law ^, but alfo that we are firlt
made, and then accounted Perfons firft meet lor Ab-
folution, and next meet for God's Acceptance of
us as juft, and as Heirs of Life Eternal, and meet
for the great Reward in Heaven : For when the
Apoftle denieth Jufiification by Works i it is not
credible that he meaneth only, that [ By the Works
of the Law no Man is abfolved from the Curfe of
the Law ~] y But alfo, No Man by the Works of the
Law-, is before God taken for a Performer of the
neceffary Condition of Abfolution and Salvation,
nor fit for his Acceptance, and for the Heavenly Re-
ward.
Anfw. 2. But let the Reader here note, that the
Doctor fuppofeth James to mean, that [By Works
a Man is abfolved from the MaledUiory Sentence of
the Law j and not by Faith only ~\. For that James
fpeaks of Jufiification in foro Dei is paft all doubt ;
And who would have thought that the Doctor had
granted this of the Text of James ? But miflakes
fcldom agree among themfelves.
Anfw. 3 • And would not any Man have thought
K 4 that
( 13* *
that this Author had pleaded for fuch an Imputatk
on of ChriiVs Righteoufnefs, a^ juftifieth not only
from the Maledictory Sentence of the Law, but
alfofrom the very guilt of fin as fin, we being re-
puted, ( not only pardoned finners, but) perfect
fulfillers of the Law by Chrift, and fo that we are
in Chrift conform to the Fac hoc or preceptive part
commanding Innocency? Who would have thought
but this was his drift ? If it be not, all his angry
Oppofition tome, is upon a miftake fo foul, as re-
verence forbids me to name with its proper Epi-
thets : If it be, how can the fame Man hold, That
we are juftified as in Chrift, conform to the Precept
of perfitt Innocency ? And yet that The Scripture
mentioneth no Juftification at all-, in foro Dei, befides
that one^ which is Abfolution from the Malediftory
Sentence of the Law. But ftill miftakes have difcord
withthemfelves.
AnftP. 4. It is the judgment indeed of Mr. Ga-
ia\er> Wotion^ Fifcator^ Paraus^ Vrfme^ Wende-
line^ and abundance other excellent Divines, that
as fins of omiifion are truly fin, and poena damnU
or privations truly punifhment \ fi> for a finner for
his fin to be denied God's Love and Favour, Grace
and Glory, is to be punifhed =, and to be pardoned,
is to have this privative punifhment remitted as
well as the reft b and fo that Juftification contained}
pur Right to Glory, as it is the bare forgivenefs of
the penalty of fin i becaufe Death and Life, Dark-
nefs and Light are fuch Contraries, as that one is
but the privation of the other : But this Learned
Dodor feemeth to be of the commoner Opinion,
|hat the Rcmiffion of Sin is but one part of our
JultiiicatiOD, and that by ■ Imputation of perfed:
Holinefs
( 137 )
Holinefs and Obedience wemuft have another part,
which is our Right to the Reward* ( and I think a
little Explication would end tfi3t difference ). But
doth he here then agree with himfelf ? And to con-
tradict the common way of thofewith whom he
joyneth ? Do they not hold that Juftification is
more than an Abfulution from the Malediftory SV«-
tence of the Law f
Anfa. 5. But indeed his very Defcription by
Abfolution is utterly ambiguous : 1. Abfolution is
either by AUual Pardon, by the Law or Covenant
of Grace > which giveth us our Right to Impunity :
2. Or by Sentence of the Judg, who publickly de-
cideth our Cafe, and declareth our Right determi-
natively : Or by execution of that Sentence in actu-
al delivering us from penalty ■> And who knoweth
which of thefe he meaneth ? This is but confufion,
todefcribe by an unexplained equivocal word.
And who knoweth what Law he meaneth,whofe
Maledictory Sentence Judication abfolveth us from ?
Doth he think that the Law of Innocency, and of
Mofes, and the Law of Grace are all one, which
Scripture fo frequently diftinguifheth ? Or that each
of them hath not its MaledilYion ? If he deny this,
I refer him to my full proof of it, to Mr. Cart-
wright and elfewhere. If not, we (hould know
whether he mean all, or which.
3. And what he meaneth by the Sentence of the
Law is uncertain : Whether it be the Laws Commi-
nation-i as obliging us to punifhment, which is not
a Sentence in the ufual proper fenfe, but only a vir-
tual Sentence-, that is, the Norma Judicis i or whe-
ther he mean the Sentence of God as Judg, according
to the Law : which is not the Sentence of the Law
pro-
( is8 ;
properly, but of the Judg : It's more intelligible
fpeaking, and diftincft, that muft edifie us, and
end thofe Controverfies which ambiguities and con-
fufion bred and feed.
Anfa. 6* But which- ever he meaneth, moft cer-
tainly it is not true that the Scripture mentioneth
no other Juftification in foro Veu For many of the
fore-cited Texts tell us, that it oft mtntioneth a Ju-
ftification, which is no Abfolution from the Male-
dictory Sentence, (neither of the Law of Innocen-
cy, of Mofes, or of Grace) but a Juftification of a
Man's innocency in tantum, or quoad Caufam banc
particularem^ Viz*
1. Sometimes a Juftifying the Righteous Man
againftthe ilandersof the World, or of his Ene-
mies.
2. Sometimes a juftifying a Man in fome one
a&ion, as having dealt faithfully therein.
3. Sometimes a judging a Man to be a faithful
Godly Man, that performeth the Conditions of Life
in the Law of Grace made neceffary to God's Ac-
ceptance.
4. Sometimes for making a Man fuch, or for
making him yet more inherently juft> or continuing
himfo.
5. Sometimes for Juftification by the Apology of
an Advocate, (which is not Abfolution).
6. Sometimes for Juftification by Witnefi.
7. And fometimes, perhaps, by Evidence. As
appeareth, Ifa^o. §. Rom. 8. 33. (and To God
himfelf is faid to be juftifkd, PfaL 51. 4. R0W.3.4.
and Chrift, 1 7w 3. 16. ) 1 King. 8. 32. Hear
thou in Heaven, and do, and judg thy Servants, con-
demning the Wicked to bring his way upon his Head h
and
( 139 )
and justifying the Righteous* to give him according i&
his Righteoufnefr, (where the Sentence is parted by
the A& of Execution). Is this abfolving him from
the Curfe of the Law > So i Chron* 6.23. fo Mat.
12.37. & jF.a«. 2. 21,24, 25. where Juftification
by our Words and by Works is affcrted i and many
other Texts fo fpeak : Frequently to Juftifie, is u>
maintain one, or prove him to be juft. It's ftrange
that any Divine fhould find but one fort or fenfe of
Juftification before God mentioned in the Scrip-
tures.
I would give here to the Reader, a help for fome
excufeof the Author, viz* that by [ prater imam
Warn qu£ eji Abfolutio~\ he might mean, which is
partly Abfolution, and partly Acceptation, as of a
fulfiller of the Precept of Perfection by Chrift, and
partly Right to the Reward, all three making up
the whole -, but that I muft not teach him how to
fpeak his own mind, or think that he knew not
how to utter it *, And fpecially, becaufe the In-
fiances here prove that even fo it is very far from
Truth, had he fo fpoken.
Anfw. 7. But what if the word [j unification]
had been found only as he affirmed ? If Juftice,
( Righteoufncfs ) and Ju\}, be otherwife ufed,
that's all one in the fenfe, and almoft in the word ^
feeing it is confefTed, that to Juftifie, is, 1. To
make Juft h 2. Or to efteem Juji , 3. Or fentence
Jnft., 4, Or to prove Juft, and defend as Juft *
5. Or to ttfe as Juft by execution. And therefore
in fo many fenfes as a Man is called Juft in Scrip-
ture, he is inclufively, or by connotation, faid to
be Jnfiified, and Jufiifiable, and Juftificandm. And
I defire no more of the Impartial Reader, but to
turn
( i4° )
turn to his Concordances* and perufe all the Texts
where the words [ Juft, Juftice, Juftly, Righreous >
Righteoufnefs, Righteouily ] are ufed ; and if he
find not that they are many (core, if not hundred
times ufed, for that Righteoufnefs which is the
Perfons Relation refulting from fome Adts or Ha-
bits of his own, (as the Subjedt or Agent ) and
otherwife than according to his folitary fcnfe here,
let him then believe this Author.
§. 3. But he is as unhappy in his Proofs, as in
his Angular uncrue Aflertion : " [ Rom. 8. 2, 4/
cc *tbe Law of the Spirit of Life* bath freed us from
"the Law of Sin and of Death. Gal. 3. 13. God
u fern bis Son* that the Righteoufnefs of the Law
H might be fulfilled in us s Cbrift hath redeemed us
"from the Curfe of the Law > and many more fuch :
Here is no mention of any but one Legal Juftifica-
tian ^].
Anfw. 1. Reader, do you believe that thefe two
Texts are a perfed Enumeration. And that if
thefe mention but one fenfe or fort of Juftification,
that it will follow that no more is mentioned' in
Scripture : Or if many hundred other Texts have
the fame fenfe ?
2. Nay, he hath chofen only thefe Texts where
the word £ Jujiification ] or [ Juftifie ] is not at
all found. By which I may fuppofe that he in-
tendeth the Controverfie here de re* and not de no-
mine. And is that fo ? Can any Man that ever
conliderately opened the Bible, believe that de re
no fuch Thing is mentioned in Scripture. 1. As
making a Man a believing Godly Man. 2. Or as
performing the Conditions of Life required of us
in the Covenant of Grace. 3. Nor efteeming a
Man
( Mi )
Man fuch. 4. Nor defending or proving him to
be fuch. 5. Nor judging him fuch decifively.
<5. Nor ufing him as fuch, 7. Nor as juiiifyiag a
Man fo far as he is Innocent and Jutf againft all falie
Accufation of Satan or the World,
3. The firft Text cited by him^Kom.S^^ down-
right contradicts him : Not only AugujHn^ but
divers Proteftant Expofitors fuppofe, that by the
Law of the Spirit of Life is meant, either the
quictying Spirit it felf given to us that are in Chrift,
or the Gofpel, as it giveth that Spirit into us \ And
that by delivering us from the Law of Sin y is meant
either from that fin which U as a Law within us y or
Mofes LaWy as it forbiddeth and commandeth all
its peculiarities, and fo maketh doing or not doing
them fin > and as it declareth fin, yea, and acci-
dentally irritatethit : Yea, that by the Law of
Death is meant, not only that Law we arecurfed
by, and (o guilty, but chiefly that Law, as it is
faid Rom. 7. to kjll Paul, and to occafion the aboun-
ding of fin, and the Life of it : And that by [ the
fulfilling of the Law in us-, that wall{ not after the
Fltjh, hut after the Spirit ]], is meant |[ that by the
Spirit and Grace of Chrift, Chrifiians do fulfil the
Law, as it requireth fin.ere Holincfs., Sobriety and
Righteoufnefs, which God accepteth for Chrift's
fake; vvfiich the Law of Mfes, without Chrift's
Spirit, enabled no Man to fulfil 1., Not to weary
the Reader with citing Expofitors, I now only de-
fire him to perufe, Ludov* de Vieu on the Text,
And it is certain, that the Law that Paul there
fpeaketh of, was Mofes Law : And that he is pro-
ving all along, that the obfervarioa of it was not
neceflary to the Gentiles, to their performance, or
JuQU
( 142 )
Juftification and Salvation, (necejjitate pacepti vel
mediijy (for it would not jullihe the jews them-
felvesj). Andfure, i. all his meaning is not, [The
Law will not abfolve Men from the fenfe of the
Law]. Bat alfo its Works will give no one the
juft title of a Righteous Man, accepted of God,
and faved by him, as judging between the Righte-
ous and the wicked : (as Chrift faith, Mattb.25.
The Righteous fhall go into Everlafting Ltfe^ Sec. )
2. And if it were only the MalediUory Sentence of
liiofes LaWjZS fuch,that Paul fpeaketh of Abfoki-
fion from, as our only Juftification, then none but
Jews and Profelites who were under thatLaw,could
have the Juftification by Faith which he mention-
eth *, for it curfeth none elfe : For what-ever the
Law faith, it faith to them that are under the Law ;
The reft of the World were only under the L&w of
lapfed Nature, ( the relidfo of Adams Law of In-
nocency) and the Curfe for Adams firft Violation >
and the Law of Grace made to Adam and Noahs
and after perfected fullier by Chri(fc in its fecond
Edition.
2. His other Text Q Chrift redeemed us from the
Curfe of the Law ] proveth indeed that all Believers
are redeemed from the Curfe of the firft Law of
Innecency, and the Jews from the Curfe of Mofes
Law (which is it that is Mreftly meant): But what's
that to prove that thefc words fpeak the whole and
the only Jufiiftcation ? and that the Scripture men-
tioned no other ?
§. 4. He addeth, [Lex eft qu<e prohibeth Lex
qua pcenam decernii •> Lex qu& irrogat ; Veccatum efi
tranfgrefiio Legrf : Fcena effellus ijiius trangrefjionis h
Jnftificatio dmique abfoluti® ah ijia pcana : Itaque
cam
( *43 )
cam Lex nifi pr&ftita neminem Juftificat, & frtjli-
tarn omnes in Cbrijio agmfcunt-> ant Legalis erit om-
nit Jufiificatio coram Deo, aut omnino nulla "]•
An fa. i. But doth he know but one fort of Law
of God ? Hath every Man incurred the Curfe by
Mofes Law that did by Adams ? Or every Man
fallen under the peremptory irreversible condemna-
tion which the Law of Grace pafleth on them that
never believe and repent > Doth this Law, £ He
that believetb not Jhall be damned J damn Believers ?
One Law condemneth all that are not Innocent*
Another fuppofeth them under that defe&,and con-
demneth peremptorily (not every Sinner) but the
Wicked and Unbelievers.
2. Again here he faith, Q Juftification is Abfolu-
tion from that Penalty ]. But is a Man abfolved
(properly ) from that which he was never guilty
of ? Indeed if he take Abfolution fo loofly as to fig-
nifie, the juftifying a Managainft a falfe- Accusa-
tion, and pronouncing him Not-Guilty *> So all the
Angels in Heaven may pGflibly be capable of Ab-
folution : Juftihcation is ordinarily fo ufed, but
Abfolution feldom by Divines, And his words
fhew that this is not his fenfe, if I underftand them.
But if we are reputed perfect fultillers of the Law
of Innocency by Chritt, and yet JulHfication is cur
Abfolution from the Curfe, then no Man is j unified
that is Righteous by that Imputation.
3. And how unable is my weak Underftanding,
to make his words at peace with thcmfclves ? The
fame Man in the next lines faith, [ Lex nifi pr<elli-
ta neminem jufiificat : and all Jujtification before God
muji be legal or none ^ j fo that no Man is juftificd
but as reputed Innocent, or a performer of the Law :
And
jf *44 )
And yet Jujiification is our Abfolution from the Pu-
mfhment and MaJedi&ion of the Law j As if he
faid, No Man is juftified but by the pardon of that
fin which he is reputed never to have had, and Ab-
folution from that Curfe and Pumfhment which he
is reputed never to have deferved or been under.
Are thefe things reconcileable ? But if really he
take Abfolution (ox juftifying or acquitting from a
falfe Accufation,and foto beabfolved from the Ma-
lediction of the Law, is to be reputed one that ne-
ver deferved it, or was under it, then it's as much
as to lay, that there is no pardon of fin, or that
no Man that is pardoned, or reputed to need a Par-
don, is juftified.
4. All this and fuch Speeches would perfwade the
Reader that this Learned Difputer thinketh that I
took and ufe the word [Xegal] generally as of that
which is related to any Law in genere* and fo take
Evangelical contrarily for that which is related to
no Law: whereas I over and over tell him, th3t
( fpeaking in the ufual Language that I may be un-
derftood ) I take Q Legal | fyecially ( and not ge-
nerally ) for that Righteoufnefs which is related to
the L<m of JVorhj or Innocency, (not as if we had
indeed fuch a Righteoufnefs as that Law will jufti-
fie us forj But a pro-Legal-Righteoufxefs^ one in~_
fteadof it, in and by our perfed: Saviour, which fhall
effedually fave us from that Laws condemnation) :
And that by \JLvangelhal Righteoufneff |, I mean,
that which is related to the Law of Grace-, as the
Rule of Judgment, upon the juft pleading whereof
that Law will not condemn but juftifieus. If he
knew this to be my meanings in my weak judg-
ment, he (hould not have written either as if he
did
( 145 )
did not, or as if he would perfwade his Rsaders to
the contrary : For Truth is moft congruouily de-
fended by Truth : But if he hjiew it not, I defpair
of becoming intelligible to him, by any thing that
I can write, and I {hall expeft that this Reply be
wholly loft to him and worfe.
5^ His £ Lex nifi pr£liita neminem juftificat ^ is
true > and therefore no Man is juftificd by the Law,
But his next words [_ & prjsftitam omnes in Cbrifio
agnofcunt ~] feemeth to mean that [_ It was performed
by us in Cbrift ~] j Or that |[ It juftifietb us, becaufe
-performed perftBly by Cbrijt as fucb ] ; Which both
are the things that we moft confidently deny. It
was not Phyfically, or Morally, or Politically, or
Legally, or Reputativeiy, (take which word you
will) fulfilled by us in Cbrift : it doth not juftifie
us, becaufe it was fulfilled by Chrift, (as fucb, or
immediately, and eo nomine). It juftified Cbrift,
becaufe he fulfilled it > and fo their Law doth all the
perfect Angels. But we did not perfonally fulfil it
in ChrifUit never allowed vicarium obedienti* to ful-
fil it by our fives or another: Therefore anothers
Obedience, merely as fuch, ('even a Mediators) is not
our Obedience or JulHncation : But that Obedience
juftifieth us, as given us only in or to the effecting
of ourPerfonal Righteoufnefs, which confiftech in
our right to Impunity, and to God's Favour and
. Life, freely given for (Chrift's Merits fake, and in
our performance of the Conditions of the Law of
Grace, or that free Gift, which is therefore not a
co ordinate but a fub-ordinate Righteoufnefs ( and
Juftmcation) to qualihe us for the former. This
is fo plain and necefTary, that if ( in fenfe ) it be
not underttood by all that are admitted to the Sa-
I, era-
cramental Communion, (excepting Verbal Contro
verfies or Difficulties) I doubt we are too lax in our
admiilions.
§ <>. Next he tells us of a threefold refiett of
Juftification : I* Ex parte principiu 2. 'termini.
3. Medii : ( I find my felf uncapeable of teaching
him, that is a Teacher of fuch as I, and therefore
prefume not to tell him how to diftinguifh more
congruoully, plainly,* and properly, as to the
terms). And as to the Principle or Fountain whence
it ftoweth, that is, Evangelical Grace in Chrift^ he
faith, It is thus neceffary, that in our lapfed State all
Juftification be Evangelical ] ,
Anfw. Who would defire a foarper or a fofter, a
more dijfenting or a more confenting Adverfary ?
Very good : If then I mean it ex parte principti^ I
offend him not by afferting Evangelical Righteouf-
nefs : The Controverfie then will be only de nomine^
whether it be congruous thus to call it. And really
are his Names and Words put into our Creed, and
become fo neceffary as to be worthy of all the ftrefs
that he laycth on them, and the calling up the Chri-
ilian World to arrive by their Zeal againft cur
Phrafe ? Muft the Church be awakened to rife up
againft all thofe that will fay with Chrift, £ By thy
words thou (halt be jujlified~]. And with James,
[_ By Worlds a Man U jujlified-, and not by Faith only\
and [_ we are judged by the Law of Liberty ] , and
as Chrift, J^h^. 22. £ the Father judgeth no Man,
but hath committed all Judgment totthe Son ~| > and
that (hall recite the 25*/; Chapter of Matthew.
Even now he faid at once, Q there is no Juftifi-
cation inforoDei, but Abfolution, &c the Law
of the Spirit of Life hath freed us^ &c. Here is no
men-
( *47 ) .
mention of any Justification but Legal ]. And now
£ All our Justification ex parte princ pii, is only
Evangelical ]. So then w 2Var* calks of Evangeli-
cal Jufrification-, or of Juftificarion ex parte prin-
cipii: And Absolution which definethi 1 , is named
ex parte principiu And yet all Ju(lification is Evan*
gelical* Is this mode of Teaching worthy a De-
fence by a Theological War ?
2. But Reader, Why may not I denominate Ju-
ftification ex parte principii ? Righteoufnefi isfor-
malfy a Relation: To juftifieconftitutively, is to
make Righteous. To be Juftified,' Cor Juftificarion
in fenfit pajjivo ) is to be made Righteous > And in
foro^ to be judged Righteous : And what meaneth
he by Vrincipium as to a Relation, but that which
other Men call the Fundamentum^ which is loco Ef-
ficients ^ or a remote efficient ? And whence can a
Relation be more fitly named, than from the fun-
damentum-i whence it hath its formal being ? Rea-
der, bear with my Error, or correct it, if I miftake.
I think that as our Righteoufnefs is not all of one
fort, no more is the fundamentum : i. I think I
have no Righteoufnefs, whofe immediate funda-
mentum is my finlefs Innocency, or fulfilling the
Law of Works or Innocency, by my felf or ano-
ther : and fo I have no fnndamentum of fuch.
2. I hope I have a Righteoufnefs confining in my
perfonal Right to Impunity and Life h and that Jns
or Right is mine by the Title of free Condonation and
"Donation by the Gofpel-Covenaut or Grant : And
fo that Grant or Gofpel is the fnndamentum of it ;
But the Merits of Chrirt's Righteoufnefs purchafed
that Gift, and fothofe Merits are the rerqiote fun-
damentum or efficient : And thus my J unification,
L 2 by
(i 4 S)
by the Dodoes confeffion, is Evangelical. 3. I
muft perifli if I have not alfo a fubordinate perfo-
nal Righteoufnefs, confiding in my performance of
thofe Conditions on which the New-Covenant gi-
veth the former. And the fundamentum of this
Righteoufnefs is the Reality of that performance,
as related to the Irrogation, Impofition, or Tenor
of the Covenant, making this the Condition. This
is my Heretie, if I be heretical \ and be it right or
wrong, I will make it intelligible, and not by fay-
ing and unlaying, involve all in confulion. •
§. 6* Headdeth, \_Ex parte "termini Le-galU eft,
quia terminatur in fatisfatiione, Legi prtflauda :
Liber avit me a Lege mortis, &c. And hence*, he faith,
the denomination U properly taken.
Anfw. 1. The Reader here feeth that all this
Zeal is exercifed in a Game at Words, or Logical
Notions \ and the Church muft be called for the um-
pirage, to ftand by in Arms to judg that he hath
won the Day : What if the denomination be pro-
perly to be taken from the Terminus ? Is it as dange-
rous as you frightfully pretend to take it aliunde ?
2. But (lay a little : Before we come to this, we
muft crave help to underftand what hetalkethof;
Is it, -i. Jujlificatioijuftificans (*a£live fumpta) > Or,
2 . Ju(iificatio Juftificati (paffive) ? 3. Or Juftitia ?
1. The firft is Afiio-, and the Terminus of that
AdHon is two-fold, 1. The Objedt or Patient (a
believing Sinner). 2. The Effect, Juftificatio paf-
five, neither of thefe is the Law^ or its Maleditii-
on. But which of thefe is it that we muft needs
name it from ?
•2. The pafjive ox effective Juftification is in rc-
fpecfi of the Subjects Reception called Pafio; In
xefpe&
(149)
refped of the form received, it is as various as I
before mentioned.
i. The Effed of the Donative Justification of
the Law of Grace, is Jujiitia data > a Relation
(oft defcribed).
2. TheEflfed: of the Spirits giving us Inherent
Righteottfnefsi is a Quality given, Ads excited, and
a Relation thence refulting.
3. The Etfedt of Jujiification per fententiam
Judicis, is immediately a Relation, Jus Judica-
tion*
4. The Effed of an Advocates Juftification, is
Jujiitia & perfna ut defenfa feu vindicata.
5. The Eflfcdt of Executive Justification^ is Actu-
al Impunity or Liberation. And are all thefe one
Terminus, or hence one name then > Thefe are the
termini of Jujlificatio Jujiificamvs, ut Attionii \ 2nd
nothing of this nature can be plainer, than that,
i. Remiflion of fin (paflively taken) the Reatus or
Obligatio ad fxnam, (the firfl ad quem^ and the fe-
cond a quo) are both the immediate 'termini of our
Avfl of Jnftihcation. 2. That the terminus Jujii-
tix^ as it is the formal Relation of a Juftified Per-
fon, as fuav, i^ the Law as Norma AUionum, as to
Righteous Adtions, and the L3W or Covenant
making the Condition of Life, as tothofe Adtidns,
fub ratione Condition* & tituli. And the Promiffo-
ry and Minatory part of the Law, as Jujiitia is
Jus przmii, & impunitatis. Firft, The Actions,
and then the Pcrfon are ]ut\ in Relation to the Law
or Covenant, by which their Anions and they are
to be judged. But the remoter terminus is the
malum a quo^ and therbonum ad quod. And as a
quo, it is not only the evil denounced, but alfo the
L 3 Reatus^
k *5° )
Meatus, or Obligation to it, and the efficacious Aft
of the Law thus curfing, and the Accufation of the
A&or or Accufer, ( real or poflible ) that is fuch a
terminus.
II. But when he faith, Ex parte 'termini Lega-
Itieft, either ftill he taketh legal generally , as com-
prehending the Law of Innocency, of Worlds ', and
of Grace, or not? If he do, I muft hope he is
more intelligent and juft, than to infinuate to his
Header, that f ever mention an Evangelical Justifi-
cation that is not fo legal, as to be denominated from
the Law of Grace, as difiindt from that of Works :
If not, he was indebted to hi^ intelligent Reader
for fome proof, that.no Man is juftified againft this
fahe Accufation * [ Thou art by the Law of Grace
the Heir of a far forer punifhment, for defpifing
the Remedy, and not performing the Conditions of
Pardon and Life. And alfo for this thou haft no
right to Chrift, and the Gifts of his Covenant of
Giace]. But no fuch proof is found in his Wri-
tings, nor can be given.
I!L But his (~ Quia 'terminatur in fatisfaliione
X<egi. prgftanda ~L I confefs it is a Sentence not very
intelligible or edifying tome. i. SatisfaUio pro-
prie &> firittc fie ditta differt a foluiione ejufdem
quod fit, folutio gquivalentis alias indebiu : Which
of thefe he meaneth, Satisfa&ion thus ftri&ly ta-
ken, ox folutio ejufdem, I know not: Nor know
what *t is that he meaneth by Legi prajlanda : In-
dced^fdlutio ejyfdem is Legi prajlanda, but not prt-
$ita by us (perfonally or by another) ; For we nei-
ther ,kept the Law, nor bare the full Penalty v And
the
C 151 )
the Law mentioned no Vicarium Obediently aut
pcem > Chrift performed the Law> as it obliged him-
felf as Mediator, and as a Subject, but not as it eb-
liged us '■> for it obliged us to Perfonal performance
only : And Chrift by bearing that Punifhment ( in
fome refpedls) which we deferved, iatisfied the
Law-giver, (who had power to take a Commuta-
tion) but not the Law : unlefs fpeaking improper-
ly you will fay that the Law is fatisfied, when the
remote ends of the Law-giver and Law are obtain-
ed. For the Law hath but one fixed fenfe, and
may be it felf changed, but changeth not it felf, nor
accepteth a tantundcm : And ChrifFs fuffering for
us, was a fulfilling of the Law, which peculiarly
bound him to fuffer, and not a Satisfaction loco fo-
lutionvs ejufdem : And it was no fulfilling the Penal
part of the Law as it bound us to fuffer : For fo it
bound none but us \ fo that the Law as binding us
to Duty or Sufferings was neither fulfilled, nor
ftriitly fatisfied by Chrift '•> but the Law-giver fa-
tisried, and the remote ends of the Law attained,
by Chrift's perfect fulfilling all that Law which
bound himfclf as Mediator.
Now whether he mean the Law as binding us to
Duty, or to Punifkmem, or both, and what by fa-
xifaUion I am not fure : But as far as I can make
fenfe of it, it feeneth to mean, that Poena is fatif-
f actio loco obediently and that Punifnment beingour
Due, this was fatisfaaio Legi pr&}ianda<> (for he
fiith not Prtjiita). But then he mult judge that
we are juftified only from the penal Obligation of
the Law, and not from the preceptive Obligation to
perfeit Obedience. And this will not ftand with
the fcop: of other PalTages, where he endureth not
L 4 my
( W )
my Opinion, that we are not jufiified by the fac
hoc, the Precept as fulfilled, or from the Keatus
Culpa in fe, but by ChrilVs whole Righteoufnefs
from the Reatus ut ad p&nam.
2. But if this be his fenfe, he meaneth then that
it is only the 'terminus a quo*> that Jujiification is
properly denominated from. And why fo ? i. As
Jujiitia and Jffftiftcatio paffivefumpta^ vel ut ejfe£}us y
isKelatio-) it hath neceflarily no "terminus a quo*
And certainly is in fpecie^ to be rather denominated
from its own proper terminus ad quern. And as
Juftification is taken for the Juftifiers Al\ion\ why is
it not as well to be denominated from the terminus
adquem, as a quo ? Jujiificatio efficiens (ic dicitur y
quia Juftum facit : Jujiificatio apologetica^ quia
Jujium vindicat vel probat. Jujiificatio per fententi-
am^ quiafujiurn aliquem ejft Judicat : Jujiificatio
executiva, quia ut Jujium eum traUat.
But if wemuft needs denominate from the ter-
minus a quo^ how ftrange is it that he fhould know
but of one fenfe of Jujiification ?
3. But yet perhaps he meaneth, [_Jn fatisfattione
Juegi prtjiita, though he (ay pr^fianda^ and fo de-
nominateth from the terminus a quo : But iffo,
l» Then it cannot be true ; For fatisfacere & Ju-
fiificare are not the fame thing, nor is Jujiifying
giving Satisfaction* nor were wfe juftified when
Chriit had fatisfied, but Ions after : Nor are we
juftified eo nomine^ becaufe Chrift fatisfied, ( that
is, immediately) but becaufe he gave us that Jus
adimpunitatem & vitam & jpiritum fan£ium y which
is the Fruit of his Satisfa&ion. 2. And as is faid,
if it be only in fatisfaUione^ then it is not in that
Obedience which fulfileth the preceptive part as it
bound
bound us : for to fatisfie tor not fulfilling, is not to
fulfil it. 3. And then no Man is jufiiried, for no
Man hath iatisfied either the Preceptive or Penal
Obligation of the Law, by himfelf or another :
But Chrift hath fatisfied the Law-giver by Merit
and Sacrifice for fin.
His Liberavil nos a Lege Mortis, I before (hewed
impertinent to his ulc, Is Liberate & Juftificare,
or Satisfacere all one ? And is a Lege Mortify either
from all the Obligation to Obedience, or from the
fole malcdi^ion ? There be other Acts of Liberation
befides Satisfaction : For it is f ibe Law of the Spi-
rit of Life ] that doth it : And we are treed both
from the power of indwelling-fin-* (called a Law)
and from the Mofaical Yoak, and from the Tmpof-
fible Conditions of the Law of Innocency, though
not from its bare Obligation to future Duty.
§. 7. Headdetha Third, Ex parte Medii, quod
eft Jujiitia Cbrijii Legalis nobis per fidem Imputats:
Omnem itaque Juftificatibnem proprie Legalem ejfe
conftat.
Atifxv* 1. When I read that he will have but one
fenfe or fort of Juftirication, will yet have the De-
nomination to be extermino, and fo julHfiethmy
diltinCtion of it, according to the various "termini h
And h:re how he tnaketh the Rightecufnefs of
Chrift to be but the MEVWMof our ] unification,
(though he ihould have told us which fort of Medi-
um he meaneth) he feemcth to me a very favourable
confenting Adverfary : And I doubt thofe Divines
who maintain that Chrift's Rignteoufnefs is the
Caufa Formalis of our Juflification, (who are no
(mail ones, nor a few, though other in anfwer to
thePapiftsdifclaimit) yea, and thofe that make it
but
(in;
but Caufa Materiality (which may have a found
fenfe) will think this Learned Man betraye'th their
Caufe by prevarication, and feemeth to fet fiercly
againftme, that he may yeeld up the Caufe with
lefs fufpicione But the truth is, we all know but in
part, and therefore err in part, and Error is incon-
lifterit with it felf. And as we have confli&ing
Flefh and Spirit in the Wi% fo have we confli&ing
Light and Dartyefi, Spirit and Flefh in the Under-
/landing * And it is very perceptible throughout
this Author's Book, that in one line the Flefh and
Varkpefi faith one thing, and in the next oft the
Spirit and Light faith the contrary, and feeth not
the inconfiftency : And fo though the dark^ and
flejhy part rife up in wrathful driving Zeal againft
the Concord and Peace of Chriftians, on pretence
that other Mens Errors wrong the Truth, yet I
doubt not but Love and Unity have fome intereft in
his lucid and Spiritual part. We do not only grant
him that Chrht's Righteoufnefs is a Medium of
our Justification, (for fo alfo is Faith a Condition-*
and Difpofitio Receptiva being a Medium) '■> nor only
fome Caufe^ (for ib alfo is the Covenant-Donation) ;
but that it is an efficient meritorious Caufe, and be-
caufe if Righteoufnefs had been that of our own,
Innocency would have been founded in Merits we
may call Chrift's Righteoufnefs the material Caufe of
our Juftification, remotely, asitjs Materia Meriti,
the Matter of the Merit which procureth it,
2. But for all this it followeth not that all Julli-
fication is only Legal? as Legal noteth itsrefpedt to
the Law of Innocency: For i„ we are juftined
from or againft ehe Accufatlon of being non^per-
foimers of the Condition of the Law of Grace \
2. And
( 155 )
2. And of being therefore unpardoned, and lyable
to its forer Penalty. 3. Our particular fubordi-
nate Perfonal Righteoufnefs contifHng in the faid
performance of thofe Evangelical Conditions of
Lite, is fo denominated from its conformity to the
Law of Grace, fas it infrituteth its own Conditi-
on) as the meafure of it, (asReaitudo ad Regu-
lam). 4. Our Jut ad impunitatem & vitam^ reful-
teth from the Donative A3: of the Law or Cove-
nant of Grace, as the Titvlus qui efi Fundamentum
Jurti^ or fuppofition of our Faith as the Condition.
5. This Law of Grace is the Norma Judiris-> by
which we (hall be judged at the Laft Day. 6. The
fame Judg doth now per fententiam concept am judg
of us, as he will then judg per fententiam prola-
tarn. 7. Therefore the Sentence being virtually in
the Law, this fame Law of Grace, which in primo
inllanti doth make us Righteous^ ( by Condonation
and Donation of Right) doth in fecundo inftanti>
virtually jultifie us as containing that regulating
ufe, by which we are to be fententially juftified.
And now judg Reader, whether no Juftification be
Evangelical, or by the Law of Grace, and fo to be
denominated: (for it is lit de nomine that is by him
managed). 8. Bcildes that the whole frame of
Caufcs in the Work of Redemption, (the Re-
deemer, his Righteoufnefs, Merits, Sacrifice, Par-
doning Ad\ Interceilion, &c. ) are fure rather to
be called Matters of the Gofpel, than of the
Law.
And yet we grant him eafily > 1. ThatChrift
perfectly fulfilled the Law of Innocency, and was
juftified thereby, and that we are juftined by that
Righteoufnefs of his, as the meritorious Caufe.
2. That
( I** )
2. That we being guilty of Sin and Death, ac*
cording to the tenor of that Law, and that Guilt
being remitted by Chrift, as aforefaid, we are
therefore juftified from that Law, ^that is, from
its Obligation of us to Innocency as the necefTary
terms of Life, and from its Obligation of us to
Death, for want of Innocency) : But we are not
juftified by thatLaw,either as fulfilled or as fatisfied
by us our felves, either perfonally or by an Inftru-
tnent, fubftitute or proper Representative, that was
Vicatius ObedientU aut pcen<e* 3. And we grant
that the Jews were delivered from the pofitive Jew-
ifh Law, which is it that Paul calleth, "the Law of
Works. And if he pleafe, in all thefe refpe&s to
call Juiification Legale we intend not to quarrel
with the name, (though what I called Legal in
thofe Aphorifms, I chofe ever after to call rather,
Jujiitia po-legalis). But we cannot believe him,
I* That it is only Legal \ 2. Or that that is the
only (or mod) proper denomination.
§• 8. Heproceedeth thus, \Andit will be vainjf
any argue, 'That yet none can be faved without Evan-
gelical Works, according to which it U confejfed that
all men Jhall be judged : for the diftinttion U eafie
{which the Author of the Aphorifms fomewhere ufeth)
between the firji or Private, and the laji or Publicly
purification* In the firji fenje it is never faid^that
Works jujiifie, but contrary, *fhat God juftifietb him
that worketh not, Rom. 4. 5- In the latter we confefs
that Believers are to be jufiified according to Works,
but yet not Of (or By) Works, nor that that Jujlift-
cation maketh men jujl before God, but only jo J>ro-
nounceth them.
Anjw. 1. This is fuch another Consenting Ad-
verfary
v 157 ;
verfary as once before I was put to anfwer v who
with open mouth calls himfelf confequentially what
he calleth me '•> if the fame Caufe, and not the P*r-
fon make the Guilt. Nay let him confidei whether
his grand and molt formidable Weapon [ So alfo
faith Bellarmine, with other Papijis ] do not wound
himfelf : For they commonly lay, That the firjl Ju-
stification is not of Workj, or Wvr\s do not fir ft ju-
fiifre us. Have I not now proved that he erreth and
complyeth with the Papifts 1 If not, let him ufe bet-
ter Arguments himfelf.
2. But why is the firft Justification called Pri-
vate ? Either he meaneth God's making us juft con-
fiitutively-i or his judging us fo : and that per fen-
tentiam concept am only, or prolatambKo.
i. The common diftindtion in Politicks, inter
judicium Privatum & Publicum^ is fetcht from the
fudgt who is either Perfona privata vel publica : a
private Man, or an authorized Judg judging as
fuch : And fo the Judgment of Confcience,t riends,
Enemies, Neighbours, mere Arbitrators, &c 4 is
Judicium privatum j and that ot a Judg in foro, is
Judicium publicum, (yea, or in fecret, before the
concerned Parties only in his Clofet, foit be deci-
five) : If this Learned Do&or fo underftand it,
then, i. Conftitutive Jujlification (which is tru-
Jy firft ) is publick Juftihcation, being done by
God the Father, and by our Redeemer, who fure
are not herein private authorized Perfons. 2. And
the firft Sentential Juftificatim, as merely Virtual*
and not yet A&ual, viz. as it's virtually in the ju-
fxifying Law of Grace as norma Judicis is publicly
in fuo genere, being the virtus of a Publick Law of
God, or of his Donative Promife* 3* And the
firft
firft Actual J unification y per Veum Judicem pet
fententiam conceptam (which is God's fecret judging
the Thing and Perfonto be as they are) is (fecret
indeed in fe, yet revealed by God's publick Word
but) publick as to the Judg. 4. And the firft /?»-
tentia prolata ( the fourth in order ) is fomeway
publick as oppofite to fecrefie, (for, 1. it is before
the Angels of Heaven •> 2. And in part by Execu-
tive demon ftrations on Earth) : But it is certainly
by a public}^ Judg, that is, God. 5. And the firft A
^Apologetical Jujlificafion by Chrift our Interceding
Advocate, is publick both quoad perfonam, and as
openly done in Heaven : And if this worthy Perfon
deny any Justification per fententiam Judicis, upon
our firft Believing, or before the final Judgment,
he would wofully fall out with the far greateft
number of Proteftants, and efpecially his clofeft
Friends, who ufc to make a Sentence of God as
Judg to he the Genus to Juftification.
But if by £ Private and Fublick^ Justification ] \
he means [_ fecret and open ~}< 1. How can he hope
to be underftood when he will ufe Political Terms
unexplained, out of theufual fenfe of Politicians :
But no men ufe to ahufe words more than they that
wonld keep the Church in flames by wordy Contro-
verfies, as if they were of the terms of Life and
Death. 2. And even in that fenfe our firft Juftifi-
cation is public^ or open, quoad Afium JujUfican-
cantis^as being by the Donation of a publick Word
of God h Though quoad cjfeZlwn in recipiente, it
xnuft needs be fecret till the Day of Judgment, no
Man knowing anothers Heart, whether he be in-
deed a found Believer : And So of the reft as is in-
timated.
Con-
( is* ;
Concerning what I have fdid before, fome may
Objedt, i . That there it no fnch thing as our Jnjlifi-
cation notified before the Angels in Heaven. 2, 'that
the Sententia Concepta it God's Immanent A£is, and
therefore Eternal.
An fa. To the firft, I fay, j. It is certain by
Lnk. 15. 10. that the Angels know of the Conver-
ficn of a Sinner, and therefore of his Juftification
and publickly Rejoyce therein. Therefore it is noti-
fied to them. 2. But I refer the Reader for this, to
what I have faid to Mr. Tombes in my Dijputation
of purification, where I do give my thoughts, That
this is not the Juftification by Faith meant by Paul,
as Mr. Tombes aflcrteth it to be.
To the Second, I fay, Too many have abufed
Theology, by the mifconceiving of the diftin&ion
of Immanent and Tranfient Afts of God, taking
all for Immanent which effedfc nothing ad extra. But
none are properly Immanent quoad ObjeUum, but
i uch as God himfelf is the Object of, ( as fe in-
telligere, fe amare ) : An A& may be called indeed
immanent in any of thefe three refpe&s^ 1. Ex
parte Agent'n i 2. Ex parte Objefii ; 3. Ex parte
effeauf. 1. Ex parte agentis, all God's A#s are
Immanent, for they are his Eflence. 2. Ex parte
Ob)eVtivel Termini, God's Judging a Man Juft or
Unjuft, Good or Bad, is tranfient > becauie it is
denominated from the ftate of the Terminus or Ob-
ject : And fo it may be various and mutable deno-
minatively, notwithftanding God's Simplicity and
Immutability. And fo the Sententia Concepta is wot
ab lEterno. 3. As to the Effect, all confcfs God's
Acts to be Traniient and Temporary. But there
are fome that effeil not (as to judg a thing to be
whatitis\ . 3. Either
( i6o)
3- Either this Militant Difputer would have his
Reader believe that I fay, That a Man is juftifiedby
IVbrks, in that which he called [making jufl, and
the firji Jujiifica'iPH^ or not : if he would, fuch
untruth and uwrighteoufiteft (contrary ro the full
drift of many of my Books , and even that
which he feledted to oppofe) is not a congruous
way of difputing for "truth and Rigbteoufnefs : nor
indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modett. If not,
then why doth he all along carry his profeflcd
agreement with me, in a militant ftrain^perfwading
his Reader, that I favour of Socinianifmor Pope-
ry, or feme dangerous Error, by faying the very
fame that he faith. O what thanks doth God's
Church owe fuch contentious Difputers for (lippo-
fed Gr/hodoxnefs, that like noctarnbuli, will rife
in their fleep, and cry, Fire, Fire, or beat an
AJlarm on their Drums, and cry out, *The Enemy,
T'he Enemy, and will not let their Neighbours
reft!
I have wearied my Readers with fo oft repeating
in my Writings ( upon fuch repeated importuni-
ties of others ) thele following Ailertions about
Works.
i. That we are never juftified, firftorlaft, by
Works of Innocemy
2. Nor by the Work* of the Jewifli Law (which
Paul pleadcth againft).
3. Nor by any Works of Merit, in point of
Commutative Juft ice, or of diftribxtive Governing
Juftice, according to cither of thofe Laws (of In-
nocency^ or Jewijb).
4. Nor by any Works or A&s of Man, which
are fee againft or inftead of theleaft part of God's
A&s,
A&s, Chrift's Merits, or any of his part or ho*
nour.
5. Nor are we at firft juftified by any Evangeli-
cal Works of Love, Gratitude er Obedience to Chrijt,
as Worlds are diitinguifhed from cur firft Faith and
Repentance.
<5. Nor are we juftified by Repentance, as by an
inftrumental efficient Caufe, or as of the lame re-
ceivingiNature with Faith, except as Repentance
fignifieth our change from Vnbelief to Faith, *and
fo is Faith it felf.
7. N01 are we juftified by Faith as by a mere Aft,
or moral good Work.
8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Inftrument of
our Juftification.
9. Much lefs by fuch tForkj of Charity to Men,
as are without true love to God.
10. And lead of all, by Popifh bad Works, cal-
led GojJj (as Pilgrimages, hurtful Aufteriries, &c.)
But if any Church r troubling Men will firft call
all AQs of Man's Soul by the pame cf WORKS,
and next will call no Aft by theTname of Jujlifying
Faith, but the belief of the Promife ( as fome ) or
the accepting of Cbrifrs Right e oil fnefs given or iw-
putedtousy as in fe, our own (as others) or [the
Recumbency on this Righteoufnefs ] ( as others ) or
all thefe three Acis ( as others ) '•> and if next they
will fay that this Faith jufiifietb us only as the pro-
per Instrumental Caufe \ and next that to look for
Juftification by any other Aft of Man's Soul, or bf
this Faith in any other refpeft, is to truft to that
Juftification by IVorVs, which Paul confuteth, and
to fall from Grace, I do deteft fuch corrupting and
M abufing
abufing of the Scriptures,and the Church of Chrift.
And I aflfert as followeth >
i. That the Faith which we are juftified by, doth
as effentially contain our belief of the Truth of
Chrift's Perfon, Office, Death, Refusion, lb-
terceffion, &c. as of the Promife of Imputation.
2. Arid alfo our confent to Chrift's Teaching,
Government, Interceflion, as to Imputation.
3. And our Acceptance of Pardon, Spffit, and
promifed Glory, as well as Imputed Righteoufnefs
of Chrift.
4. Yea, that it is effentially a Faith in God the
Father, and the Holy Ghoft.
5. That it hath in it effentially fomewhat of Ini-
tial Love to God, to Chrift, to Recovery, to Glo-
ry j that is, of Volition ', and fo of Defire.
6* That it containeth all that Faith, which is ne-
ceffarily requifite at Baptifm to that Covenant > even
a confenting-prattical-belief in God the Father ', Son,
and Holy Ghoft ; and U our Chriftianity it felf.
7. That we are juftified by this Faith, as it is
£ A moral Att of Man, adapted to its proper Office,
made by our Redeemer, the Condition of his Gift of
Jujiification, and fo U the moral receptive aptitude of
the Subject, or the Vijpofitio materia vel fubjefii Re-
cipientii] : Where the Matter of it is [An adapted
moral Aft of Man] (by Grace). The Ratio forma-
lis of its Intereft in our Juftification is [ Conditio
pr£f}ita~\ fpeaking politically, and [Aptitudo vel
jDijpofnio maralti Receptiva ] fpeaking logically 5
which Dr. "fwifs ftill calleth Caufadijpofitiva.
8. That Repentance as it is a change of the
Mind' from Unbelief to Faith, (in God the Father,
Son,
Son, and Holy Ghoft) is this Faith denominated
from its terminus a quo (principally).
9. That we are continually justified by this
Faith as continued, as well as initially juftified by
its firft Aft.
10. That as this Faith includcth a confent to fu-
ture Obedience •> (that is, Subjection) fo the perfor-
mance of that confent in fwcere Obedience, is the
Condition of our Justification as continued (Secon-
darily) as well as Faith (or confent it felfj pri-
marily : And that thus James meaneth, that we are
Juftified by Works.
n. That God judging of all things truly as
they are, now judgeth Men juft or unjuft, on thefe
Terms.
12. And his Law being Norma judicii> now ver-
tually judgeth us juft on thtfe terms.
13. And that the Law of Grace being that
which we are to be judged by, we (hall at the laft
Judgment alfo be judged (and fo juftified J thus far
by or according to our fincere Love, Obedience,
or Evangelical Works, as the Condition of the
Law or Covenant of free Grace,which juftifieth and
glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qua-
lified, by and for the Merits, perfedt Righteoufnefs
and Sacrifice of Chrift, which procured the Cove-
nant or free Gift of IJniveifal Conditional Juftifica-
tion and Adoption, before and without any Works
or Conditions done by Man whatfoever.
Reader, Forgive me this troublefom oft repeating
the ftate of the^Controverfie j I meddle with no
other. If this oe Juftification by Works, I am for
it% If this Do&or be againft it, he is againft much
M 2 of
<i*4)
of the Gofpel, If he be not, he had better have
kept his Bed, than to have call'd us to Arms in his
Dream, when we have fadly warred fo many Ages
already about mere words. For my part, I think
that fuch a (hort explication of our fenfe, and re-
jection of ambiguities,- is fitter to end thefe quar-
rels, than the long difputations of Confounders.
4* But when be faith, [Worfy make not a Man
juftj and yet we are . at laft juftified according to
them ], it is a contradiction, or unfound. JFor if
he mean Wor\s in the fence excluded by Paul, we
are not juftified according to\bem y viz. fuch as make,
or are thought to make the Reward to be not of
Grace, but of Debt : But if he take Workj in the
fenfe intended by J ame sincere Obedience is afecon-
dary confiituti'tie part of that inherent or adherent per-
fonalRighteoufnefs^ required by the Law of Grace, in
fubordination to Chrifi 7 s Meritorious Right eoufnefs h
And what Chriftian can deny this ? So far it maketh
us Righteous, (as Faith doth initially). And what
is it to be juftified according to our Wor\s y but to be
judged, fo far as they are iincerely done, to be fuch
as have performed the fecondary part of the Condi-
tions of free- given Lite ?
5. His [_ According"] but not [exoperihus'] at
the Laft Judgment, is but a Logomachie [~ Accor-
ding J| fignifieth as much as I afTert : But" £ ex ]
is no unapt Prepofition, when it isfcyat theiubor-
dinate part of Righteoufnefs and Justification, of
which we fpeak, and fignifieth (with me) the fame
as [ According ~). ^
<5. His Tropical Phrafe, that ^fforkj pronounce
us jufi ] is another ambiguity : That the Judg
will
(16$)
will pronounce us jufi according to them, as the fore-
faid fecond part of the Conjiitutive Caufe, or Matter
of our Subordinate Kighteoufnefs, is certain from
Mattb.25. and the fcope of Scripture ; But that
they are only notifying Signs, and no part of the
Caufe of the day to be tryed, is not true ; (which
too many aflat,).
§. p. He proceedeth, Q If there be an 'Evangeli-
cal Juftification at God's Bar, diftincl from the legal
one, there will then alfo be in each an abfolution of
divers fins : For if the Gojpsl forgive the fame fins
M the Law, the fame thing will be done, and a dou-
ble Juftification will be unprofitable and idle* If
from divers fins, then the Law forbids not the fame
things as the Gofpel, &c.^
Anfw. It's pitty fuch things (hould need any An-
fwer.
i. It's a falfe Suppofition, That all Juftification
is Abfolution from fin : To juftihe the fincerity of
our Faith and Holinefs, is one a£l or part of our
Juftification, againft all ( pofiible or adual ) falfe
Accufation.
2. The Law of Inndcency commanded not the
Believing Acceptance of Chrift's Righteoufnefs and
Pardon, and fo the Remnants of that Law in the
hand of Chrift ( which is the Precept of perfeft
Obedience de futuro ) commandeth it only confe-
quently, fuppoting the Gofpel-Promife and Institu-
tion to have gone before, and fekdfod this as the
terms of Life > fo that as a Law in genere (exiilent
only in jpeciebxs*) commandeth Obedience, and the
Law of Innocency in fyecie commanded [ pcrfoud
M 3 pcrfeft
C 166 )
perfett perpetual Obedience^ the Condition of Life'] ?
fo the Gofpel commandeth Faith in our Redeemer^
as the new Condition of Life : on which fuppofiti-
on, even the Law of lapfed Nature further ob-
ligeth us thereto : And as the Commands differ, fo
do the Prohibitions.
There is a certain fort of fin excepted from par-
don, by the pardoning Law, viz* Final non-per-
formance of its Conditions : And to judg a Man
not guilty of this fin, is part of our Juftification, as
isaforefaid.
§. 10. He addeth, [If Legal and Evangelical
Juftification are fyecie dijiintt) then fo are the Courts
in which vpe are -juftified. — - If diftinU and fubordi-
nate, and fo he that is juftified by the Law> is jufti-
fied by the Gojpel, &c]
Anfw. i. No Man is juftified by the Law of In-'
nocency or Works, but Chrift : Did I ever fay that,
[ that Law jufiifieth us Jj, who have voluminously
wrote againft it > If he would have his Reader
think fo, his unrighteoufnefs is fuch as civility for-
bids me to give its proper Epithets to. If not,againft
what or whom is all this arguing ?
2. I call it [Legal] as it is that perfed Righte-
oufnefs of Chrift our Surety, conform to the Law
of Innocency j by which he was juftified (though
not abfolved and pardoned) : I call it [pro Legalis
)uftiua\ becaufe that Law doth not juftifie us for
it ( but Chrift only ) but by it given us ad ejfefta
by the New-Covenant * we are faved and juftified
from the Curfe of that Law, or ftom Damnation,
as certainly as if we had done it our fclves : I call
Faith
Faith our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, on the Rea-
fons too oft mentioned. Now thefe may be called
7n?0 Justifications^ or ( rather ) two parts of one,
in feveral.refpe&s, as pleafeth the Speaker. And
all fuch Word-Souldiers (hall have their liberty
without my Contradiction^
3. And when will he prove that thefe two Sorts,
or Parts, or Adfcs, may not be at once#tranfaukd
at the lame Bar ? Muft there needs be one Court to
try whether I am a true Believer, or an Infidel, or
Hypocrite * and another to judg that being fuch, I
am to be juftified againft all Guilt and Curfe, by
vertue of Chrift's Merits and Interceflion ? Why
may not thefe two parts of one Man's Caufe be
judged at the fame Bar ? And why fnuft your Pu-
pils be (aught fo to conceive of fo great a bufinefs,in
itfelf fo plain?
§. 1 1. He proceedeth, £ The Vfe of this Evange-
lical Juftification is made to be, that vpe may be made
partakers of the Legal purification out of us, in
Chrifl : And fo our purification apply eth another Jw-
ftification, and our Remijjion of fins another.
Anfvp. No Sir \ buc our particular fubordinate
fort of Kighteoufnefs, confifting in the performance
of the Conditions of the free Gift, (viz. a belie-
ving fuitable Acceptance) is really our Vifpfitio
receptiva, being the Condition of our Title to that
Pardon and Glory, which for Chrift's Righteoufnefs
if freely given us. And our perfonal Faith and
Sincerity muft be juftified, and we in tantum, before
our Right toChrift, Pardon apd Life can be juftifi-
ed in for o.
M 4 2. Ar.d
% %
* i6* ;
'2. And to juftifie us as fincere Believers, when
others are condemned as Hypocrites, and Unbelie-
vers, and Impenitent, is not Pardon of Sin. Thefe
Matters (hould have been put into your (excellent)
Catechifm, and not made ftrange, much lefs ob-
fcured and oppofed, when laying by the quarrels
about mere words, I am confident you deny none
of this.
§. 12. Headdeth, [then Legal Juftification if
nothing but a bare word, feeing unapplyed j as to the
Matter it U nothingy as it is not called Healing by a
Medicine not applyed *, nor was it ever heard that one
Healing did Apply another ].
Anfw. Alas, alas, for the poor Church, if this
be the Academies beft ! forrow muft excufe my
Complaint ! If it be an Argument it muft tyn
thus : If Legal (or pro-legal) Righfeoufnefs (that
is, our pare in Chrift's Righteoufhefs) be none to
us (or none of our Juftification) when not- apply-
ed, than it is none alfo when it is applyed! But,
&c*
Anfw* It is none till applyed : Chrift's Merits,
or Legal Righteoufhefs -juliifie himfelf, but not us
till applyed : (Do you think otherwife, or do you
wrangle againft your felf ? ) But I deny your Con-
sequence : How prove you that it is none when ap~
plyed therefore ? Or the Cure is none when the Me-
dicine is applyed ?
Perhaps you 5 ] fay, Thac then our Perfonal Righ-
ieoufnefs-) and fubordinate J 'unification, is ours be-
fore Chrift's Righteoufnefs, and fo the greater de-
pendeth on, and followeth the lefs.
Anfw* i.
r Anfa* I. ChrifPs own Righteoufnefs is before
ours. 2. His Condition^ Pardon to fallen Man-
kind is before ours. 3. This Gift being Conditio-
nal, excepteth the non-performance of the Condi-
tion h And the nature of a Condition, is to fufyend
the ejfett of the Donation till performed. 4. There-
fore the performance goeth before the faid Effect
and our Title. 5. But it is not therefore any caufe
of it, bat a removal of the fujpenfwn ; nor hath the
Donation any other dependance on it. And is not
all this beyond denial with Ptrfons not ftudioufly
and learnedly milled ?
But you fay, It wm never beard that one Healing
apply ed another.
Anfiv. And fee you not that this is a lis de nomU
ne, and of a name of your own introdu&ion for
illuftration ? If we were playing at a Game of
Tropes, I" could tell you that the Healing of Mens
Vnbelief is applicatory for the healing of their
Guilt \ And the healing of Men's Ignorance , Pride,
and Wrangling about words, and frightning Men
into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death, is
applicatory as to the healing of the Churches
Wounds and Shame. But I rather chufe to ask
you, Whether it was never heard that a particular
Subordinates perfonal Right eoufne fi ( even Faith and
Repentance ) was made by God the Condition of
our Right to Pardon, and Life by Chrift's Righte-
oufnefs ? Did you never teach your Sholars this,
( in what words you thought beft ? ) And yet even
our Faith is a Fruit of Chrift's Righteoufnefs j but
neverthelefs the Condition of other Fruits.
If you fay that our Faith or Performance is not
to
to be called Rigbteoufnefs > I refer you to my An-
fwcr to Mr. Cartvprigbt > And if the word Rigbte-
oufnefs be not ofter ( ten to one ) ufed in Scripture
for fomewhat Perfonal, than for Chuffs Righte-
oufneft imputed, then think that you have faid
fomething.
If you fay, But it jujliftetb not as a Rigbteoufnefs,
but as an Inftrumenu I Anfwer, i. I have faid
dfewhere fo much of its Instrumentality, that I
am afhamed to repeat it. 2. It jujiifietb not at all,
(for that fignifieth efficiency) * but only maketh us
capable Recipients. 3. We are jujiified by-it as a
medium, and that is a Condition performed ( as
aforefaid ) : And when that Condition by a Law
is made both a Duty and a Condition of Like, the
performance is by neceflary refultancy T a Righte-
oufnefs J. But we are not juftified by it> as it is a
Rigbteoufnefs in genere i nor as a mere moral Virtue
or Obedience to the Law of Nature i but as it is
the performance of the Condition of the Law of
Grace > and fo as it is this -particular Rigbteoufnefs,
and no other.
§. 13. |£,fij Legal Juflificatim (faith he) ta-
tyn precifely^ either there ps Remiffion of fin, or not :.
If not. What Juflification is that ? |jf yea> then
Evangelical Jujiification is not neceffary to the appli-
cation of it \ becaufe the Application is fuppofed> &cf\
Anfvp. 1. What I ufually call \ Evangelical
Rigbteoufnefs ] he fuppofeth me to call purificati-
on \ which yet is true, and found, but fuch as is
before explained. t
2. This
( *7* )
2. This is but the fame again, and needeth no
new anfwer h The performance of the Condition is
flrangely here fuppofed to follow the Right or Be-
nefit of the Gift or Covenant : If he would have
the Reader think I faid fo, he may as ingenioufly
tell,that I deny all Juftification ; If not, what mean-
eth he ?
CHAP. VII.
Dr. Tullies (Quarrel about Imputation of
Ghrifts Righteoufnefi^ conjidered.
§. i. /^Ap. 8. pag. 79* he faith, £ Becaufe no
VJ Man out of Socinus School, hath by his
Dictates more Jharply exagitated this Imputation of
Right eoufnefs, than the Author of the Aphorifms ,
and it is in all mens hands, we thinly meet to bring
into a clearer Light, the things objefftd by him (or
more truly his Sophi(lical Cavils) whence the fitter
ProjpeEl may be taken pf almofl the whole Contro~
verfiel.
Atfrv. That the Reader may fee by what Wea-
pons Theological Warriours wound the Churches
Peace, and profligate brotherly Love *, let him con-
ifer how many palpable Untruths are in thefe few
Lines, even in matter of Fa£t.
i. Let him read Dr. Gell, Mr! Tbowdike, and
by his own confeffion* the Papifts ( a multitude of
them)
( *7* )
diem ) and tell me true, that [ No Man out of So-
cinus School hath, &c/]-- To fay nothing of many
late Writings near us.
. %. If I have, i . never written one word againft
[ Imputation of Rigbteeufnefs ~) there or elfewhere ;
2. Yea, have oft written for it > 3. And if thofe
very Pages be for it which he accufeth v 4. Yea, if
there and elfewhere I write more for it than Olevi-
An* Vrfine, Partus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Tifcator-,
and all the reft of thofe great Divines, who are for
the Imputation only of the Paffive Righteoufnefs of
Chrift, when I profefs there and often, to concur
with Mr. Bradjhaw, Grotim, and others that take
in the A&ivealfo, yea and the Habitual, yea and
iDivine refpe&ively, as advancing the Merits of the
Humane > If all this be notorioufly true, what
Epithets vill you give to this Academical Dodtors
notorious Untruth ?
3. When that Book of Aphorifms was fufpended
or retraced between twenty and thirty years ago
( publickly ), becaufe of many crude Paffages and
unapt Words, and many Books fince written by
roe purpofely, fully opening my mind of the fame
things > all which he paiTeth wholly by, fave a late
Epiitle > what credit is to be given to that Man's
ingenuity, who pretendeth that this being in all
mens hands, the anfwering it will fo far clear all
the Controverfie.
§. 2. Dr.jf- [He hence ajfauketh the Sentence of
the Reformed', becaufe it fuppofcth, M he faith, that
we were in Chrift, at leaft, legally before we believed^
or were bom. But what proof of the conference doth
he
( m )
he bring ?~] ( The reft are but his Reafons againft
the Confequences, and his talk againfi me , as
pouring out Oracles-, &c )
Anfw. i. Is this the mode of our prefcnt Aca-
demical Difputers, To pais by the ftating of the
Controveifie, yea, to filence the ftate of it, as laid
d8wn by the Author, whom he oppofeth in that ve-
ry place, (and more fully elfewhere often) ? Reader,
the Author of the Aphorifms, pag. 45. and for-
ward, diftinguifhingas Mr. Br'adjh aw doih, of the
feveral fenfes of Imputation, and how Chrift's
Righteoufnefs is made ours, 1. Beginneth with
their Opinion, who hold, £ That Cbrifi did fo obey
in our ftead, as that in God s ejicem, and in point of
Law vpe were in Chriji dying and fuffering, and fo in
him we did both perfeftly fulfil the Commands of the
Law by Obedience, and the "fhreatnings of it by bear*
ing the Penalty -, and thus (fay they ) is thrift's
Righteoufnejs imputed to us, viz. His Pajjtve Righ-
teoufnefs for the pardon of our fins, and deliverance
fiom the Penalty } His Attive Righteoufnefs for the
making of us Righteous, and giving us title to the
Kingdom h And fome fay the Habitual Righteoufnefs
of his Humane Nature, inftead of our own Habitual
Righteoufnefs > Tea, fome add the Righteoufnefs of
the Divine Nature ]•
The fecond Opinion which he rcciteth is this,
\jthat God the Father accepteth the fitffetings and
merits' of his Son, as a valuable confederation* on which
he will wholly forgive and acquit' the Offenders, and
receive them into h'tf favour, and give them the addi-
tion of a more excellent happinefs, fo they will but re-
cCive his Son on the terms expreffd in the GojpeL '
And
A m )
And as diftin& from theirs, who would thug
have the Paffivefiigbteoufnefs only imputed , he pro-
feffeth himfelfYo hold with Bradfhavp^ Grotius, 8cc.
that the A&ive alfo is fo imputed, being Jufiitia
Meritij as well as Perfont, and endeavoureth to
prove it : But not imputed in the firft rigid fenfe, as
if God efteemed us to have been, and done', and juf*
fered our felves in and by Chriji^ and merited bj>
him* Thus he ftates the Controverfie \ And doth
this Dodtor fight for Truth and Peace, by i. palling
by all this \ 2. Saying, I am againft Imputed Righ-
teoufiiefs \ 3. And againft the Reformed ? Were
iiot all the Divines before named Reformed ? Was
not Camero, Capellus^ Placeus-, Amyrald> Dalltus*
Blondel, &c Reformed? Were not Wotton, Brad-
Jhan>> Gatakgr, &c. Reformed ? Were not of late
Mr. Gibbons^ Mr. Truman, to pals many yet alive,
Reformed ? Mud that Name be (hamed, by appro*
priating it to fuch as this Dodtor only ?
2. And now let the Reader judg, with what
face he denieth the Confequence, ( that it fuppofeth
us to have been in Chrift legally, &c.) When as I put
it into the Opinion oppofed, and oppofed no other.
But I erred in faying, that [vnoft of our ordinary
Divines ] hold it *, But he more in fathering it in
common on the Reformed.
§. 2. Dr. !f. [2. Such Imputation of taghte-
oufnefs, he faith, agreeth not with Reafon or Scrip-
ture i But what Reason meaneth he ? Is it that vain y
blind, maimed, unmeafmably procacious and tumid
Reafon of the Cracevian Philofophers ? Next he
faithy
. ( i75 ;
faith j Scripture is fdent of the Imputed Ri?bteouf>
nefs of Cbrifi j what a faying is this of a Reformed
Divine ? fo alfo Bellarmine, &c.
Anfo. Is it not a doleful cafe that OrtbnJoxnefs
muft be thus defended ? Is this the way of vindica-
ting Truth ? i. Reader, my words were thefe,
( juft like Bradjbaws ) [It teacheth Imputation of
CbriJFs Rifhteoufneji in fo ftricl a fenfe, as will nei-
ther jiand with Reafon-, nor the Doctrine of the Scrip-
ture y much left with the <P HR A S E of Scripture,
which mentionetb no Imputation of Chriji or his Righ-
teoufnefs ]. i. Is this a denying of thrift's Righ-
teoufnefs imputed ? Or only of that intollerable
fenfe of it ? 2. Do I fay here that Scripture men-
tioneth not Imputed Righteoufnefs, or only that
ftridt fenfe of it ? 3. Do i not exprefly (ay, It
is the Phrafe that is not to be found in Scripture>and
the unfrund fenfe, but not the found ?
2. And as to the Phrafe, Doth this Do&or, or
can any living Man find that Phrafe in Scripture,
[_Chrift's Righteoufnefs is imputed to us~\} And
when heknoweth that it is not there, are not his
Exclamations > and his Bug- bears [CracovianRea-
fon> and Eellarmine] his dilhonour, that hath no
better Weapons to ufe againft the Churches Peace ?
To tell us that the fenfe or Dodhine is in Scripture,
when the queftion is of the Phrafe, or that Scrip-
ture fpeaketh in his rigid fenfe, and not in ours, is
but to lofe time, and abufe the Reader, the firft be-
ing impertinent, and the fecondthe begging of the
Queftion*
$• 3-
( *?o
§•3. Dr. % "the Gree\word anfwering to Im~
futation, it ten times in Rom. 4. And, what U impu~
ted but Rigbteoufneft ? we have then fome imputed
Righteoufnefs* Tthe Gjhtejiion is> only what or whofe
it vi** Chrifis or out own ? Not ours, therefore Chrijis :
If ours, either its the Righteoufnefs of Worlds, or of
Faith, &c > s
Anfw. 1. But what's all this to the tbrafe?
Could you have found that Phrafe [ ChrijPs Righ-
teoufnefs is imputed J , why did you not recite the
words, but Reafon as for the fenfe ?
2. Is that your way of Difputation, to prov£
that the Text fpeaketh of the Imputation of CbriJFs
Righteoufnefs, when the. Queftion was only, In
what fenfe ? What kind of Readers do you expeft,
that (hall take this for rational, candid, and a Plea
for Truth?
3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced, it is
moft plain, that Paul meaneth by [imputing it for
Righteoufnefs ~] that the Perfon was or is, accounted,
reckoned, or judged Righteous, where Righteouf-
nefs is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Be- |
liever : ib that what-ever be the matter of it (of
which next ) rhe formal Relation fure is our own,
and fo here faid : And if it be from the matter of
ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, yet that muft be* our own,
by your Opinion. And it muft be our own, in and
tathe proper Effetts, in mine. But fure it is not |(
the fame numerical formal Relation of |~ Rigbteouf- \%
nefs ^ that is in ChvilVs Perfon, and in ours : And
it's that formal Relation, as in Abraham, and not
in Chrifh that is called Abraham's Reputed Righte-
oufnefs
I
H77J .
oufnefs in the Text : I fcarce think you will fay the
contrary*
§. 4. Dr. jT. |~ But Faith U not imputed to us for
\Righteoufnefs.
Anfa* Exprefly againft the words of the Holy
Ghoft there oft repeated. Is this defending the
Scripture, exprefly to deny it ? Should not reve-
rence, and our fubfeription to the Scripture fuffici-
entiy rather teach us to diftinguifh, and tell in
what fenfe it it imputed, and in what not, than thus
to deny, without diftindtion, what it doth fo oft
affert ? Yea, the Text nameth nothing elfe as fo im-
futedy but Faith*
§• 5. If it be imputed, it U either as fome Virtue 7
or Humane IFor^ ( the to Credere ) or as it appre-
bendeth and applyetb ChrijFs Kighteoufnefs ? Not
\(the firft) . If Faith be imputed relatively only,
as it apply eth to a Sinner the Kighteoufnefs of Chrift,
Us manifeji that it's the Kighteoufnefs of Chrift only
that if imputed, and that Faith doth no more to Kigh-
teoufnefs, than an empty hand to receive an Alms.
Anfvp* 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving
hand, and not as a mere empty hand. And volun-
tary grateful Reception may be the Condition of
a Gift.
2. You and I (hall (hortly find that it will be the
Queftion on which we fhall be Juttified or Condem-
ned > not only whether we received ChrilVs Righ-
teoufnefs, but whether by Faith we received Chrift
in all the Eflentials of his Office, and to all the
tffential faving Ufes : Yea, whether according to
:he fenfe of the Baptifmal Covenant, we firft be-
N Ikviogty
(178)
licvingiy received,and gave up our felves to God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and after performed
fincerely that Covenant.
3. But kt me defend the Word of God : Faith
is imputed for Righteoufnefs, even this Faith now
defer ibed', 1> Remotely , ex materia aptitudine, for
its fi'tnefs to its formal Office ; And that fitnefs is,
j. Becaufe it is an Aft of Obedience to God, or mo-
rally goody (for a bad or indifferent AU doth not ju-
flifie). 2, More fpecially as it is the receiving,
tricing, and giving up our felves to God the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghoft, to the proper ends of Re-
demption, or a .fuitable Reception of the freely
offered Gift > and fo connoteth Chrift the Objed
( for the Objecft is effential to the Ad in jpecie >
2. But proximately Faith is fo reputed, or imputed,
as it is the performance of the Condition of the Jufti-
fying Covenant or Donation.
And to be imputed for Righteoufnefs, includefh,
That [ It is the part required of us by the Law of
Grace, to malleus partakers of the Benefits of Chrift* j
Right eoufnefs, which meriteth Salvation for us in-
ft e ad of a legal and perfeB Righteoufnefs of our own,
( which we have not ). Or, [_ Whereas we fell fhort
of a Righteoufnefs of Innocency, Chrift by fuch a
Righreoufnefs hath merited our Far don and Salvation,
and given title to them by a 'Revo Covenant of Grace,
which maketh thti Faith the Condition of our 'title ',
and if we do this ■> we (hall be judged evangelically
Righteous *•> thai {s, fuch as have done all that was ne~
ceffairy to their right in Chrift and the J aid Benefits,
and therefore have fuch a Right ]•
This is plain Englifli, and plain Truth, wrangle
110 more againft if 5 and againft the very Letter of
^ the-
( r 19 )
the Text, and againft your Brethren and the
Churches Concord, by making Men believe that
there are grievous Differences, where there are
none.
Reader, I was going on to Anfwer the reft, but
my time is fhort, Death is at the door : Thou feeft
What kind of Work I have of it, even to deteft a
Learned Man's Over fights, and temerarious Ascu-
fations. The wearinefs will be more to thee and
me, than the profit : I find little before, but what
I have before anfwered here, and oft elfewherei
And therefore I will here take up, only adding one
Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I
attempted in an Epiftle to Mr. W. Aliens Book of
the Two Covenants, and this Dodtor, like an Enc-
tny of Peace, aflaulteth*
N 2 CHAP*
( i8o )
CHAP. VIIL
Jhe Concord of Protefiants in the Matter of
Justification defended^ againft Dr.TuL
lies Oppojitions^ who would make Dif-
eord under pretence of proving it m
$.i.T IT TRite truth is pretended by moft, that
V V by envious firiving introduce Confufton^
and every evil Wor]^ it ufually falleth out by God's
juft Judgment, that fiich are almoft as oppofite to
Truth as to Charity and Peace* What more palpa-
ble inftances can there be, than fuch as pn fuch ac-
counts have lately affaulted me : Mr. Vanvers^
Mr. BagfbatV) See. and now this Learned Do6tor.
The very ftream of all his Oppofition againft me
about Imputation, is enforced by this oft repeated
Forgery, that I deny all Imputation of CbrijFs High-
teoufnefs : Yea, he neither by fear, modefiy^ or z«-
genuity, was reft rained from writing, pag. 1 17.
[_Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem~] [He deru
detb all Imputation ]. Judg by this what credit con-
tentious Men deferve.
§. 1. The conciliatory Propofitions which I
laid down in an Epiftle to Mr. W* Aliens Book, I
will here tranfcribe, that the Reader may fee what
it is that thefe Militant Do&ors war againft*
Lejl
.(x8i>
Left any who know not bow to flop in mediocrity,
l/hould be tempted by Socinians or Papifts, to think
that we countenance any of their Errors, or that
our Differences in the point of Juftification by Faith
or Works, are greater than indeed they are j and
left any weak Opinionative Perfons, (hould clamour
pnpeaceably againft their Brethren, and think to
raifea name to themfelves for their differing Noti-
ons > I (hall here give the Reader fuch evidences of
our real Concord, as (hall filence that Calumny.
Though fome few Lutherans did, upon peevifh
fufpicioufnefs againft George Major long ago, afTcrt,
That [ Good Works are not neceflary to Salvati-
on ] : And though fome few good Men, whofe
Zeal without Judgment doth better ferve their own
turn than the Churches, are jealous, left all the
good that is afcribed to Man, be a difhonour to
God 5 and therefore fpeak as if God were honoured
moil by faying the worft words of our felves > and
many have uncomely and irregular Notions about
chefe Matters ; And though fome that are addidxd
to tidings, do take it to be their Godly Zeal to cen-
fure and reproach the more underftanding fort,
when they moft grofly err themfelves : And though
too many of the People are carried about through
injudicioufnefs and temptations to falfe Dodrines
and evil Lives > yet is the Argument of Proteftants
thus manifefted.
i. They all affirm that Chrift's Sacrifice, with
his Holinefs and perfect Obedience, are the merito-
rious Caufe of the forgiving Covenants, and of
our Pardon and Juftirication thereby, and of our
Right to Life Eternal, which it giveth us. And
that this Price was not paid or given in it felf inri-
N 3 mediately
( IS* )
snediately to us, but to God for us i and fo,that qui
forefaid Benefits are its EfFe&s.
2. They agree that Chrift's Perfon and ours were
not really the fame i and therefore that the fame
Righteoufnefs, which is an Accident of one/ can-
not poffibly be an Accident of the other.
3. They all deteft the Conceit, that God fhould
aver, and repute a Man to have done that which he
never did.
4. They all agree that Chrift's Sacrifice and Me-
fits are really io effe&ual to procure our Pardon,
Juftification, Adoption, and right to the fealing
Gift of the Holy Ghoft, and to Glory, upon our
Faith and Repentance h that God giveth us all thefe
benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for thp
fake of Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, as if we had
fatisfied him, and merited them our felves : and
thkt thus far Chrift's Righteoufiiefs is ours in its
Eflfedts, and imputed to us, in that we are thus
ufed for it, "and (hall be judged accordingly.
5. They all agree, that we are juftified by none,
but a practical or working Faith.
<5. And that this Faith is the Condition of the
Promife, or Gift of Juftification and Adoption.
7. And that Repentance is a Condition alfo,
though (as it is not the fame with Faith, as Repen-
tance of Unbelief is) on another aptitudinaL ac-
count > even as a willingnefs to be cured, and a
willingnefs to take one for my Phyfician, and to
truft him in the ufe of his Remedies, are on feve-
ral accounts the Conditions en which that Phyfici-
an will undertake the Cure, or as willingnefs to re*
turn to fubje&ion and thankful acceptance of a
purchafed Pardon, and of the Purchasers Love and
future
( i8j )
future Authority, are the Conditions of a Rebel's
Pardon.
S. And they all agree, that in the firft inftant of
a Man's Converfion or Believing, he is entred inco
a ftate of Juffifkation, before he hath done any
outward Works : and that fo it is true, that good
Works follow the Juftified, and go not before his
initial Juftification : as alfo in the fenfe that Aujim
fpakeit, who took Juftification, for that which we
call Sandification or Converfion.
, p. And they all agree, that Juftifying Faith is
fuch a receiving affiance, as is both in the Intellect
and the Will \ and therefore as in the Will, parti-
cipateth of fome kind of Love to the juftifying Ob-
jedt, as well as to Juftification.
10. And that no Man can chufe or ufe Chrift as
a Means ({o called, in refpedl to his own intenti-
on ) to bring him to God the Father, who hath not
fo much love to God, as to take him for his end in
the ufe of that means.
1 1. And they agree, that we (hall be all judged
according to our Works, by the Fvule of the Cove-
nant of Grace, though not for our Works, byway
of commutative, or legal proper merit. And Judg-
ing is the Genus, whofe Species is Juftifying .and
Condemning : and to be judged according to our
Works, is nothing but to be juftiticd or condemned
according to them.
12. They all agrfce, that no Man can pofiibly
merit of God in point of Commutative Juilice, nor
yet in point of Diftributive or Governing Juliice,
according to the Liw of Nature or Innocency, as
Adam might have done, nor by the Works of the
Mofaical Law*
N 4 13. They
( 1 84 )
13. They all agree, that no Works of Mans arq
Co be trufted in, or pleaded, but all excluded, and
the Conceit of them abhorred,
1. As they are feigned to be againft, or inftead of
the free Mercy of God.
2. As they areagainft,or feigned, inftead of the
Sacrifice, Obedience, Merit, or Interceffion of
Chrift.
3. Or as fuppofed to be done of our felves,with-
out the (Grace of the Holy Ghoft.
4. Or as fuppofed falfly to be perfect.
$. Or as fuppofed to have any of the afore-dif-
claimed Merit.
6. Or as materially confiding iq Mofaical Obfer-
vances.
7. Much more in any fuperftitious Inventi-
ons.
8. Or in any Evil mifljaken to be Good*
p. Or as any way incotififtent with the Tenor of
the freely pardoning Covenant. In all thefe fenfes
Juftification by Works is difclaimed by all Prote-
ctants at leaft.
14. Yet all agree, that we are created to good
Works in Chrift Jefus, which God hath ordained,
that we (hould walk therein h and that he? that
nameth the Name of Chrift, muft depart from ini-
quity, or elfe he hath not the Seal of God ; and
that he that is born of God finneth not i that is,
predominantly. And that all Chrift's Members
are Holy, Purified, zealous of Good Works, clean-
ing themfelves from all filthinefs of Flefh and Spi-
rit, that they might perfedt Holinefsin God's fear,
doing good to all Men, as loving their Neighbours
as themfelves h and that if any Man have not the
' ; Sandi-
( i8 5 )
Sandifying Spirit of Chrift, he is none of his, nor
without Holinefs can fee God.
15. They all judg reverently and charitably of
the Ancients, that uftd the word £ Merit of Good
Works ], becaufe they meant but a moral aptitude
for the promifed Reward, according to the Law of
Grace through Chrift.
16. They confefs the thing thus defcribed them-
felves, however they like not che name of Merit,
left it (hould countenance proud and carnal Con-
ceits.
17. They judg no Man to be Heretical for the
bare ufe of that word, who agreeth with them in
the fenfe.
18. In this fenfe they agree, that our Gofpel-
Obedience is fuch a neceflary aptitude to our Glori-
fication, as that Glory ( though a free Gift ) is yet
truly a reward of this Obedience.
ip. And they agree ,that our final Juftification by
Sentence at the Day of Judgment doth pafs upon
the fame Caufes, Reafons, and Conditions, as our
Glorification doth.
20. They all agree, that all faithful Minifters
muft bend the labour of their Miniftry in publick
and private, for promoting of Holinefs and good
Works, and that they muft difference by Difcipline
between the Obedient and the Difobedicnt And
O ! thac the Papifts would as zealoufly promote
Holinefs and good Works in the World, as the true
ferious Proteftants do, whom they fa&ioufly and
peevishly accufe as Enemies to them > and that the
Opinion, Difputing, and name of good Works,
did not cheat many wicked Perfon into fe!f -flattery
and Perdition, while they are void of that which
they
1 1 85 ;
they difpute for. Then would not the Mahome-
tans and Heathens be deterred from Chriftiam-
ty by the wickednefs of theft nominal Chriftians,
that are near them : nor would the ferious pra6tice
of that Chriftianity, which themfelves in general
profefs, be hated, fcorned, and perfecuted by fo
many, both Proteftants and Papifts i nor would fo
many contend that they arc of the True Religion,
while they are really of no Religion at all any
further, than the Hypocrites Pi&ure and Carcafs
may be called Religion : Were Men but refolved
to be ferions Learners, ferious Lovers, ferious Pra-
&ifers according to their knowledge and did not
live like mockers of God, and fuch as look toward
the Life to come in jeft, or unbelief, God would
vouchfafe them better acquaintance with the True
Religion than moft Men have.
§. 3. One would think now that this (hould
meet with no (harp Oppofition, from any Learned
lover of Peace ^ and that it fhould anfwer for it
felf, and need no defence. But this Learned Man
for all that, among the reft of his Military Ex-
ploits, muft here find fome Matter for a Tri-
umph.
And 1. Pag* 18. he affaultcth the third Propof.
~ 'they all deteft the Conceit^ that God Jhould aver y
and refute a Man to have done that which he never
did ].
And is not this true ? Do any fober Men deny
If, and charge God with Error or Untruth ? Will
not this Man of Truth and Peace, give us leave
so be thus far agreed, when we are fo indeed ?
But
( 187 )
But faith he, \_lCea-, the Orthodox abhor the con*
trary, if [_ to have done it ^ be taken in fenfu forenfi,
(for in a Phyfical and Per final, they abhor it not, but
deride it) : T>oth the Afhorifi abhor thefe and fuch-
like fayings* £ We are dead, buried, rifen from the
Dead with Chriji ?~\
Anfvp. i. Take notice Header, that it is but the
Words, and not the Matter that he here aflaulteth >
fo that all herefeetneth but lis de nomine. He be-
fore, fag. 84. extolleth Chryfijlom for thus ex-
pounding, [He made him fin for us~] s that is, to
be condemned as an Offender^ and to die as a Blajpbe-
mer. And this fenfe of Imputation we all admit *
( But Cbryfollom in that place oft telleth us, That by
[ Sin ] he meaneth both one counted a wicked Man
by his Perfecutors, £ not by God ] and Qne that
fuifered that curfed Death,which was due to wicked
curfcd Men : And which of us deny not Juftifica-
tion by Works as Chryfoftom doth ? I fubfcribe to
his words, Q It U God's Righteoufnefs > feeing it is
not of Works (for in thorn it were necejfary that there
be found no blot) but of Grace, which blotteth out and
extinguijheth all fin : And this begetteth us a double
benefit, for it fuffereth us not to be lift up in mind, be-
caufe it it all the Gift of God, and it Jheweth the
greatnefs of the benefit ]. This is as apt an Exprefc
lion of my Judgment of Works and Grace as I
could chufe. But it's given to fome Men to extol
that in one Man, which they fervently revile
in others, How frequently is Chryfoftom by many
accufed as favouring free- Will, and Man's Merits,
and fmelling of Pclagianifm ? And he that is ac-
quainted with Cbryjojicm, muft know, That he in-
cludeth all thefe things in Juitificatian. I, Remif-
fion
wun ot inc oiui as tu inc riuuuuiiciu. 2. jx.emijjt"
on of it by Mortification, ( for fo he calleth it, in
Rom. %. p. (mibi) 63.) 3. Right to Life freely
given for Chrift's fake. 4. And Inherent Rigbte-
mfnefs through Faith : And he oft faith, That this
is called the Righteoufnefs of God,becaufe as God,who
is living, quicheneth the dead, and as he that is Jirong
giveth firength to the weahj fo he that is Righteous,
doth fuddenly make them Righteous that were lapfed
into fin ], as he there alfo fpeaketh. And he oft
tells us, It is Faith it ft 'If, and not only Chrift be-
lieved in, that is imputed for Righteoufnefs, orju-
iHfieth : And in Rom. 4. p. 80. he calleth the Re-
ward, Q the Retribution of Faith ]. And pag. 2p.
he thus conjoyneth [ Faith and Chrift'' s Death'] to
the Queftion, How Men obnoxious to fo much fin are
jufiified, £ he fheweth that he blotted out all fin, that
he might confirm what he faid, both from the Faith
of Abraham by which he wm jujiified, and from our
Saviours Death, by which we are delivered from fin ]•
But this is 011 the by.
2. But faith Dr. "f. the Orthodox abhor the con-
trary in fenfu forenfi.
Anfw. How eafie is it to challenge the Titles of
Orthodox, Wife, or good Men to ones felf ? And
who is not Orthodox, himfelf being Judg ? But it
feems with him, no Man muft pafs for Orthodox
that is not in fo grofs an error of his Mind, ( if
chefe words, and not many better that are contrary
muft be the difcovery of it ) viz. That will not
lay, that in fenfu forenfi, God efieemeth Men to have ,
done that which they never did* The beft you can
make of this is, that you cover the fame fenfe,
which I plainlier exprefs, with this illfavoured
Phrate
( IS? )
Phrafe of Man's inventing : But if indeed you
mean any more than I by your fenfus forenfis, viz.
that fuch a fuffering and meriting for us may, in the
lax improper way of fome Lawyers fpeaking, be
called, [ Our own Doing-, Meriting, Suffering, &c.^
I have proved, that the Dodfrine denied by me,fub-
verteth the Gofpel of Chrift.
Reader, I remember what Grotm ( then Ortho-
dox,- thirty years before his Death ) in that excel-
lent Letter of Church- Orders, Predeflination, Per-
feverance, and Magistrates, animadverting on
Molin&ws, faith, How great an injury tbofe Divines-,
who turn the Chriflian Doftrine into unintelligible
Notions and Contr over fie s^ do to Chriflian Magi-
strates > becaufe it is the duty of LMagiftrates to
difcern and preferve necejfary found Doftrine, which
theje Men would make them unable to difcern* The
fame I muft fay of their injury to all Chriftians,
becaufe all fhould hold faft that which is proved
True and Good, which this fort of Men would dis-
able them to difcern. We juftly blame the Papifts
for locking up the Scripture, and performing their
Worfhip in an unknown Tongue* And alas, what
abundance of well-meaning Divines do the fame
thing by undigefted Terms and Notions, and unin-
telligible Difiin&ions, not adapted to the Matter,
but cuftomarily ufed from fome Perfons reverenced
by them that led the way ? It is fo in their Tra-
ctates, both of Theology and other Sciences •> and
the great and ufeful Rule, Verba Rebus aptanda
funt> is laid afide : or rather, Men that underftand
not Matter, are like enough to be little skilful in
the exprefling of it : And as Mr. Pemble faith, A
cloudy unintelligible ftile, ufually Cgnifieth a clou-
dv
( 19° )
dy unintelligent Head, ( to that fenfc ) : And as
Mr. y. Unmfrey tells Dr/ Fullrvood^ ( in his unan-
fwerable late Plea for jhe Conformifts againft the
charge of Schifm) f^g.2^. ^So overly are men or-
dinarily wont to $e&\, at the firji fights againji that
which others have long thought upon ~]h that fome
Men think, that the very jingle of a diftindtion not
underftood is warrant enough for their reproach-
ing that Dodhine as dangerous and unfound,which
hath coft another perhaps twenty times as many
hard ftudies, as the Reproachers ever beftowed oa
that Subjed.
To deliver thee from thofe Learned Obfcurities,
read but the Scripture impartially, without their
Spedacles and ill-devifed Notions, and all the Do-
drine of Juftification that is neceffary, will be plain
to thee : And I will venture again to fly fofar
from flattering thofe, called Learned Men, who ex-
pedt it, as to profefs that I am perfwaded the com-
mon fort of honeft unlearned Chriftians, ( even
Plowmen and Women ) do better underftand the
Do&ririe of Juftification, than many great Difpu-
ters will fuffer themfelves or others to underftand it,
by reafonof their foreftalling ill-made Notions;
thefe unlearned Perfons commonly conceive, i. That
Chrift in his own Perfon, as a Mediator, did by his
perfect Righteoufnefs and Suffe rings, merit for us
the free pardon of all our fins, and the Gift of his
Spirit and Life Eternal, and hath promifed Pardon
to all that are Penitent Believers, and Heaven to al!
that fo continue, and fincerely obey him to the
end > and that all our after- failings, as well as our
former fins, are freely pardoned by the Sacrifice,
Merits* and Interceflion of Chrift, who alfo giveth
us
( ipi ;
us his Grace For the performance of his impcfecl
Conditions, and will judg us, as we have or have
not performed them 3« Believe but this plain Dc-
dhine, and you have a righter underftanding of
Juftirication, than many would let you quietly en-
joy, who tell you, |^ That Faith is not imputed for
Righteoufnefs ** that it juftifieth you only as an In-
ftrumental Caufe, and only as it is the reception of
ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, and that no other A& of
Faith is jutiifying, and that God efteemeth us to
have been perfectly Holy and Righteous, and ful-
filled all the Law, and died for our own fins, in or
by Chrift, and that he was politically the very Per-
fon of every Believing Sinner ] i with more fuch
like.
And as to thisdiftin&ion which this Do&orwill
make a Teft of the Orthodox, ( that is, Men of
of his Size and Judgment ) you need but this plain
explication of it.
i. In Law- fenfe, a Man is truly and fitly faid
himfelf to have done that} which the Law or hU Con-
tract alloweth him to do either by himfelf or another \
( as to do an Office, or pay a Debt by a Subflitute or
Vicar). For fo I do it by my Inftrument, and
the Law is fulfilled and not broken by me, becaufe
I was at liberty which way to do it. In this fenfe
I deny that we ever fulfilled all the Law by Chrift h
and that fo to hold fubverts all Religion as a per-
nicious Herefie.
2. But in a tropical improper fenfe, he may be
faid to [ be efteemed of God to have done what Chrift
did > who Jhall have the benefits of Pardon, Grace,
and Glory thereby merited, in the manner and mea-
sure given by the free Mediator, as certainly as if he
had
( *9* ) (
had done it himfelf~\. In this improper fenfe wc
agree to the Matter, but are forry that improper
words (hould be ufed as a fnare againft found Do-
ctrine, and the Churches Love and Concord. And
yet mull we not be allowed Peace ?
§. 4- But my free Speech here maketh me re-
member how lharply the Do&or expounded and
applyed one word in the retraced Aphorifms : I
faid (not of the Men, but of the wrong Opinion op-
pofed by me) [ It fondly fuppofeth a Medium be-
twixt one that is juji, and one that is no finner*} one
that hath his (in or guilt taken away, and one that
hath his unrighteoufnefs taken away : lis true in
bruits and injenfibles that are not fubjeSs capable of
Juftice, there is, &c. *ihere is a Negative Injuflice
which denominated the Subjett non-jufium, but not
in juftum, where Right eoufnejs is not due. But where
there is the debitum habendi, its privative* The
Do&or learnedly tranflateth firft the word [fond-
ly 1 ^ [ftolide~]\ and next he (fondly, though
not Jiolide) would pcrfwade the Reader, that it is
faid of the Men^ though himfelf tranflate it £ J)d-
ttrina ]•
And next he bloweth his Trumpet to the War,
with this exclamation, £ Stolide ! vocU mollitiem,
& modefliam ! ftolidos Ecclefts Reformat* Cla-
rijjimos Hero as I Aut ignoravit certe , aut fcire fe
dijjimulat, (quod affine eft calumnia) quid ifii jlatu-
ant, quos loquitur, jhlidi Theologi ].
Anfw. i. How blind are fome in their own
Caufe ? Why did not Confcience at the naming of
Calumnie fay, [I am now committing it ? ] It were
foetter write in Englifh, if Latin tranflations muft
needs
needs be fo falfe ! we ufe the word [fond ] in ouf
Country,in another fenfe than \_foolifh~\ h with us it
fignifieth any byaffed Inclination, which beyond
teafon propendeth to one fide : and fo we ufe to fay,
That Women are fond of their Children, or of any
thing over- loved : But perhaps he can ufe his Logick^
to gather by confequences the Title of the Perfon^
from the Title of his Opinion, and to gather [Joo-
lifljly~] byconfequence out of [_fondly\ To all
which I can but anfwer, That it he had made him-
felf the Tranflator of my Words, and the Judg of
my Opinions > if this be his beft, he (hould not be
chofen as fuch by me.But it may be he turned to Ri-
ders Dictionary ,8c found thtic\_ fondly, vide foolifhly].
2. The Stolidi Theologi then is his own phraie !
And in my Opinion, another Mans Pen might better
have called the Men of his own Opinion |[ Ecclepi
Reformat* dariffimos Heroas] compared with others!
I take Gataker, Bradfbavp, Wotton, Camero, and his
•followers ', Vrfvie, Olevian, Pifcator, Par£us, Wen-
deline, and multitudes fuch, to be as famous Heroes
as himfelf : But this alfo on the by.
§. 5. But I muft tell him whether I abhor the
Scripture Phraie, [_ We are dead, buried, and rifri
tvitb Cbrifi ].
I anfwer, No 5 nor will I abhor to fay, That iH
fenfn forenfi, I am one -political Perfon with Cbrift,
and am ferfettly holy and obedient by and in him,
and died and redeemed my felf by him, when he
fnall prove them to be Scripture Phrafes : But I de-
fire the Reader not to be lo fond, ( pardon the
•word ) as by this bare quefiion to be enticed to be-
lieve, that it is any of the meaning of thofe Texts
•that ufe that Phrafc which he mentioncth, that
O' [ Legally,
( XP4 )
[ Legally ,or in fenfu forenfi, every Believer is efteem-
ed by God to have himfelf perfonaliy died a violent
death on the Croft, and to have been buried, and to
have ri fen again-, and afcended into Heaven, nor
yet to be now there in Glory ,becaufe Chrift did and
doth all this in our very Legal Perfon. Let him
but i. confider the Text, 2. and Expositors,
3. and the Analogy of Faith, and he will find ano-
ther fenfe * viz- That we fo live by Faith on a dyings
buried, rifin and glorified Saviour, at that at fuch
he dweUeth objectively in our Hearts, and vpe partake
fo of the Fruits of his Death, Burial, and Refur-
reliion, and Glory, as that roe follow htm in a Holy
Communion, being dead and buried to the World and
Sin, andrifeu to newnefs of Life, believing that by
his Power we Jhall perfonaliy, after our death and
burial, rife alfo unto Glory. I will confefs that we
are perfectly holy And obedient by and in Chrift, as
far as we are now dead, buried, and rijen in
him,
§. <5« And here I will fo far look back, as to re-
member, That he (asfome others) confidently
telleth us, That £ the Law bound us both to perfeh
Obedience, and to punishment for our fin, and there-
fore pardon by our own fujfering in Cbrift, may ft and
with the reputation, that we "were perfectly Obedient
and Righteous in Chrift .~]
Anfw. And to what purpofe is it to difpute
long, where fo notorious a contradiction is not on-
ly not difcerned, but obtruded as taiitum ncn ne-
ctffary to our Orthodoxnefs, if ndtto our Salva-
tion ? I ask him,
1. Was not Chrift as our Mediator perfedly ho<
Jy habitually, and a&ually, without Original or
A dual Sin? 2> If
2. If all this be reputed to be in fe, bur own as
fitbjeSed in and done by o'nr f elves folttical, or in
J*
enfu forenfiy Are we not then reputed in foro, to
have no original or a&ual fin, but to have inno^
cently fulfilled all the Law, from the firft hour of
our lives to the laft > Are we reputed innocent in
Chrift, as to one part only of our lives, (if fo>
which is it ? ) or as to all >
3. If as to all, is it riot a contradiction that in
Law-fenfe, we are reputed perfe&ly Holy and In-
nocent, and yet finners.
4- And can he have need of Sacrifice or Pardon *
that is reputed never to have finned ( legally ) ?
5. If he will fay that in Law-fenfe, we have or
are two Perfons, let him expound the word Perfons
only, as of Qualities and Relations, (nothing to
Cur Cafe in hand) > or elfe fay alfo, That as we
are holy and perfeft in one of out own Perfons, and
pnfuly unrighteous, or ungodly in anbther, fo a Man
may be in Heaven in one of his own Perfons, and
on Eahh, yea and in Hell in the other t And if he
mean that the fame Man is juftified in his Perfon in
Chirift, and condemned in his bther Perfon h confi-
der which of thcfe is the Pbyfical Perfon; for I
think its that which is like to fuffer.
§.7. fag. 224. He hath another touch at m^
Epiftle, but gently forbeareth contradidion as to
Num. 8. And he faith fo little to the i i*£,as need-
eth no anfwer.
§.8. fag. 127. He afTaulreth the firft Num. 0$
N. 13. That vpe all agree againft any conceit of
Works that are againft or inflead of the free Mercy of
God].
And what hath he againft this ? Why that
O 2 whicfi
which taketh up many pages of his Book, and
feemeth his chief Strength in moft of his Conteft,
viz. [the Papifts fay the fame] and [To faith BeL
larminf]* It's ftrange that the fame kind of Mea
that deride Fanatic}^ Sectaries, for crying out in
Church-Controverfks , [ O Antichriftian Popery^
Bellarmine, &c. ] fhould be of the fame Spirit, and
take the fame courfe in greater Matters, and not
perceive it, nor acknowledg their agreement with"
them ! But as Mr. J. Humjrey faith in the forefaid
Eook of the word [ Schifm, Scbifm ~] oft canted
out againft them, that will not facrilegioufly fur-
render their Consciences, or defert their Miniftry,
[ "the great Bear hath been fo oft led through the
fireets, that now the Boys lay by all fear, and laugh
or m?ke $ort at him] fo fay I of this Sectarian Bug-
bear, £ Popery, Antichriftian, BeUarmine] either
the Papifts really fay as we do, or they do not. If
not, is this Do&or more to be blamed for making
them better than they are, or for making us vporfe ?
which ever it btffruth (hould defend 'truth* If they
do, I heartily rejoyce, and it fhall be none of my
labour any more (whatever t did in my Confjfion
of Faith) to prove that they do not* Let who
will manage fuch ungrateful Work. For my.part,
I take it for a better Charader of any Opinion, that
Papifts and Proteftants agree in it, than, that the
Proteftants hold it alone. And. fo.much for £ Pa-
pifts and Betiarmine] though I think I know bet-
ter what they teach, than his Book will truly tell
'me.
§. p. But he addeth, \Jiumane Jfftifying JForkf
are in reality adverf* to the free. Mercy of God, ihere~
fore to be accounted of no value to Kighteoufnefs ]]•
Avfm
( w )
Anfw* r. But whofe phrafe is Justifying Works?
2. Doth not the Holy Ghoji fay, That a Ma«is
jtiftified by Worlds, *md w* by Faith only ? Jam«2..
3 . Doth not Chrirt fay, By thy, words tbonjtah
he jnftified ? fa
4. Do not I over and over tell rf# World, That
J hold Juitification by Works in jno fenfe, byt as
ii'gnifying the fame as [According to JFork/] yyhich
you own ? And Co both Name and Thing ace eon-
fefled by you to be Scriptural.
5. I have before dedred the Reader to turn to
the words, [Righteous, Right em fiefs, Jujlijicati-
0# 3 &c J in his Concordance. And it there he
find Right eonfnefi mentioned a5 confifung in Tome
Ads of Man, many hundred times,. Jet him next
fay if he dare, that they are to be had in no price
to Right eoufiffs : Or let him read the Texts cited
by me in my ConfiJJion of Faith.
6. Becaufe, Faith, Repentance, Love, Obedi-
ence, are-that whofe fincerity is to be judged in or-
der to our Life or Death ere long* I will not fay
that they are to be vilified as to fuch a Righteouf-
nefsor Juftification, as confifteth in our vindicati-
on from the charge of Impenirency, Infidelity,
Unholinefs, Hypocrifie, &c. The reading of Mat.
25. refolved me for this Opinion.
§. 10. Next he noteth our detefting fuch Works
as are againft or inftead of Chritt's Sacrifice, Righ-
teoufnefs, Merits, &c. To this wc have the old
Cant, The Papifts faytheli\e*
Reader, I proved that the generality of Piote-
ftants are agreed in all thofe twenty Particulars,
even in all the material Doctrines about Man's
Wosks and Juftification, while this warlike Dodror
O 3 would
( i>8 )
would fet us all together by the ears ftill, he is
over-ruled fo aflert that the Papifts alfo are agreed
with us. The more the better, I am glad if it be
fo, and will here end with fo welcome a Conclufi-
on, that maketh us all herein to be Friends : only
adding, That when he faith that £ fuch are all Worfy
whatever^ ( even Faith it felf ) which are called info
the very leaft part of Jujlification 3 » even as a Condi*
tion or fiibordinate -perfonal Evangelical Rigbteouf-
nefl, fuch as Chrift and James^ and a hundred
Texts of Scripture aflert v lanfwer, I cannot be-
lieve him, till I ceafe believing the Scriptures to be
true i which I hope will never be : And am forry
that fo worthy a Man can believe fo grofs an Opi-
nion, upon no better reafons thanhegiveth : And
yet imagine, that had I the opportunity of free
conference with him, I could force him to manifeft,
That he himfelf diiFereth from us but in meer words
or fecbnd Notions, while he hotly proclaimeth a
greater difcord.
A N
ANSWER
T O
Dr. TULLIES
Angry Letter.
LONDON,
Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinfcn, at
the Princes- Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Pauls
Church-yard, 1675.
( I)
e^ Anfyper to Dr. Tullies
^gry Lette^
Reverend Sir y
F I had not before perceived and
lamented the great £*# 0/ Conten-
ders^ the dangerous /^v /or fg-
»0r*«* Chriftians, and the gmz*
Calamity of the Church, by mar
king Verbal Differences fecm A/ir-
rVr/4/5 and variety of fomc Arbi-
trary Logical Notions 5 to feem tantum Hon-, a va-
riety of Religions > and by frightning Men out of
their Charity, Peace, and Communion, by Bug-
bear-Names, of this or that Herefie or dangerous
Opinion^ which is indeed but a Spedfrum or Fan-
tafm of a dreaming or melancholy Brain, your Ju-
flificatio Paulina, and your Letter to me, might be
fufficient means of my full Convi&ion. And if
once reading of your Writings do not yet more in-
creafe my love of the Chrijiian fimplicity, and plain
old Divinity, and the amicable Communion of
practical Chriftians upon thofe terms, and not med-
ling with Controversies in a militant way, till by
long impartial ftudies they are well understood, I
mull
\ * )
muft confefsmy non-proficience is very unexcu-
fablc.
With your felf I have no great buGnefs ; I am
not fo vain as to think my felf able to underftand
you, or to be underfiood by you : and I muft not be
fo bold as to tell you why, much lefs will I be fo
in juiious to the Reader, ashy z particular examin-
ing all your words, to extort a confeflion th^t their
fenfe is lejl or worfe than I could wi(h : For cui bono ?
What would this do but more offend you ? And
idle words are^b great a fault in writing as in talk ;
If I have been guilty of too many, I muft not fo
much add to my fault, as a too particular exami-
nation of fuch Books would be. But for the fake
of your Academical Touth, whom you thought meet
to allarm by your Caution, I have anfwered fo
much of your Treatife as I thought neceffary to
help even Novices to anfwer the reft themfelves.
for their fakes (though I delight not to offend
you) I muft fay, That if they would not be decei-
ved by fuch Books as yours, it is not an Anfwer to
them that muft be their prefervative, but an order-
ly ftudying of the Do&rines handled > Let them
but learn truly the feveral fenfes of the word \Ju-
ftifica'ion], and the feveral forts, and what they
are, and ttill conftrain ambiguous words to confels
their fenfe, and they will need no other Anfwer to
fuch Writings.
And as to your Letfer (paffing by the fjpume and
paffion) I think thefe few Animadversions may
fuffice.
§. I. Between twenty and thirty years ago, I
did in a private Pifputation prove our guilt of the
fins of our nearer Parents > and becaufe many
doubted
( 3>
doubted of it, I have ott fince in other writings
mentioned it : About three years ago, having two
Books of Mr. William Aliens in my hand to perufe,
in order to a Publication, ( a Perfaafwe to Vnity^
and a I'reatife of the 'two Covenants) \ in a Preface
to the latter, I faid, [ that mod Writers, if not
mofi Chrijiians, do greatly darken the Sacred Votlrine^
by overlooking the Imereji of Children in the Attions
of their nearer Parents, and thinly that they partici-
pate of no guilt, and fuffer for no original fin, hut
Adam 3 / only, &c. ] You fattened on this, and war*
ned ferioufly the Juniors, not rajhly to believe one that
brings forth fuch Paradoxes of his ( or that ) Theo-
logie , which you added to your £ c£cos ante
*Xheologos quicunque unquam fuijiis ^ : The charge
was exprefled by Q aliud inveniffe peccatum Origin
nale, multo citerim quam quod ah Adamo traduSutn
e\i\. Hereupon I thought it enough to publifh that
old private Difputation* which many before had
feen with various Cenfures : Now you fend me in
your Letter the ftrange tidings of the fuccefs : You
that deterred your Juniors by fo frighful a warning,
feem now not only to agree with me, that we are
guilty of our nearer Parents fin, and contract addi-
tional pravity from them as fuch, ( which was my
AflTertion ) but over-do all others, and Truth it
fclf in your Agreement ! Now you take it for an
injury to be reported to think otherwife herein than
I do: yea, and add, [^ Which neither I, nor any Bo-
dy elfe Ikjtorv of, denies as to the thing, though in the
extent, anc{ other circumfiances, all are not agreed,
and you may in that enjoy your Opinion for me 3-
This is too kind : I am loth to tell you how many
that
( 4 )
that I know, and have read, deny it, left I tempt
you to repent of your Agreement.
But doth the World yet need a fuller evidence,
that fome Men are de materia agreed with them,
whom they raife the Country againft by their Accu-
sations and Sufpicions ?
But furely what paflion or fpatling foever it hath
occafioned from you, I reckon that my labour is not
loft : I may tell your Juniors, that I have (ped ex-
traordinary well, when I have procured the pub-
lished confent of fuch a Do&or, Either you were
of this mind before or not : If not, it's well you
are brought to confefs the Truth, though not to
confefs a former Error. If yea, then it's well that
lb loud and wide a feeming difagreement is confef-
fed to be none, that your Juniors may take war-
ning, and not be frightned from Love and Con-
cord by every melancholy Allarm.
Yea, you declare your conformity to the Litany,
\Remember not our Offences^ nor the Offences of our
Fore fathers^ and many words of indignation
you ufefor my queftioning it. All this I like very
well as to the Caufe h And I matter it not much
how it looks at me : If you agree more angrily than
others difagree, the Cauje hath fome advantage by
the Agreement. Though me-thinks it argueth
Ibmewhat unufual, that feeming Diifenters fhouid
clofe by fo vehement a Coilifion.
But yet you will not agree when you cannot cbufe
but agree, and you carry it ftill as if your Allarm
had not been given without caufe : Muft we agree y
and not agree? What yet is the Matter ? Why it is
la new original fm']. My ordinary exprellions of
f 5 ;
it may be fully fcen in the Difputation : The phrafe
you laid hold on in a Preface is cited before, [Tfbat
vpe participate of no guilty and fujftr for no original
(in but Adam 5 / only ~], I denied. And what's the
dangerous Errour here ? That our nearer Parents
fin was Adams, I may prefume that you hold not.
That we are guilty of f uch, you deny not : That
it U fin, I find you not denying : fure then all the
difference mull be in the word [ ORIGINAL ].
And if fo, you that fo hardly believe your loud-
noifed difagreements to be but verbal, mud pati-
ently give me leave here to try it. Is it any more
than the Name ORIGINAL that you are fo hei-
noufly offended at ? Sure it is not : Elfe in this
Letter purpofely written about it, you would have
told your Reader what it U. Suffer me then to fum-
mon your Allarm'd Juniors to come and fee what a
Spttrum it is that muft affright them > and what a
Poppet- Play cr dreaming War it is,that the Church
is to be engaged in, as if it were a matter of Life
and Death ? Audite juvenes ! I took the word
[ORIGINAL] in this bufinefs to have feveral fig-
nifications. Firft, That is called I ORIGINAL']
Sin, which was the ORIGO of all other fins in the
Humane World : And that was. not Adams fin, but
Eves.
2. That which was the ORIGO of fin to all the
World, fave Adam and Eve, communicated by the
way of Generation : And that was Adams and
Eves conjunft, viz. i. Their firft iinful Acts h
2. Their Guilt* 3. And their habitual pravity
(making it full, though in Nature following the
Aft;. This Sin, Faft, Guilt, and Kabit, as Ac-
cidents
(<5)
adents of the Perfbns of Adam and Eve, are not
Accidents of bur Perfons;
3, Our pr final participation* i. In the guilt of
the fin of Adam and Eve i 2. And of a vicious
privation and habit from them, as fbon as we are
Perfons. Which is called Original fin, bn three
accounts conjun£t * t* Becaufe it is a participation
bf their Original Aft that we are guilty of > 2. Be-
caufe it is in us ah Origine, from our firft Being *
3. And becaufe it is the Origo of all bur Atiual
4.. I call that alfo [ ORIGINAL] (or />*r* of
Original Sin) which hath but the two late* only i
viz. 1. Which is in us AB ORIGINE, from our
firft perfonal being > 2. Which is the R00* or
ORIGO in our felves of all our Attual Sins : And
thus our Guilt and Fzce derived from our neater
Parents* and not from Adam* is our Original Sin >
That is, 1. Both Guilt and Htf&it are in us from
bur Original, or firft Being > 2. And all our Actu-
al Sin fpringeth from it as a partial Caufe : For I
may prefume that this Revererd Dodtor doth not
hold that Adam's fin derived to us is in one part of
the Soul* ( which is not partible ) and out nearer
Parent's itianother * but will grant that it is one vi*
tiofity that is derived from both, the latter being a
Degree added to the former * though the Ream
having more than one fundamentum* may be called
diverfe. That Origo & Atiive & pajjive dicitur*
1 fuppofe we are agreed. No\V I call the vicious
Habits contraded froin out nearer Parents by fpe-
cial reafon ot their own fins> fuperadded to the de-
gree, which elfe we fhould have derived frbm
Adam y
C7)
Adam, a part of our original frnful Pravity, even
a fecondary part. And I call cur guilt of the fins
of our nearer parents ( not Adam's ) which you
will, either a fecondary Original Guilt, or Sin, or
a fecondary part of our Original Guilt. See then
our dangerous difagreement : I call that ORIGI-
NAL, which is in us ab Origine, when we are firft
Perfons, and is partly the Root or Origo in us of all
our following Aftual Sin : though it was not the
Original Sin of Mankind, or the firft of Sins. The
Doctor thinks this an Expreflion, which all Juni-
ors muft be warned to take heed of,and to take heed
of the Do&rine of him that ufeth it. The Allarm
is againft this dangerous word [ ORIGINAL ].
And let a Man awake tell us what is the dan-
ger.
But I would bring him yet to agreement even de
nomine, though it anger him. i. Let him read
the Artie, p. of the Church of England, and feeing
there Original Sin is faid to be that corruption of Na*
ture whereby we are far gone from Original Righte-
oufnefs, and are of our own Nature inclined to eviU
fo that theflejh lufleth againji the Spirit.Tbe lufi of the
flejh called (p£pvv(jLa oztpxxK, which fome do ex-
pound the Wifdom, fome Senfuality, fome the AffeBi-
0#, fome the deftre tif the Flejh, not fubjett to the
Law of God ] ; Seing a degree of all this fame Lult
is in Men from the fpecial fins of their Fore- fathers,
as well as from Adanfs ■> Is not this Degree here
called Original Sin ? ( why the Churc h emitted the
Imputed Guilt aforefaid, I enquire not ) .
"^2. If this will notierve, it he wilFffnd me any
Text of Scripture, which ufeth the Phrafe, [ORI-
GINAL Sin ], I will promtfe him hercatcer to
ufe
ufe it in no other fenfe, than the Scripture ufeth
it.
3. If that will not ferve, if the Matters of Lan-
guage will agree, ( yea, to pafs by our Lexicons,
if the Doftors of that Univerfity will give it us un-
<kr their hands ) that the word [ ORIGINAL "]
is unaptly and dangeroufly applyed to that iinful
Guilt and Pravity which is in us ab Origine Nojlrs
cxiftentia, and is the internal Radix vel Origo of all
our A&ual Sin, in part pf Caufality, I will ufe that
Epithete fo no more.
4. If all this will not ferve, if he bimfelf will
give me a fitter Epithete, I will ufe it t And now
we over-agree in Do&rine, a word fhall not divide
us, unlefs he will be angry becaufe we are agreed,
as Jonas was that the Ninivites were fpared, becaufe
it (eemed to difgrace his Word.
§. II. j>ag. 4, 5 v &c. You invite toe to, [ a full
entire retractation of my Vottrineof purification (yqta
add, By Werks) and the fecondary Original Sin ].
.. . i. Will you take it well if I retradt that which
you profefsnow tohold, and know none that de-
fcyeth, then there is no pleafing you : If I muft
be thought to wjrong you for feeming to differ from
you, and yet muft retrad all : What, yours and
all Mens ?
2. Do you mean the words or the fenfe of JuflU
ficatinn[as you call it) by Works ?F ox the words,! take
you for a fubferiber to the 39 Articles h and there-
fore that you rejedt not the Epiftleof St. James:
And for the fenfe, I confefs it is a motion fuit3b!e
to the Intereft of your 'freatife, (though not of
the Truth ) ; He that cannoc confute the Truth,
would
would more eafily do his Work, if he could pcr^
fwade the Defenders of it to an Entire Retratlati-
m* Hereupon, pag* ■$• you recite my words, of
the difficulty of bringing fome Militant Divines to
yield : Your Admonition for Self-Application of
them is ufeful, and I thank you for it : But is it.
not a (height that fuch as I am in, between two
contrary forts of Accufcrs? When Mr. Vanvers^
and Multitudes on that fide,. Reproach me daily
for Retrattations&nd you for want of them ? How
natural is it now to Mankind, to defiie to be thd
Oracles of the, World, and that all fhould be Si-
lenced, or RetraQed> . which is againft their Minds ?
How many call on me for Retra&ation ? Mr*
Ttombeij and Mr. Vanvers, for what I have Writ-
ten for Infants-Eaptifm : The Papijis for what I
have Written againft them : And how many more ?
And as to what, J have RetraUedfine reproached me
for it, and another either knoweth not of it, or
perfwadeth others that it is not done.
You fay, p ag* <5. \_A great out-cry you have made
of m§> as charging yon with things you have Retra*
bed — — And pag. 7. What's the reafon you have
not hitherto direUed us to the particulars of your Re-
captation-) what, when, where i — -. Ton direft one
indeed^ to a fmall Boo^ above "twenty years a-gc
retraced. ■ All I can pick^ up of any feeming
Retractation, is that you fay, that Worlds are necej-
fary at leaft to the continuation of our Jujiification.
Anfw. Either this is Written by a Wilful, or
a Heedlefs miftaking of my words. The firft I
will not JlifpeCh it muft therefore be the fecond,
(for I miift not judg you Vnable to ur.deiftand
plain Englifh). And is it any wonder if you have
jp many
many fuch Miftakes in your difputes of Juftificati-
on, when you arc fo heedlefs about a matter of
Fad ? Where did I ever fay, that I had Recanted ?
Or that I Retraced any of the Dodtaine of Juftifi-
cation, which I had laid down? Cannot you di-
ftinguifh between Sufp endings or Revoking* or Re-
tracing a particular Boo]^* for the fake of feveral
Crude and Incongruous Expreflions, and Retracing
or Recanting that Vottrine of Justification? Or
can you not understand words, that plainly thus
Diftinguifh? Why talk you of what* and when*
and where, and conjecture at the words* as if you
would make the Reader believe, that indeed it is
fome confeffed Errors of mine, which you Con-
futed ? and that I take it for an Injury, becaufe I
Retraced them? And fo you think you falve your
Confutation, whatever you do by your Candour
and Juftice : But you have not fo much as Fig-
leaves for either* It was the Aphorifms* or Boo\ ,
that I faid was above Twenty years a go Revoked :
When in my Treatife of Infant-Baptifm , I had
craved Animadverfions on it, and promifed abet*
ter Edition, if I Published it any more* I forbad
the Reprinting it,till I had time to Corredfc it * and
when many called for it, I flill deny'd them. And
when the Cambridg Printer Printed it a fecond
time, he did it by Stealth, pretending it was done
beyond Sea. In my ConfeQion Twenty years ago,
I gave the Reafons, Preface, fag. 3$. [I find that
there are fome Incautelous Pajfages in my Aphorifms*
wot fitted to their Reading, that come to fuc\ Poyjon*'
and feel^for a Word to he Matter of Accufation and
Food for their Cenfuring opinionative Zeal* . And
pag. 42. If any Brother underjiand not any word in
my
toy Aphrifms which is here Interpreted, or miftafa
rnyfenfe about the Matter of that Book^ which is here
more fully opened h I mull expett , that they inter-
pret that by this. Andij any one have fa little to do
as to write againft that Book^ (which is not unlikely)
if he take the Senfe Contrary to what I have here and
elfe where (mce then Fubiijhed, I jbail but neglctt
him as a Conttnthus^ Vain Wrangler, if not a Ca-
lumniator]. I Wrote this Amply, to fo; warn the
Contentious, not knowing then that above Twen-
ty years after Dr. "fully would be the Man. Pag. 43.
[If any will needs ta\e any thing in this Bool^ to be
rather a RetraHatio^ than an Explication, of what
1 have before faid, though I (hould beji k>iow my own
Meaning ', yet dofuch commend me. while they f^m
to blame me : I never lot\ to write that which fhall
have no need of Correction* Aud Cap. 1 pag.2,
[Left J Jhould prove a further Offence to my Brethren^
and a Wrong to the Churchy I de fired thoje who thought
it worth their Labour, to vouchfafe me their Ammad-
verfwns, # which I have fpent much of tbefe "three la(i
years in considering, that I might Correft what-ever
was difcovered to be Erroneous , and give them an
account of my Reafons of the reft. I have not only
fince SVPPRESSEV that BooJ^ which did offend
them, but alfo laid by thofe Papers of Vniverfal Re-
demption, which I had written, lei I Jhould be fur-
ther offenfive, &c] In my Apjlogie elfe- where
I have fuch like Paflages , ever telling Men that
[It was the firji Booi^ I wrote in my Unexperienced
Touth '<, that I ta^e the Do8rine; of it to be found
and needful, fave that in divers places thy are un-
skilfully and incauteloufly worded. (As the Word
[Covenant'] is oft put tor [Law,] &c,) And that
P2 X
r I* )
I wrote my Confefjion, and Difputes of Juftifica*
to/j, as an ExpoGtionof it h and that I RetraUed^
or Sufpended, or Revoked , not the Vottrine^ but
the Bwj^, till I had Corrected it, and did difown
it as too unmeet an Expteffion of my Mind,
which I had more fully expreft in other Bookj.
And is not this plain Englifh ? Doth this war-
rant a Wife and Righteous Man, to intimate that I
accufe him of writing againft that Doctrine of
Jufiification w{iich I Recanted, and to call for the
What, and Where, arid When ? Yea, and tell me,
that I [refer you to afmall BookJ\ when inftead of
referring you to it, I only blame you for referring
to that alone, when I hadfaid as before ?
When many Divines have publifhed the firft
Edition of their Works imperfectly, and greatly
cor reded and enlarged them in a Second ( as
Beza his Annotations •> Polanus his Syntagma , and
many fuch) all Men take it for an Injury for a
Neighbour twenty years after , to feledt the firft
Edition to confute as the Author's Judgment :
Much more might I , when I publifhed to the
World, that I Sufpended the whole BooJ^ y znAhave
thefe twenty four years hindred the Printing of it >
profeffing that I have in many larger Books, more
intelligibly and fully opened the fame things.
Yea, you fear not pag. 23. to fay, That I tell
you of about $0 Bookj of Retractations, in part at
lea\l which I have Written] > when never fuch a
word fell from me* If I fay, That one that hath
publifhed his Sufpeitfion of a fmall Boo\ written in
Youth not for the VoUrine of it-, but feme unfit
Expre/Iions , and hath fince in aJ-moft thirty
Years time, writteivabout fixty Eooks* in many or
moft
( *? )
moft of which is fomewhat of the fame Subjeft,
and in fome of them he fullier openeth his Mind i
fhould be dealt with by an Adverfary, according
to fome of his later and larger Explications, and
not according to the Mode and Wording of that
one Sufpended Book alone : Shall fuch a Man as
you fay, that I [tel you of about fixty Bookj of
Retradations']? Or will it not abate Mens reve-
rence of your difputing Accuratenefs,to find you fo
untrufiy in the Recitation of a Man's words ? The
truth is, it is this great Defeft of Heed and Accu-
ratenefs, by hafly Temerity, which alfo fpoileth
your Difputations.
But, pag. 7. the Aphorifms muft be, [The moft
Schollar*like , and Elaborate ( though Erroneous)
Boohjn Controverted you ever Compofed~]> Anfw. 1.
Your Memory is faulty ; Why fay you in the next,
that I appeal to my Difputation of Juttification
and fome others i but you cannot "frudg up and down*-
to every place 1 would fend you? your Legs are too
vpeakj Either you had read all the fixty Books
which you mention (the Cent rover fal at lead) or
not: If not, How can you tell that the Aphorifms
is the moft Elaborate ? If yea, Why do you excufe
your Trudging, and why would you feledt a Suf-
pended Book, and touch none that were Written
at large on the fame Subjedt ? 2. By this (I fur-
pofe to make your Nibble to feem a Triumph) you
tell your Reader again, how to value your Judg-
ment. Is it like that any Dunce that is diligent,
fhould Write no more Scbollar-likg at Sixty years
of Age than at Thirty ? And do you think you
know better what of mine is Elaborate, than I
do ? Sure that Word might bave been fpared v
P 3 When
( i4 )
When I know that one printed Leaf of Paper hath
co(t me mor Labour than all that Book > and per-
haps one Scheme of the Diftindiions of Juftifica-
tion, which you deride* If indeed you are a corn-
parent Judg of vour own Writings, Experience
alfureth me, that you are not fo of mine. An4
T a &* *5» ' y° u &Y> You de fire not to be preferred be-
fore your Betters, leafl of all when yon are fingulari
as here I think you are.
§. III. Pag. p. You are offended for being put
%n the Cub-, with divers mean and contemptible Ma*
lefattors.']
Anfa. O for Juftjce ! i. Was not Bellarmin-> or
fome of the Tapifis and the Socinians, as great
Malefactors , with whom (as you phrafe it) you
{>ut me in the Cub > 2. Are they MalcfaBors fo
ar as they agree with you in Vo£irine, and axe yon
Innocent i 'What is the Difference between your,
Treatife, in the part that toucheth me, and that
of Mr. Eyres, Mx.Crandon, and fome others fuch ?
Dr. Owen, and Dr. K endale, indeed differed from
you i the latter feeking (by Biftiop Vfher) an ami-
cable Clofure, and the former (if I underftand his
Book on the Hebrews) lefs differing from me in
Doctrine, than once he either did, or feemed to
do. (And if any of us all grow no Wifer in thir-
ty years Study, we may be alhamed). But to give
you your due Honour, I will name you with your
Equals, as far as I can judg, viz. Maccovius^
Cluto, Coccejus, and Cloppenburgius, ( I mean but
in the Point in Queftion *, it's no Difhonour to^you
to give fome of them Precedencie in other things)?
it may be alfo Spanhem'm^ was near you. But
( 1 5 )
(if I may prefume to liken my Betters) no Men
feem tome to have been Co J ike you, as Guilielmus
Rivet, fnot Andrew), Mr. George Walker, and Mr.
Roborougb. (I hope this Company is no Difhonour
to you). And very unlike you are Le Blani^, Ca-
mero, Vavenant, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Gataker, Mr.
Anthony Wotton, ar«d in Complexion Scans and
Ock^m, and fuch as they : If yet I have not Chofrn
you pleafing Company, I pray you choo fefo
your felf.
But you fay on, [Had you not {in your Memory
many Scores of greateft Eminence and Repute in
the Cbrijiian World, of the fame Judgment with
me Know you not J fpeak the fame thing with all
the Reformed Churches, &c. For foame let it be
the Church of England, with all the reji of the Re-
formed, &c»]
Anfw. i. I know not what you hold , even
when I read what you write : (I muft hope as well
as I can, that you know your felf): How then
(hould I know who are of the fame Judgment with
you?
2. Yet I am very confident, that all they whom
you mention, are cf the fame in fome thing or
other > and in particular^ that we are Jujlified by
Faith, and not- by the Works of the haw, or any
Works in the fence denied by St. Paul, &c.
3. Do not I, with as great Confidence as you,
lay Claim to the fame Company and Concord ? And
if one of us be miftaken, muft your bare Word de-
termine which it is? Which of us hath brought
the fuller Proofs ? I jubferibe to the Do drine o f
the Church of En gland, as well as you h and my
Condition thefe thirteen or fourteen years, giveth
P 4 *5
v 15 J
•as' much Evidence, that I am loth to fubfcribe to
what I believe not, as yours doth of you. And
you that know which of my Books is the moft
Elaborate, fureknow, that in that Book which I
Wrote to explain thofe Aphorifms (called my
ConfeJJion) I cite the Words of above an Hundred
Troteftant Witneffes* that give as much to Wor\s as
I do ; And that; of this Hundred, one is the Au-
guftine Confeffion, one the Wtftminfter Synod, one
the Synod of Don, one the Church of England*
each one of which being Colle&ives, contain ma-
ny. (And here I tell you of more). And have
you brought more Witneffes ? Or any to the con-
trary > Did you Confute* or once take Notice of
any of thefe ?
4. Do yoii not here before yon are aware, let
your Reader know that it was, and ftill" is, in the
Dark, that you Alarm the World about our dan-
gerous Differences* and run to your Arms undreft,
before your Eyes are open ? Qui conveniunt in ali-
quo tertio* &c. They that agree with the Church
of England* in the Dodfrine of Juftification by
Faith,do fo far agree between themfelves : But Dr.
T'ullie* and R. B* do agree with the Church of
England^ in the Do&rine of Juftification by Faith.
Ergo. — - The Article referreth to the Homilies,
where it is more fully Explained.
5. May not I then retort your Argument, and
bid you {For fbame let it be no longer Bellarnine, and
R. B. hut the Church of England, and all the Re>*
formed, and R. B.^) ? Difprove the Witneffes twenty
years ago, produced by me in this very Caufe \ or
clfe fpeak out, and fay, \jthe Church of England,
and the reft of the Reformed, bold Juftification by
Wor\s*
( 17 )
tFcrks, jufi as Bellarmine and the Papijis do] which
is it which you would fallen on me, who agree
with them fas if you had never there read my
Anfwer to Mr. Crandon y obje&ing the fame
thin^). .
§. IV. Your Cenfure, pag. jo, n. of my
Windings* Clouds of Novel ViftinUions ', Preambles,
Limitations, &c. is juir fuch as your Treatife did
bid me exped : Till you become guilty of the fame
Crime, and fall out with Cstifufidp, and take not
. equivocal ambiguous Words unexplained, inftead
of Univocals, in the ftating of your Queftions,
I (hall never the more believe that Hannibal is at the
Gates, or the City on Fire, for your Allarms.
§. V. Pag* ii. Where you tell me, that [Xott
have no Profit by my Preface : I fhall not deny it, nor
wonder at it > you are the fitteft Judge : Where
you fay, that [I have no Credit,'] You do but tell
the World at what Rates you write. Honor eft in
bonorante. And have all my Readers already told
you their Judgment ? Alas ! How few ? In all
London, not a Man hath yet given me Notice of
his Diflike, or DifTent. And fure your own Pen
is a good Confuter of you. It is fome Credit, that
fuch a Man as you, is forced to profefs a full Con-
fent to the Doftrine, though with paffionate In-
dignation.
You tell me of [Nothing to the Queftion]. But
will you not be angry if I fhould but tell you,
how little you did to ft ate any Queftion,and in Rea-
fon muft be fuppofed , when you aflaulted my
Dodtrine,
Do6frine, to take it as I jtated it i which I have
fully (hewed you?
You tell me, that Tou Charged me only with new
Original Sin , underived from Adam , unknown*
unheard of before, in the Christian World.
Anfw. Ve re, is not our Guilt of nearer "Parent's
Sins fuch which you and all that you know (now
atlaft) confefs? Ve nomine, i. Tell the World if
you can, when I called it [New Original Sin, or
underived from Adam, or unknown, or unheard of ']•
There are more ways than one of Derivation
from Adam. It is not derived from him by fuch
Imputation as his fijrft Sin* but it is derived from
him as a -partial Caufa Caufe, by many Gradations.
AllSinisfome-way from him. Either you mean
that I faid, that it was not Derived from Adam, or
you gather it by fome Confequence from what I
faid. If the Firft, (hew the Words, and the Shame
(hall be mine. If not, you know the old Law,
that to falfe Accufers , it muft be done as they
would have done to the Accufed. But if it be
your Confequence, prove it, and tell the Worlds
what are the Premifes that infer it.
§. VI. Tag. 12. You friendly help me to pro-
fit by my felf, however you profefs that you profit
not by me ! What I have faid to you againft [Ha-
fty Judging]* I have firft faid to my (elf, and the
more you warn me of it, the more friendly you
are : If it be not againft fuch as you but my felf
it is againft my felf that I have a Treatife on
that Sub je£b but I begin to think my felf in this
more Seeing than you > for I fee it both in my felf
and you, and you fecm to fee it in me, and not in
your
(19)
yoyrfelf. But with all Men, I find, that to fee
the Spots in our own Face immediately is hard,
and to love the Glafs which fheweth them, is not
eafie i efpecially to fomc Men that neither are low,
nor can endure to be fo, till there is no Remedy.
But, Sir, how eafie a Way of Difputing have
you happily light on, Who inftead of Examining
the hundred Witneifes which I brought, and my
elfe-where oft proving the Dodhine oppofed by
jne to be Novell and Singular , do in few words
talk of your holding the VoRrine delivered to the
Saints^ and of the many Worthies that concur with
you , and of my pelting at their Heads-, and dragg-
ing them by the Hoary-heads, as a Speftacle and By-
rvord to all \ (by proving their confent by exprefs
Citations ) what Armies, and of what Strength
appear againfl me> whofe Names I defie and womd>
through yours ?
Anfxv, And is not he a weak Man that cannot
talk thus upon almoft any Subject ? But who be
thefe Men, and what he their Names > Or rather,
firft, rub your Eyes, and tell us what is the Con*
troverfie ? tully fometimes talkt at this rate in his
Orations, but verily much better in his Philofo-
phy.
And you fee no caufe to repent, but you blefs
Cod that you can again and again call to all Xouth y
that as they love the Knowledg of truth, they take
me not for an Oracle in my hold dividing Singula*
Titles'].
Anfo. That the Name of "truth is thus abufed,
is no News *, I would the Name of God were not ;
And I am forry, that you fee no Caufe to repent.
I am obliged to love you the better, for being
againlt
againft dividin£ Singularities in the general N0-
*fe/T, I hope if you kpew it, you would not be
for them , as in fingular Exigents* But; fure,
none at Oxford are in danger of taking me for an
Oracle ? This is another needlefs Work. So Span-,
hemius took that for a Singularity, which ValUus
in a large Catalogue, hath proved the Common
Judgment of the Church, till Contention of late
caufed fome Diflenters.
Will you ceafe thefe empty general Oftentations,
and choofe out any one Point of real;' Difference
between you and me about Juftification, and come
to a fair Trial , on whofe fide the Churches of
Chrift have been for 1500 years after Chrift i yea,
bring me but any two or one confiderable Per-?
(on, that was for a thoufand years for your Caufe
againft mine, and I will fay, that you have done
more to copfute me by far, than yet you have done*
and if two only be againft me, I will pardon you
for calling me Singular.
§. VII. Tag. 13, 14, 15. You again do keep up
the Dividing Fear? are offended that I perfwade
you, that by Melancholy Thantafms you fee not the
Churches together by the Ears, and make People be**
lieve that they differ, where they do not ; And you
ask, Who began the Fray ?
Anfop. 1. Do you mean that I began with you?
You do not fure : But is it that I began with the
Churches, and you were necejjitated to defend them ?
Yes, if G alius, Ambfdorfius, Schluffelburgius, and
Dr. Crijpe&nd his Followers, be the Church ? But,
Sir, I provoke you to try it by the juft Teftimony
of Antiquity* who began to differ from the Churches.
In
^ 21 )
In this Treatife I have given you fome Account,
and Vojjius hath given you more, which you can
never anfwer : But if my Dodtrine put you upon
this Neceffity, what hindred you from perceiving it
thefe twenty years and more, till now ? O Sir,
had you no other wort^ to do, but to Vindicate the
Church and Truth ? I doubt you had.
§. VIII. But pag. 15. You are again incredu-
lous, that I All the Difference betwixt yon and me^
or others of the fame Judgment in the Point of Jujli-
fication^ is meerly Verbal s and that in the Main we
are agreed^. And again you complain of your
ma\ Legs.
Anfa. 1. I do agree with very many againft
their mils in Judgment (becaule the Judgment may
be confirained)) but with none in Affetiion, as on
their part. Did I ever fay , that I differed not
from you ? I tell you, I know not what your Judg-
ment is, nor know I who U of your Mind > But
I have not barely faid, but oft proved, that
(though not the Antinomians) the Protectants are
moftly here agreed in the Main. If you could not
have time to read my larger Proof, that fhort Epi-
file to Mr. Alletfs Book of the Covenant, in which
I proved it , might have ftopt your Mouth from
calling for more Proof, till you had better con-
futed what was given.
But you fay , [Are perfett Contradictions no
more than a difference in Words ? Faith alone > and not
Faith alone ? Faith with and without Works f Ex-
cufe our Vulnefs here"]*
Anfw. 1. Truly, Sir, it is a tedious thing,
when a Man hath over and over Anfwered fuch
Ob-
( 22 )
Objections* yea, when the full Anfwers have beett
twenty years in Print, to be put ftill to fay oveir
all again, to every Man that will come in and fay,
that his Legs are too wea\ to go fee what was an*
fwered before : How many fcore times then, or
hundreds, may I be called to repeat.
2. If I mult pardon your Vitlnefs, you muft
pardon my Chr'iftianity (or chufe) who believe
that there is no fuch [jperfeB Contradictions'] be-
tween Chrift's, [By thy Words thoujhalt be Jufti-
fied] zndPauFs, [Juftified by Faith, without the
Works of the Law] or [not of Workj] > and James's
[We are juftified by Works , and not by Faitb
only]* Muft we needs proclaim War here, or cry
but, Here fie, ox Popery ? Are not all thefe Recon-
cileable? Yea, and Pauls too, Rom. 2. 'Ihe'Doeri
of the Law fh all be juftified.
3. But did I ever deny that it is [by Faith alone
and without Works] ? Where , and when ? But
may it not be, by Faith alone in one fenfe, and not
by Faith alone in another fenfe ?
4* But even where you are fpeaking of it, you
cannot be drawn to diftinguifh of Verbal and Real
Differences 6 , Is it here the Words, or Senfe, which
yoa accufe * The Wcrds you dare not deny to be
Gods own in Scripture, fpoken by Ghrift, Paul, and
James* My Senfe I have opened to you at large,
and you take no Notice of it* but as if you abhor-
red Explication and Viftinftion 7 fpeak ftill againft
the Scripture Words*
§.. IX. Pag- 16. But you fay, [Let any difcern**
ing Reader compare the 48 §• of this Preface with
the Words in pag* 5. of your Appeal to the Light j
and
1*3)
and *tislihglybe will concur with me, in thatAfc-
lancholy Phantafm , or Fear : For 'tis worth the
noting , bow in that dar\ Appeal where you diftin-
guifh of Popijb Points, i. e. fome-where the Difference
is reconcile able , others in effeCt but in words > we
have no Direction upon which Kank^we muft befiow
J unification, nothing of it at all from you, Name or
Thing : But why, next te the All-feeing God, you
fhould kyow befl your fe if\
Anfvp. Alas, Sir, that God (hould be in fuch a
manner mentioned ! I anfvvered this fame Cafe at
large in my Confcflion.Apologie, Difputeof Juftifi-
cation, &c. Twenty years ago, or near* I have
at large Opened it in a Folio (Cathol. Theol.) which
you faw, yea, in the very part which you take
Notice of * and now you publilh it [worth the No-
ting, that I did not aljo in one Jheet of *Paper, Printed
the other day againft a Calumnieof fotne Sectarian
Hearers, who gave me no Occafion for fuch a work.
Had it not been a Van:'/ of me, Should I in that
fheet again have repeated, how I and the Papifls
differ about Juftification ? Were you bound to have
read it in that fheet,any more than in many former
Volumns ? It's no matter for me S But I ferioufly
befeechyou, be hereafter more fober arid juft, than
to deal with your Brethren, the Church snd
Truth, in fuch a manner as this ! But by this Talk
I fufpedt, that you will accufe me more for open-
ing no more of the Difference in this Book. Bur,
I. It is enough for to open my own Meaning, and
I am not obliged to open cuier Mens : And my
own I have opened by (b many Repetitions, info
many Books, as nothing but fuch Mens Importuni-
ty and objtruGcd Minds , could have Excuftd.
2. The
by their own Writings, than by mine : The Coun-
cil of irenty telleth it you: What need I recite it?
g. I tell you again, as I did in my Confeflion, that
I had rather all the Papifts in the World agreed
with us, than difagreed : I like a Dodhine the
better, and not the worfe, becaufe all the Chrifti-
an World confenteth to it. I am not ambitious
to have a Religion to my felf, which a Papift doth
not own. Where they differ, I am forry for it :
And it pleafeth me better, to find in any Point
that we are agreed , than that we differ. Nei-
ther you, nor any fuch as you, by crying [0 Po*
fifh! Antichriftim]'] (hall tempt me to do by the
Papifts, as the Vominicans,znd Janfenifis, and fome
Oratorians, do by the Calvinifts: I will "not with
Alvarez, Arnoldus, Gibieuf, &c. make the World
believe, that my Ad verfaries are much further from
me than they are,for fear of being cenfured by Fafti-
bn, to be one of them. If I would have been of
a Church-Fadtion, and fold my Soul to pleafe a
party, I would have begun before now, and ta-
ken a bigger Price for it, than you can offer me
if you would.
Pag, 17. You fay, [Pile one Difthttion or Eva-
sion on another ■, as long as you fleafes as rtiany fe-
ver al Faiths, andWorkj) and J unifications, as you-
can name all this will never make two Poles
meei\.
Anfo. And do you cry out for War in the Dark-
nefs of Confufion, as long as you will, youfhall
never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptifm*
and Lift my felf under the grand Enemy of Love
and Gmcord) nor to Preach up Hatred and Vivifion,
fox
lor nocning,as in me iName or ^nrut. it you will
handle fuch Controverfies, without Viftinguijhing
of Faiths, Worlds, and Juftifications^ I will never
perfwadeany Friend of mine to Be your Pupil, or
Difciple. Then Simon Magufs faith, and the De-
vils faith, and Peters faith muft all pafs tor the
fame, and juftifie accordingly. Then indeed, Be-
lieving in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoft,
yea, and Chrift, as our Teacher, King and Judg,
&c muft pafs for the Works by which no Man is
Juftified ! If Viflinftion btunfound, detedt the Er-
ror of it ; If not, it is no Honour to a difputhig
Dodlor to reproach it.
§• X. But/wg.17. you fet upon your great unde-
ceiving Work, to (hew the evil of ill ufwg Words :
[Words (you fay) as they are enfranchised into Law*
guage, are but the Agents and Fafiors of things, far
which they continually negotiate with our Minds,
conveying Errands on all occafions, &c. (Let them
mark, that charge the vanity and bombaft of Meta-
phors on others, one word \Signa] fhould have
ferved our turn inftead of all this). [Whence it
follow /-> that their ufe and Signification is Unaltera-
ble, hut by the ft amp of the like publick^ nfage and
impofition from whence at firft they received their be-
ing, &C.3
Anfa* JuniorsJN'iW not fuch deceiving Words
fave you from my Deceits ? But, 1. Is there a L#»>,
and unalterable Law for the fenfe of Words? In-
deed, the Words of the facred Text muft have no
new Senfe put upon them. 2. Are you fure that
it was Fublicl^ ufage, and Impofnim from whence
they firft received their being ? How (hall we know
Q^ that
\iiai iwcy grew uui miu puuuiiv uit uuui uuc mans
fir ft Invention, except thofe that (not Publicly ufe^
but) God Himfelf made? 3. Are you fure that
all or moft Words now, Latine or Englijh, have
the fame, and only the fame ufe or fenfe, as was
put upon them at the firft ? Is the change of the
fenfe of Words a Orange thing to us ? 4, But
that which concerneth our Cafe moft, is, Whether
there be many Words either of Hebrew and Greeks
in the Scripture , or . of Latine , Englijh, or any
common Language, which have no,t many Signifi-
cations ? Your Reputation forbids you to deny it.
And fhould not thofe many Significations be di-
ftinguiflied as there is Caufe? Are not Faith,
Workg, Juft , Juftice, Jujhfication^ words of di-
vers fenfes in the Scripture ? and do not common
Writers and Speakers ufe them yet more varioufly >
And (hall a pifputer take on him, that thearpor
figpification of each is but one % ottrpoy or is £o fixed
that there needcth no diftin&ion > 5, Is the change
that is made in all Languages in the World, made
by the fame publick ufage and impofition,
from which at firft they received their be-
ing? 6* If fas you fay) the fame thing can be re-
frefented by different words, only vphenthey are Sy*
nonymout, ihould we not avoid feeming to repre-
sent the fame by Equivocals, which unexplained are
unfit for it ?
Pag* 20. You tell me what fadwor\ you are do-
ing* and no wonder, Sin and Paflions are felf.
troubling things : And it's well if it be fad to your
(elf alone, and net to fuch as you tempt into Mis-
takes, Hatred, and Divifion. It fhould be fad to
every Chriftian, to fee and hear thofe whom they
are
are bound to Love , reprefented as odious : And
you are ftill, pag. 19. feigning, that [Every eye
may jee Men dealing Blows and Deaths about, and
therefore we are not wife if we thinkjhem agreed*
But doubtlefs, many that feem killed by fuch
Blows as fome of yours, are dill alive ? And ma-
ny a one is in Heaven, that by Divines pretending
to be Orthodox* were damned on Earth! And
many Men are more agreed than they were aware
of. I have known a Knavifh Fellow let two Per-
fons of quality on Fighting, before they fpake a
word to one another, by telling them fecretly and
falily what one faid againft the other. Many dif-
fer, even to perfecutingand bloodshed, by fl^i/Zand
Paffion and PraUice, upon a falfly fuppofed great-
difference in Judgment. I will not fo fuddenly re-
peat what Proof I have given ot fome of this in
the place you noted, Cath TheoU Confer, n, 12,
& 13. There is more skill required to narrow
differences, than to widen them > and to reconcile*
than to divide \ as there is to quench a Fire, than
to kindle it j to build , than to full down * to
heal-, than to wound.
I prefume therefore to repeat aloud my contrary
Cautions to your Juniors.
Young-Men, after long fad Experience of the fin-
ful and miferable Contentions of the Clergie , and
confequently of the Chrifiian florid , that you may
efcape the Guilt, J befeech you, whoever coutradi-
Seth it, co-nfider and believe thefe following Notices :
I. That all Words are but arbitrary Signs, and are
changed as Men pleafe '> and through the Penury of
them* and Mans imperjeftion in the Art of Speak;
Q^2 i%,
.(*8)
ing, *kr? <*r£ zwj> few at all, that have not various
Significations.
2. "that this Speakjng-Art requirethfo much time
andfiudy y and all Men are fo defective in it, and the
variety of Mens skill in it is fo very great, that no
Men in the World do perfeSly agree in their inter-
pretation and uje of Words. The doleful plague of
the Confufion of Tongues, doth (till hinder our
full Communication, and maketh it hard for us to
underftand Words our felves, or to be underftood
by others^ Sox Words muft have a three- fold apti-
tude of Signification, i. To fignifie the Matter,
2. And the Speakers conceptions of it. 3. And this
as adapted to the hearers Mind, to make a true
Impre/Iion there.
3. That God in Mercy hath not made Words fo
neceflary as Things, nor neceffary but for the fake
of the Things : If God, Chrift, Grace, and Heaven,
be known, believed, and duly accepted, you {hall
be faved by what Words foever it be brought to
pafs.
4. Therefore Real Fundamentals, or Necejfaries
to Salvation, are more eafily defined than Verbal
met: For more ox fewer Words, thefe or other
Words are needful to help fome Perfons, to Faith,
and Love , and Holinefs , as their Capacities are
different.
5. But as he that truly believeth in, and giveth
up himfelf to God the Father , Son , and Holy
Ghoft, according to the fenfe of the Baptifinal
Covenant* is a true Chriftian, to be loved, and
ftall be faved) fo he that underftandeth fuch\
Words, \% help him to that true Faith and Confent,\
doth know fo much of the Verbal part, as is of ne-
ceflity
ceflity to his Chriftianity and Salvation.
6* And be that is fitch, holdeth no Hetefie or Er-
ror inconfijlent with it : If he truly love God, it's a
contradiction to fay, that he holdeth an Error incon-
fijlent with the Love of God.
7. "therefore fee that you Love all fuch as Cbrifti-
ans, till fome proved or notorious inconfiftents nulli-
fying his ProfeJJion difoblige you.
8. Take your felves to be neither of Roman, or
any other Church as Vniverfal, which is lefs than
the Vniverfality of all Chrijlians headed by Chriji
alone.
9. Make this Love of all Chrijiians the fecond
fart of your Religion, and the Love of God, of Chrifi,
of Holinefs and Heaven, the firjl > and live thus i n
the ferious practice of your Covenant, even of Simple
Chrijtianity : For it's this that will be your Peace,
in Life and at Death.
io # And if Men of various degrees of Learning
(or Speaking- skill) and of various degrees of Holt-
nefs , Humility , and Love , fliall quarrel about
Words, and forms of Speech , and fit all bereticate,
and revile, and damn each other, while the Effentials
are beldfa(t and pradifed, difcern Right from Wrong
as well as you cans but take heed that none of them
make Words a fnare , to draw you irjurioujly to
thinly hatefully of your Brother, or to divide the
Churches, or Servants of Chriji : And fufpett fuch a
Snare becaufe of the great ambiguity of Words, and
imperfettion rf Mans Skill and Honejiy in all Mat-
ters of debate: And never difpute ferioufy, with-
out firji agreeing of the Senfe of every doubtful term
with him that you Difpute witlf] %
Q^3 Dr.
( $o)
Dr. 2W/ji's Allarm , and other Mens militant
Courfe, perfwaded me as a Prefervative, to com-
mend this Counfel to you.
§. XT. fag. 19. You next very jufty commend
tMethod, ordering^ and exprejjing our Conceptions,
of which f you fay) I feem to make little account
in Comparifon]*
Anfw. 1. Had you faid, that I had been unhap-
py in my Endeavours, your Authority might have
gone for Proof with many : But you could fcarce
have fpokjen a more incredible word of me , than
that I feem to make little account of Method, I
look for no fharper Cenfure from the Theological
Tribe, than that I Over-do in my 'Endeavours after
Method* You fhall not tempt me here unfeafbna-
bly, to anticipate what Evidence I have to pro-
duce for my acquittance from this Accufation.
2. But yet I willftill fay, that it isnotfone-
ceflary either to Salvation , or to the Churches
Peace, that we all agree in Methods and Exprejjions,
as that we agree in the hearty reception of Chrift,
and obedience to His Commands ? So much Me-
thod all muft know, as to know the Beginning and
the End, from the EffeBs and Means, God from
the Creature, and as our true confent to the Bap-
tifmal Covenant doth require > and I will thank-
fully ufe all the help which you give me to go fur-
ther : But I never yet faw that Scheme of Theolo-
gie, or of any of its Heads, which was any whit
large, (and I have feen many) which was fo exa<3:
in Order, as that it was dangerous in any thing
to forfake it. But I cannot think meet to talk
much of Method, with a Man that talketh as you
do
do oi'DijlinguiJhing^ and handieth the bodirine,
of juftification no more Methodically than you
do/
>
«
§. XII. Btit/ug. ip. youinftance in the differ-'
ence between Proteftants and Papifts , about the
NeceJJity of Good works, which is voids in refpeU of.
the placing or ranking of them > viz. T^hs one ftr etch-
ing it to the firfl Juftification, the other not, but con*
fining it to its. proper ranh^ and province of Inherent
Holinefs^ where it ought to keep~] t
Anfxv. Wonderful ! Have you that have fo loud-
ly called to me to tell how I differ about Juftifica-
tion, brought your own, and as you fay, the Pro-
teftants difference to this > Will none of your
Readers fee now, who cometh nearer them, yon
or I >
i. Is this diftin&ion our proof of your accu-
ratenefs in Method, and Order , and Exprejjion ?
What meaneth a diflindiion between £ Firft-Ju-
ftification,"] and [Inherent Hvlinefs"]? Do you dif-
ference them §htoad ordinem, as Firft and Second f
But here is no Second mentioned : Is it in the na-
ture of the things [Juftification, and Inherent Ho-
linefs']? What figniheth the [Firft'] then? But
Sir, how many Readers doycuexpedi who know
not, I. That it is not to the Firft Juftification at
all, but to that which they call the Second or In-
creafe^ that the Church of Rome afferteth the ne-
ceijity or ufe of Mans meritorious Works? Sec
what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath.
*tbeol. Lib. 2. Confer* 13. pag. 267. &c* faving
that fome of them are for fuch Preparatives as
fome call Merit of Congruity, and as our Englifh
Q^4 Divines
( It )
Divines do conftantly preach for, and the Synod
of Don at large affert \ though they difown the
name of Merits as many of the Papifls do. They
ordinarily fay with Aufline, Bona opera fequuntur
JujiificatHm, non pr&cedunt Juftificandum.
2. But, I hope, the word [FirjV] here over-
flipt your your Pen, inftead of [Second] : But fup-
pofeitdid fo : What's the difference between the
Papijis firjl or fecond Jujiification, and the Prote-
ctants Inherent Holinefs ? None that ever I heard
or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papijis take
Jujiification for Inherent Holinefs ? And is this the
great difference between Papijis and Protejiants,
which I amfo loudly accufed for not acknowledg-
ing ? viz. Tthe Tapijis place Good-Worty before Ju-
ftification-i that is, Inherent Holinefs '» and the Pro-
teftants more rightly place them before Inherent Holt*
nefs ? Are you fcrious, or do you prevaricate ?
The Papijis and Protectants hold, that there are
fame Duties and common Grace, ufpally preparatory
to Conversion ( or SandHfication ) i which fome
Papifts (de nomine) call Merit of Congruity, and
fome will not. The Papijis and Protejiants fay,
that Faith is in order of nature, at leaft, before that
Habitual Love, which is called Holinefs, and be-
fore the Works thereof. The Papijis and Protejiants
fay, that Worlds of Love and Obedience, follow our
Firft San&ification, and make up but the Second
part of it, which confifteth in the Work/ ef Holi-
n?fs. If you fpeak not of Workj in the fame fenfe
in each part of your AiUgnation, the Equivocation
would be toogrofs, viz. If youfhould mean [Pa-
pijis ra?i\ the necejjity of preparatory Common Works,
or the Internal ah of Faith, or Love, ftr etching it
to
( 33)
to the Firft Justification » and Proteftants ran\ other
Worlds, viz. 'the fruits of Faith and Love , with
Inherent Holinefr. All agree, i. That Common
JVor^s go before Sanftification. 2. That Internal
Love, and other Grace, do conftitute Sandification
in the Firft part of it. 3. That Special Worlds
proceeding from Inward Grace, are theeffedte of
the Firft Part, and the conftitutive Caufes of the
Second Part of San<5tification > as the word ex-
tendeth alfoto Holinefs of Life: And whilft Pa-
pifts take Juftification for Sanfiification, in all this
there is Ve re no difference. (But your accurate
Explications by fuch terms, as [Stretching, Con-
firming, Province, &c]] are fitter for 7»//y, than
for Arijlotle).
And is this it in the Application that your Zeal
will warn Men of, that we muft in this take heed
of joyning with the Papifts ? Do you mean [Ran^
Good-Workj with Inherent Holinefs, and not with
the Firjl SanBification, and youthen do widely dif-
fer from the Papi(ls~\? Will not your Reader fay,
i. What doth Inherent Holinefs differ from the Firft
S anUiftcation ? 2. Do you not invite me thws herein
to be a Papift , when they rank them no where
but, as you fay, the Proteftants do? 3. Do not
you here proclaim, that Papifts and Proteftants dif-
fer not about the neceflity of Good-works to Ju-
ftification ? But yet I that would make no Differ-
ences wider than they are, can find fome greater
than you have mentioned.
Truly Sir, I am grieved and afhamed, to fore-
fee how Learned Papifts will make merry with
fuch Paffages \ and fay, See here how we differ from
the Proteftants I See what it is for, that the Prote-
ctant
(34)
ft ant TkUors feparate from the Church ef Rome J
viz. Becaufe we make Good-Works necejfary to the
Firji Juftification y wbicb unlefs equivocally Spoken,
irfalfe i and becdufe the Protectants ran\ them with
Inherent Holinefs, as we d<T\* What greater ad-
vantage will they defire againft us, than to choofe
us fuch Advocates ? And to (hew the World that
even where their keeneft Adverfaries condemn
them, and draw Men from them, they do but ju-
ftifie them? Who knoweth what a Temptation they
may make of fuch paflages to draw any to Po-
pery ? It is my aflurance, that fuch Over-doings is
Vndoingy and that miftaken Accufations of the
Fapifts greatly advantage them againft us, which
maketh me the more againft fuch Dealing > be-
fides the ftnfulnefs-, of pretending that any dif-
ferences among Chriftians, are greater than indeed
they are.
But may not I think that you take the word
[Juftification] here in the Proteftant Senfe , and
not in the fapifts , when you fay that they ranj^
Good- worths -necejfity as firetcht to the Firfi Juftifi-
cation? No fure : For, i. Protectants u(e notto
diftingnifhof a Firfi and S^cW Justification, which
Papiftsdo, but of Juftification as Begun*, Continu-
ed, and Confummate. 2. If it were fo, it were not
true: For the Firft Juftification in the Proteftant
Senfe, is our firfi right to Impunity and Life Eter-
naU freely given to Believer j, for the Merits of Cbrifts
perfett Rigbteovfnefs and Satisfaction* And Papifts
do not make Good-works ( unlefs Equivocally fo
called) neceffary to this i but as a Fruit to fol-
low it*
As
(an
As for Remiflton of Sin y I have elfe- where pro-
ved, i. That moft commonly by that word the
Papifts mean nothing , but that which we call
Mortification^ or Putting away, or deftroying the
Sin it fellas to the habit and ceafing the A&.2.Thac
moft of them are not refolved, where the Remifji-
on of the Punijhment (which Proteftants call Re
mijjion of Sin , or Forgivenefs) (hall be placed;
They differ not much as to its time, but whether
it be to be called any part of Jujiification : Some
fay, yea > feme make it a di\i intt thing. Moft de-
fcribe Jujiification by it felf, as confining in our/
Remiffion of, or Deliverance from Sin it felf, and
the infufed habit of Love or Righteoufnefs
(all which we call San&ification), and the forgive-
nefs of the Penalty by it felf, not medling with the
Queftion, whether the latter be any part of the
former * fo much are they at a lofs in the Notional
part among themfelves. But they (and we) di-
ftinguifh of Forgivenefs, as we diitinguifh of Pe-
nalties : We have a right to Impunity as to ever-
lafting Damnation, upon our firft being Juftified >
but our Right becometh afterward more fully and
many other Penalties are after to be remitted.
§. XIII. Pag. 20. In my 4.2. Direff. for the Cure
of Church-divifions, telling the Weak whom they
muft follow, I concluded, 1. that the neceffary
Articles of Faith muji be made our own, and not
taken meerly on the authority of any \ and we muji
in all fuch things of abfolute necefuy kfep company
with the Vniverfal Church* 2. that in Matters of
Peace and Concord the greater part muji be our
Guide. 3. that in Matters of humane Obedience^
eur
( 3* )
our Governours tnuft be our Guides* And, 4. Ju
Matters of high and difficult Speculation, the judg-
ment of one Man of extraordinary Undemanding and
Cleamefs, is to be preferred before the Rulers and the
major Vote. I inftanced in Law, Philofophy, Phyfick^
Languages,- &rc and in the Controverts of the Ob-
jeft of Predefttnation, the nature of the WilPs Li-
berty > Divine Concourfe, the determining way of
Grace-, of the definition of Justification, Faith, &o^
Here I was intreated before God and my Consciences
to feafch myfelf, with what Defign or Intent I wrote
this, and to tell you, Who that One is, that we
may kpow whom to prefer, and to whom, in the Do-
Urine of Jujiification, &c.
Anfxv. How greatly do you diftionour your felf,
(ind then you will impute it tome) byinfifting
on fuch palpably abufive Paflages ? Had you not
been better, havefilently paft it by > 1. Doth not
the World know , that Heathens and Chriftians,
Papifts and Proteftants, are Agreed on this gene-
ral Rule ? 2. And will you make any believe that
Definition of J unification \$ none of thefe Wor\s
of Art, which depend on humane Skill ? How
then came you to be fo much better at it than I ?
I find not that you afcribe it to any fpecial Reve-
lation which you have. And if you fhould afcribe
it to Piety y and fay, Hoc non eft Artis, fed Pietatis
opus : I would go to many a good Woman before
you. Nor do you plead general Councils, nor the
Authority of the Church. 3. And what fobex
Scholar will you make believe , that by laying
down this common Rule, I fignifie fome One fin-
gular Perfon , as an Individuum determinatum .
whom'
< 37)
whom therefore I muft acquaint you with?
Thefe things are below a Grave Divine.
Pag* 21. Where you called me to ferioufnefs or
diligence in my feat ch y and I told you by what, and
how many Writings, I havemanifefted my almoft
thirty years Diligence in this Controverfie, and that
I am now grown paft more ferious and diligent
Studies y that I might (hew you what a trifling
way it is, for a Man to wrangle with him that
hath written fo many things, to tell the World
what his ftudiesof this Point have been, and never
to touch them, but to call him z-neu> to ferious di-
ligence : You now expoftulate with me, whether
you accufed me for want of diligence 2 I talk not of
Accnfing, but I tell you, that I have done my beft s
and that it were a poor kind of dealing with your
felf , if you had written againft many, as you
have done againft me twenty five years ago, and
very often, if inftead of taking any notice of your
Labours , I fhould call you now to diligent
Studies,
As for your Leffon, pag. 22. that tumbling over
many Books without meditation^ may breed but Cru*
dities &c. It is very true, and the calamity of
too many of the literate Tribe, who think that
they have deferved Credit and Reverence , when
they fay the words which others, whom they
would be joyned with, have faid before them :
Want of good Digeftion is a common Difcafe of
many that never complain of it, nor fed any pre-
fent trouble by it.
Pag. 22, 23. You infinuate that about Retrafta*
thn, which I before detedted ; I told you when,
and where , I Sufpended or Retraced the Book,
and
r 3» )
and for what Reafbns, and you prefently feign a
Retractation of the Do&rine , and of about fixty
Books of Retra&ions.
It's well that pag. 23. you had the juftice not
to juftifie your [Nee dubito quin imputatam Chri[\i
juftitiam incluferit] i But to confefs your In juftice,
was too much : It is not your own Retraftation that
you are for, itfeems.
§. XIV. Tag. 23,24. You talk as if my fup-
polingthat both [Jttfiice] and [Imputation"], are
capable of Definitions which are not the Things,
were a Fallacy, becaufe [or] is a disjunctive* viz*
When I fay that the Definition of the one, or the
other, is not the 'Thing. Do you grant it of them
Disjunctively , and yet maintain the contrary of
them Conjunct? Yes, you fay, [Imputed Juftice
cannot differ from its true definition^ unlefs you will
have it to differ really from itfelf]. And, pag. 34.
you fay, [I am ajhamedyou (hotild thus over and
over expofe your felf as if fappofing (Definiti-
ons) true, they were not the fame Re, with the De-
finitum.- — . Good Sir, talj^what you pleafe in pri-
vate, tofucb as underftand not what you fay, and let
them give you a grand 2o<p<£$ for your pains > but
you may do well to ufe more Civility to the reafon of a
Scholar , though he hath not yet worn out his Frejh-
mans Gown].
Anfo. This is no light or jefting Matter : The
comfort of Souls dependeth on iu I fee feme Men
expect that Reverence of their Scholarship Ihould
give them great advantage : But if one argued
thus with me for Tranfubftantiation, I would not
rum to him, to efcape the Guilt of Incivility.
If
^ 39 J
If the Definition, and the Definitum, as in que-
ftion now, be the fame "thing , wo to all the Un-
learned World, and wo to all Frcthmen, that yet
have not learnt well to define ; and wo to all
Divines that differ in their Definitions, except thofe
that are in the right.
I know that a Word and a Mental Conception,
are not Nothing: They may be called things, but
when we diftinguifh the things from their Signs,
Names , or Definitions , we take not the word
[things'] fo laxly, as to comprehend the faid Signs,
Names, &c. When we fay, that the thing defined
is neceffary, but to be able to Define it, cr a&ually
to Define it, is not necelTary (to Salvation) it is
notorious that we take Definition (as Defining)
actively, as it is Attus definientis ; and Definire fare
is not the fame with the thing defined. I have
heard before your Letter told me, that Definitum
& definitio idem funt : But, I pray you, let us not
quibble almoft all the World under a fentence of
Damnation, As long ago as it is fince I read fuch
words, I remember our Matters told us, (I think
Schibler in his topickj for one ) that when they
are taken Pro ter minis Logicis definitio & definitum
non funt idem ', but only when they are taken Pro
rebus per eos terminos [ignificatis\ and that there
they differ in {JModo fignificandi efientiam, the defi-
nitum fignifying the EJfence confufedly, and theZ>-
finition difiinUly. If you will take the Res definita,
for that which is fhi&ly nothing but Rei concepts
inad<equatus feu partialis, (that is, a Species) and
that not as the thing is Exiftent extra intelleSum,
but as the conception is an operation of the Mind,
fo I confefs, that he that hath a true Conception of
a
V 4 U J
a Species as meerly denominated, or as defined, hath
the fame conception of it : And alfo the Thing named,
and the "thing defined, is the fame thing in it felf.
Homo & Animal rationale, are the fame v that is,
it is the fame effence, which is denominated Homo,
and defined Animal rationale. And it is the fame
Concepts mentis, which we have ( if true) when
we denominate , and when we define. But as
Things are diftindt from the knorpledg and figns of
Things, nothing is Res, that is not exijient i and
nothing exifieth but in Singulars for Individuals) :
And as nothing can be defined but a Species, fo a
Species , or any Vniverfal, is nothing but a Notion**
or Ens rdtionU, faveas it exifteth in the faid Indi-
viduals* And in the Individuals, it is nothing but
their being as partially, or inadequacy taken, or a
Couceput ob)etkivm partialis, (whether it be of a
thing re*//y, or only intellectually partible, or any
thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of,
Vno & fimplici conceptu aBivo). Now if you take
the word \Vefinition\ for the Species, as exigent in
Individuals, it is really a part of the thing j that
is, a Partial objective concepts, or fomewhat of the
Thing as Intelligible : But this is to take [Definition]
in Senfu pajfivo, for the Thing defined > which our
Cafe diftinguiflieth.
But Sir, I crave your leave, to diftinguifh #£•
al objeftive Beings , from, I. The Knowledg.
2, and the Names, and other Logical Organs, by
which we know them, and exprefs our knowledg
of them : God , Chrift , Grace , Glory , Pardon,
Juftification, Sandlification, the Gofpel-Dodfrine,
Precept , Promifes, Faith, Hope , Love , Obedi-
ence, Humility, Patience, &c. are the Res definite
in
(40
in our Cafe, not as they are in effe ccgnito, of iri
the notion or idea of them, but in effe reali. To
Define ptoperly, is either, i. ^Mentally to con
ceive of thefe things, 2. or Exprefpvely, to fig-
nifie fueh Conceptions agreeably to the nature of the
things known, or Expreffively defined : Which is,
if the Definition be perfed, under the notions of a
Genus 9 and Differentia* The Definition as in
IVords, is but a Logical Organ* (as Names are alio
; Notifying figns) : Mental defining, is but the faid di-
fiinh tyovpledg of the thing defined, and is neither
really the "thing it J elf \ nor ufually of neceflity to
the Thing : Which two, I fnall prove diftindtly as
t© the fenfe of pur. Cafe.
1. The Definition of Juftification, is either oue
Diftinti knowledge ox Ex predion of it : Juftificati-
on is not our Vijlinfit kgorvledg, or Exprefiion of its
Therefore the Definition of Juftification, and Ju-
ftification, are not the fame.
. Juftification In fenfu aUivo , is not an A& of
God, and In fenfu pajjivo^ is the Relative ftate o£
Man thereby effe&ed : But the Definition of Jufti-
fication is neither*
The Definition of Juftification, is a work of
Art i but juftification is a Work of Grace.
A wicked damnable Man, or a damned Devil,
may define Juftification, and fo have the Definition
of it 5 but not Juftification it felf.
The Definition of Juftification , Faith , Love,
&c* is Quid Logicum? but Jutlificatiori , Faith,
Love, &c\ are things Phyfical and Moral..
A Man is Juftified (or hath Chrilts Righteoufne(s
imputed to him) in his fleep, and when he think-
R ttti
( 4* )
cth not of it \ but he hath not the Aftive defi-
nition o( Juftitication in his deep, &c.
Other things be not the fame Really &ith their
Definition, therefore neither is Juftification> Faith,
&c.
The Sun is not really the fame thing with a De-
finition of the Sun*, nor Light, Heat, MotioDj
&c* A Brute can fee, talk, feel , fenjp , that
cannot define them. If you have a Bifhoprick,
becaufe you define a Eifhopiick , or have a Lord-
ihip, a Kingdom, Health, &c. becaufe you can
define them, your Axiome hath flood you in good
Head.
The Definition is but Explicatio rei : But Rei
explicatio mn eji ipja res.
individuals (fay moft) are not Definable: But
nothing is truly Res, but Individuals. Vniverfals
as they are in the Mind, are exijlent Individual ABs^
Cogitations ■, Nations: As they zttout of the Mind^
they arc nothing but Individuorum quid intelli-
gibile.
The Definition of Learning, of a Dodtor, &c.
may be got in a day : If Learning and Do&orfhip
may be fo, what ufelefs things are Univerfities and
Eooks >
Perfwade a hungry Scholar, that he hath Meat
and Drink * or the Ambitious, that he hath Pre-
ferment j or the Covetous, or Poor, that he hath
Money, becaufe he hath in his Mind, or Mouth,
the Definition of it j and quibble him into fatisfa-
drion by telling him,that Vefinitio & definitmnfunt
id°m re. We know and exfrejs things narrowly by
Names, and largely and dijiin&ly by Definitions :
The Definition here, is Explicatio nominiiy (as Ani-
mal
v 43 ;
tftal rationale, of the name Homo) \ and both Nam*
and Definition, as they aire Verha mentU vel crii,
or Verborum figmficatio, are Tardy clivers from the
things named and defined, known and exprtfTed - y
unlets by the thing you mean only the Knowledge
or Notion of the Thing.
Therefore though Cui comment defimtio eidem
quoq* competit definitum, & contra, & quod convenit
definitioni convenit definito : Yet fay not that Im-
puted Righteoufnefs in Re , is the fame with the
^Definition, as it is the Defineirj z&.
By this time you have helpt Men to underftand
by an Inftance, why St. Paul fo much warncth
Chriftiaus to take heed left any deceive them by
vain Philosophy, even by Sophiftry, and abufed ar-
bitrary Notiorts.
Remember, Sir, that our Cafe is of grand Im-
portance j As it is (fated in my Dirett. 42. which
you aflfeulted ', it is \jVhether if the ghtefiion were
of the ObjeU of Predestination, of the nature of the
WilVs liberty , Divine conconrfe, and determining
way of Grace, of the Definition of Justification,
Faithy &c. a few well ftudied Divines are not here
to be preferred before Authority, and the major Vote-*
Such are my. words. 1 aifcrt, 1. That the Defi-
ning of JujVtfication, Faith, &c. is a work of Art.
2. And I have many and many times told the
World (which you feem to .ftr'ike at) that Chrr-
ftians do not differ fo much in their Real concepti-
ons of the Matter, as they do in their Definitions.
1. Becaufe Definitions are made itp of Ambiguous
irords, whofe Explication they are not agreed in :
and almoft all Words arc ambiguous till explained >
and atnbiguous Words are not fit to dctine , or
R 2 be
H.
( 44 )
be defined!, till explained. And, 2. Becaufeboth
fclcdlng fit terms, and explaining them, and Or-
dering them, are works of Art , in which Men
are unequal h and there is as great variety of In-
telle6Uial Conceptions , as of Faces. 3. And I
have often faid, That a Knoxvledg intuitive y or a
Simple apprehension of a thing as Senfate, or an
Internal experience, or Refleft aft , and a general
notion of fomc thi.ngs,may prove the truth of Grace,
and fave Souls, and make us capable of Chriftian
Love and Communion, as being true faving Know-
ledg. 4. And confequently I have often faid y
that many a thoufand Chriftians have Faith ,
Hope , Vefire, Love, Humility, Obedience, Judi-
cation, Adoption, Union with Chriji, who c4n de-
fine none of thefe : Unlefs you willTpeak equivo-
cally of Definition it felf, and fay as good Melan-
Uhon, and as Gutberleth, and fome other Romifts,
that Not it i a intuitiva eft definitio , who yet fay
but what I am fiyitfg, when they add, \_Vel fd-
tem inftar defiwionis^. If all are without Faith,
Love, Jufiification, Adoption , who cannot give a
true Definition of them, how few will be faved ?
How much more then doth Learning to Mens fal-
vation, than Grace ? And Ariftotle then is not fo
far below Paul , or the Spirit of Chrift , as we
Quftly) believe, :
The Cafe is fo weighty and palpable, that you
have nothing to fay> but as you did about the Guilt
of our nearer Parents fins, to yield all the
Caufe, raid with a paffionate clamour to tell Men
that I miftake you, or wreft your words ; of which
I fhall appeal to every fobcr Reader, that will pe-
>ufc the words of mine which you affault, and yours
as
C 45T )
as they are an Arivver to mine.
In a word, you go about by the abufc of a tri-
vial Axiome of Definitions, i. To fentence molt
Chrillians to Hell, and call them into Dtfperation,
as wanting the Grace which they cannot define.
2. And to defiroy Chriitian Love and Concord,
and tear the Church into as many Shreds, as there
be diveriities of Definitions ufed by theip. 3. And
you would tempt us to think much hardlier of your
(elf, than we muft or will do i as if yom Fait h>
Juftification, &c. were unfound, becauie your De-
finitions are fo.
I know that Vnim rei una tanturn eft Vefimih %
(peaking, 1. Not of the "terms , but the Senfo
2. And fuppofingthat Definition to be perfectly tiuej
that is, the truth oi Intellection and Expreffivt con-
(ifting in their congvuuy to the Thing i> while the
thing is one a;nd the fame , the conception and ex-
predion which is perfectly true, muit be fo too.
But, 1. Our understandings are all imperfed, and
we know nothing perfectly but Secundum quxdam >
and Zanckez faith truly, that Nihil fcitur, if we
call that only Knowledg which is perftU: And con-
(equently no Mental Definition is perfed. 2. And
Imperfedions have many degrees. 3. And our
Terms, which make up that which ycu know I
called a Definition in my Dir. +2. (as it is in words)
are as aforefaid, var'mis, mutable, and variouily
underftood and ufed.
§. XV. Yag m 24. Again you are at it, [iVhom
do you mem by that one rare Tcrfon, vrhfe fwgle
Judgment U to be preferred in tfye point of Jvjhfica-
tion } and to wbomy
R 3 M™>
( 4<n
Anfw. r. No one that knoweth not the differ-
ence between an Invididuum vagum & determine
ium. 2. No one that is of fo hard Metal, as in
ilefpite of the pjaineft words, to infinuate to the
World, thatthefe words [A few mll-fiudied Ju-
dicious Divines~]do fignifie only one > and that thefe
words [One Man of extraordinary underjianding and
clearnefs), (is to be -preferred before the Rulers and
major Vote, in difficult fpeculations) do fignifie one
individuum determination in the World,and that the
Speaker is bound to name the Man. No one that
thinketh that Pemble^ho in his Vind.GratJnzxh al-
npft the very fame words, faid well, and that I
who repeat them, am as criminal as you pretend :
$o one who either knoweth not, that almoft all
the World (even Papifts) agree in this Rule, or
that thinketh his judgment fit herein to bear them
all down : No one who , when his abufes are
brought into the open Sun-fhine, will rather accufe
the Light than repent.
5ut, pag. 25. After fome words to jeer away
Conyidion, you cell me, \jVt mnji have fome bet-
ter account of you , quern quibus , than what
you have given us yet. I Jhall take leave to prefent
cur indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and
truer ; ]late cf the Queffion,' far more fuit able both to
my -plain meaning" and the clear purport of your Di~
region. ' Let the Cafe be this \ 'there is One who of
late hath raifed much duft among us, about the grand
Article of Juftification '•> ' Whether it be by Faith
without Works, or by Faith andlFuPkj too ? All our
old Remwned Divines on this fide and btyond the
$eas are unanimoujly agreed, that purification is by
fdt u dotted i. e. without Worbj. %his one Perfon
hath
hath often publijhed bis Judgment to the contrary — -
Jo that a poor Academical Uocior may very rationally
enquire cf you, Who in this caje is to be frefrred I
that one, or tbofe many ?
Anfvp. There was a Difputant who would un-
dertake to conquer any Aclverfary : When he was
asked, How f He Gid he would pour out upon
him fomany and fo grofs untruths, as ihould leave
him nothing to anfwer congruoufty, but a Mentirii>
and then all the World would judg him uncivil,
and condemn him for giving fiich an unrcverent
anfwer. But you fhall not jfo prevail with me, but
I will call your Reader to anfwer thefe Oueliions :
1. Whether it be any truer, that [ 77;j* i< the
clear purport of my Virefiionjl than it is that I fiy,
'there u hut one Star in the Firmament, becaufe I fay
iTici one Star a more Luminous ihan many Candles i
2. Whether if a difeafed Reader will put fuch
a Senfe upon my words, his Forgery be a true
fiating of the Queflion between him and me, with
out my content ?
3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is ei-
ther Vnicus, or Frimus, or Singular, in the defi-
nition of Jnflitication , or the intereft of Works,
be any truer, than that he is the only cjedted Mi-
Hifter in England, While the writings of Bucer^
Ludov. Cronus. Job. Bergiw, Conrad- Bergtus, Calix-
tU6,?laceut, leBlanl^ Dave Gatak. M&U. PrefK Ball-,
and multitudes fuch are vifible ftill among us ?
4. Whether he deals truly, mfely , or friendly
with the holy Scripures, au«i the Praftftants, who
would perfwade the Ignorant, that this is the true
lb.te of the Controverfie , [Whether it be by Fabb
witbo.it JForksy or by Faith and jfvrkj w> that we
K 4 are
( 48 )
m juftified"] While the Scripture {peaketh both,
and all Proteftants hold both in feveral fenfes ?
And whether this estfie ftating of Controverfies,
Without more Explication or Diftindion, be wor-
thy an Academical Difputant ?
5. Whether it be true or notorioufly falfc, that
\All our Renowned Divines on this fide, and beyond
the Seas, are agreed"], of that in this Queftion of
the intereft of Works, which this one contra-
diacth?
6. Whether this Do&ors naked Affirmation here-
of be better proof, than that one Mans citation of
the words of above an Hundred (yea many Hun-
dred) as giving as much to Works as he doth, is
of the contrary ? ^
7. Whether it be an ingenuous way befeerrting
Academics, to talk at this rate, and affcrt fuch a
ftating of the Queftion and fuch content, without
one word of notice or mention of the Books, in
which I ftate the Queftion, and bring all this evn
denceof confent ?
8. If fuch a Doftor will needs enquire, whether
the fecret thoughts of the Writer meant not kim-
filfi when 4ie pretendeth but to accufe the Rule
there given, and (hould enquire but of the mean-
ing of the words , whether it favour more of
Rationality, or a prefumptuous ufurping the Pre-
rogative of God ?
§. XVI. Pag. 27. Though your approach be
wrathful, you areconftrained to come nearer yet,
and you cannot deny my Rule of Diredfc. in other
Points, but only thofe of [High and difficult ff>e-
mlation] 1 And do you 4 en y H there * ^ ou
Will
( 4P )
will deal with it but as the application of that
Rule ro the Definition of Jujiification ? (And Chall
we lofe your favour, by forcing you to lay by you?
Oppofition as to all the reft?) But here you fay
you [exceedingly differ from me] \ Or elfe you
would be afhamed of fo much Combating in the
dark : Exceeding oft fignifieth fome extream.
Your Reafons are, i. Ton hold not the VoBrine
ef Jujiification to be properly of Speculative concert?,
hit wholly Practical : Where yet you confefs, that
in all Practical kitowledg, there be fome antecedent
contemplations of the Nature-, Properties^ End, Ob-
)eU, and that to know the certain number of Paces
J bcmc-ward } is a Speculative nicety].
•Anfw % And can you rind no fairer a fhift for
difagrecment ? I would fuch as you made not the
Doihine of JuftiHcation too little PtaUical? I
am far from thinking that it is not Practical : But
is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature,
Properties, End , Obje£i , or fome of thefe which
you call ConteRiplarions ? Make not plain things
dark. Sir: The ufe of Art is not to (hut the Win-
dows , and confound Mens Minds. I take all
*Xheologie to be together, Scientia-affcftiva-prafiicai
for our IntelleU-i Will, and Prattice, mull be pof-
feft or ruled by it : But it is firft Scientia, and we
muft know before we can will and praUife. And
though all right knowledg tend to Practice, yet
forgive me for telling you, that I think that many
holy Perfons in Scripture and Primitive times, lo-
ved and pradti fed more than you or I, who knew
not how to form ah exadi Logical Definition. And
that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit fpi-
fitually* by Scripture Notions; may pra&ife them
as
as fully, as he that knoweth and (peaketh them in
the Notions of A%iftotle\ ox elfe the School-Men
excel the A pottles. Though ambling be an ealie
Pace, which Horfes are taught by Gives and Fet-
ters, it followeth not that a Horfe cannot travel
as far in his 'natural pace. When you have faid
all, Logical defining (hall be a work' of Art, and
the Church Jhould not be torn , and Souls (hall not
he damned* for want of it. He that Loveth* Be-
lievethj Hopeth, Obeyetb, and by doing them hath
a retk&ing perception what they are, and hath
but fuch a knowledg of the Gofpel as may be had
without a proper Definition, (lull be faved.
2. Pag. 28, 2$. you fay, [Norte the VoUrine of
Justification fi high and difficult , but that the mean-
eft Chriftian may underjiand it Efficiently to Salva-
tion* jo far as words can make it intelligible^
AMw. Your own blows feem not to hurt you*
I thank you for granting fo much hope to the mean-
eft Chriftians* But what's this to your Ca(e ?
i* Do the rneaneft Chriftians know how to define
Juftification, and all the Grace which they have ?
2. Are they acquainted with all the [Words that
Jhould make it intelligible .?]
Pag. 2£>. you add, [Ton have done little fervice
to your weaker Chriftians to perfwade them otherwife
{as well as to the great blejjed Charter of Salvation J
and to lead them out of the plain road into Woods
and Mazes >) to that one Man of extraordinary Judg-
ment and^Clearnefs't no body muft know what his
Njme if) or where he dwells^ and fo to whirle them
about til! you have made them giddy ].
Anfw. How ealle is it to talk at this rate for
any Caufe in the World I Is this Difputing or Rea-
son-
(JO
toning? Cannot I aseafilyfay thus againft yau >
But the queftion is of things vifible : I willingly
appeal to any intelligent impartial Divine, who
will read what you and I have written of Juftifi-
fication, which of us it is that hath done more to
bring Men out of Woods and Mazes , into the plain-
eliRoad? Let them, that have leifure for no more,
read but my Preface to my Difput. of Jujlif. and
inark which fide wrongeth wea\Chriftians, and the
Charter of Salvation*^
§♦ XVII. Pag*2p. you add, [5zV, I under (I and
fmething at thefe years, without your 'tutorage, of
the duty both of Pajiors and People : But I fyton> not
what you mean to make the way to Heaven (revealed
fuffciently to all, &c.) to he a matter of high ab-
Jlrufe Speculation , as if none but great Scholars,
and Men of extraordinary Judgment , could by the
right ufe of Scriptures, and other ordinary common
means, be able to find it out, till they have met with
that. Eli as., &c.*]
Anfw* Still I fee w r e (hall agree whether you
.will or not: O, Sir, iris juft the contrary that I
.wrote for : And T need but repeat your words to
anfvver you. I am not difparaging your under-
landing, otherwile than you may fo call the vin-
dicating of needful truth : Nor did I ever prcfmri-
to offer you my Tutorage : You fpeakall this with
too much tendernefs. But that which I have wiit-
Xen almoft all my Books of ControverGe 3gainit, is
this making the Way to Heaven more difficult and
bewildring, than the Scriptures make it. There-
fore it is that I have perfwaded Men to la) 7 lefs
-ftrefs on arbitrary humane Notions : But the que-
stion
( a )
ftion is now, whether it be your Courje or mine.
that is guilty of this ? Are Logical Definitions the
necejjary Way to Heaven ? Doth the Scripture diffi-
dently reveal fuch Definitions to all ? Do all ordi-
nary Believers by the ufi of the Scripture? know
how to define ? Do not Logicians make true de-
fining one of the fureft figns of clear and accuratt
knowledg? Why fhould you and I difpute thus
about Matters of Fad ? I know by the principles
of Conformity, that your Judgment is not like
to be narrower than mine about the ftate of deter-
minate Individuals : I fuppofe ybu would take as
many to the Lords Sapper as Believers, as I would,
and abfolve as many, and pronounce as many favea
at Buryat. Let you and I call but a dozen of the
next Families together, and defire every Man and
Woman of them, to give you a Definition of Ju-
ftification, (out of the hearing of the reft) and ii
they all give you a true definition? and one definition^
I will write a Retractation. I know^you notj
but by your now telling me, of your undemanding
of the duties of Pafiors and People? I may fuppofe
that you have been a Pajlour? ("elfe — — ). And if
fb, that you have had perfonal conference with
tnoft (if not all) of your Flock. If you have
found them all fuch able concordant Definers of Ju-
stification? you have had a more learned Flock than
I had. I doubt your Learned Scholars could not
doit, till they met with fome fuch Elias or Ari-
fiotle? as you ! Yea, let us take only fuch as by their
Lives we commonly judg truly Godly Christians :
And if aWtbefe give you one and a true definition
of Justification, then do you tell them that Defi-
ning is no fuch difficult work, but ordinary Chri-
stians
( ®)
flians may and do attain if, and I that make it diffi-
cult, make the way to Heaven difficult, for De-
fining is the way to Heaven : But if not one of
many Score or Hundred (till you teach them a-
new) do give you a true and the fame Definiti-
on 5 I will go on and ftill fay, that They wrong
Souls, the Go$el, and the Churchy who pretend fuch
neceffjty and facility of defining, and mil cenfure,
reproach, or damn all that agree not with them in
a Definition, when they have as real though Ids
diftintl a knowledg of the thing.
I doubt not but you know how much difference
there is among Learned Men about Definitions
themfelves in general : Whether they belong to
Metaphyficks, Logicks, or Phyficks ? Whether De-
finitio Phyfica (as Man is defined per Animam, Cor-
pus &Vnionem) be a proper Definition? Whether
a true Logical and Thyfical definition fhould not be
the fame ? Whether Definitio obje&iva be properly
called Definitio, or only Formal^? Whether Ac-
cidents may be properly defined ? An Genus defi-
niripoflit? An pars Logica definiri pojjit ? Anindi-
vidua pofjint definiri ? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non
potefl Individuis definitio fubfiantialis h & quidem
ejftntialis Phyfice > eft enim de ejfentia hu)m bominii
h£c anima cum hoc Corpore h Imo & effentialis Me-
taphyfice fi indhidua reSe pojfentpenetrari, ilio-
rum definitio eflet omnium perfefiijfima ) An ea qu£
dijferunt defimtione diftinguantur realiter ? With a
multitude fuch. And is th<? Art of Defining Co
eafie, as that ordinary Cbrijiians jalvatimmuA he
upon it, when fo many things about Defining are
anyone the fabtileft Dodtois undeterounc d ?
5 And
r 54 )
And as Ignorant as I am, while you fuppofe tot
tinable to define JujUfication , I would wifh yod
(not for my fake^but theirs) that you will not fen-
tenceall as unjuftified to Dafrirtation, that ate not
more skilful in defining than I, and that you will
not reject all fuch from the Sacrament and Com-
munion of the Church,
§. XVIIJL Yet again, fag. 30. you tell me, [J
cannot well fwallow down in the lump , tiphat yod
would have me and others to do^ when you direB us U
prefer that one Man before the Rulers and majority
of Votes, till you atquaint ub who that Gentlemati
fa , and what fort of Rulers and Majorities yod
mean].
Anfw. What you cannot fwallow you muft
leave ; I will not cram or drench you. I could wifli
For your own fake, that you had not thus often
told the World of fuch a Malady, as that mull
needs be which hindreth your fwallow : When,
1. You your felf receive the fame Rule in other
Inttances, and make all this fiir againft it only, as
to the Definition of purification*, even the Logical
definition, which is ABus definientk, called Vefi-
nitio formality and not the Definitio objeBiva, as
the Ipfum defimtum is by fome improperly called^
2. And when the words in that Inftance are not
[ONE MAN'] but [_a few Men] which your
Eyes may (till fee, and when in the G eneral di-
rection where- one Man is mentioned, there is no
fuch word as [that one Man]-, or the leaft intima-
tion of an Indhiduum determinaiurrih You greatly
wrong your Honour by fuch dealing > As you'do
by adding,
jr. For
( $\)
I. [For the Jingle Verfon (that Monarch in Divi-
nity) to whom we are upon differences to make our
Appeals, &c]
Anfw. If you hold on thus to talk as in your
deep, and will no^ (hut your Ch3mber~door, but
commiffion the Prefs to report your words to the
World, how can your belt Friends (ecu re your
reputation ? Is not all this talk of fmgle Perfon,
and Monarch in Divinity, and Appeals, the effefts
of a Dream, or fomewhat worfe ? Thefe Fitlions
will ferve no honeft ends. But you next come
indeed to the true difficulty of the Cafe, and ask :
\Ihefeechyou Sir, how jhali your ignorant or weak-
er Chrijiian be able to )ttdg of ' fitnefs ? . He had
need to have a very competent meafure of Abilities
him] elf , who is to give his verdict of another s >
&c]
This is very true and rational : But it concem-
eth you as much as me to anfwer it, unlefs you wiil
renounce the Rule. And feeing you grant it in
other Inftances, if you pleafe to anfwer ycur own
queftion as to thofe other, you have anfwered it as
to this : And if you will not learn of your feif, I
am not fo vain as to think, that you will learn of
me.
In cafe of Subtilties which depend upon Wit,
and Art, and Industry, in that proportion which
few, even faithful Men attain, I remember but
one of thefe ways that can be taken *, Either whol-
ly to fufpeud our Judgments, and not to meddle
with them, till we can reach them our fclvcs ', Or
to take them /We kumana, or as probabilities on the
Credit of fome Men, rather than others : As to
the firft, I am for as much fnfpenfion of Judgment,
as
I 5*> )
as will ftand with the part of a Learner (where we
mull learn \ and in qfelefs things for a total ftt£
penfion). But where Learning is a duty, all Men
come to Knowledg by degrees, and things ufually
appear to them in their probability, before they ap-
pear in afcertaining evidence. ^Therefore here the
Queftion is, Whole judgment I (hall take as mo{l
probable? (Were the cafe only^ how far we fhould
Preach our judgment to others, there Rulers muft
more determine h or if it were, How to manage
our judgment fo as to keep Unity and Concord, the
Church* or major Vott muft over-rule us). But it
being the meer. Judgment ox Opinion that is in que-
ftion, either we muft adhere to the Judgment*
i> Of Rulers zs fitch, 2. Or the major Vote as fitch y
3 . Or to thofe that are moft Excellent in that part of
Knowledg : Why fhould I w 7 afte time to give you
the Reafons againft thetwoiirft, which are com-
monly received ? When even the Papijis, who go
as far as any I know living in afcribing to One
Man, and to major Votes, yet all agree, that a few
fubtile DoBors, yea one in the things in which he
excelleth, is to be preferred before Pope or Council :
And therefore the Scotifts prefer one Scottis, Lyche-
ius, Memiffe, Rada, &c. before a Pope or Multi-
tude •> and fo do the Nominals, one Oc^am, Gre-
gory , Gabriel , Hurtado , &c. and fo the other
Serfs.
The thing then being fuch as neither you, nor
any Man can deny, the difficulty which you urge*
doth prefs you and all Men : And it is indeed one
grand calamity of Mankind, and not the leaft hin-
derance of Knowledg in the World i that he that
hath it not, hfiomthnot what another hath, but by
dark
A 57/
clark Conje&ure?. 4. And therefore Parents ar4
Pupils know not r who is their beft Tutor : The
hearers that are to chufe a Teacher, hardly know
whom to chufe*, for, as you fay truly, he mult
know much that muft judg of a knowing Man.
I God hath in all Arts and Sciences given (bm$
few Men an excellency of ff^it and Reach above the
generality of their Profeffion , and they have a,
more clear and folid Judgment: If all Men could
but know whothefe be, the World would. in one
Age Be more recovered from Ignorance than it hatty
been in ten> , But the power of the Proud, and the
confidence of the Ignorant , arid the number of all
ibefe , and the Slanders and Scorn , and pecvifh
Wnnglings of the common Fride and Ignorance
againilthofe fere that know what they know not^ is
the Devils great meins to frUftrate their endeavours
and keep the World from having knowledg. Tl is
is certain ajid weighty Truth, and fuch.as you
(hould m^ke no Malignant applications of, nor
jftrive againlh Mankind muft needs acknowledg it.
Your urgent queftion'hg here, [poyou not mean your
felff\ doth but expofe you to pity, by opening that
which you might have concealed.^
And to your Queftion, f (ay, could I enable
&11 Ignorant Men to kntiw, who are the beft Teach-
ers, I (hould be the grand Benefa&or 9f the World:
But both the hieing of excellent teachers? and alfo
of acquaintance with tbem and their worthy is given
by God, partly as it pleafcth Him, freely^ even ro
the unworthy, and partly as a Reward, to thofe
that have been faithful in a little , and obeyed low-
er helps o (for there is a Worthiness robe found in
fome Houfes, where the Preacher comcth with the
S voice
v?3 .-■ ■ •
voice of Peace, and unwQrthiriefs, which oft depri-
veth Men of fuch Mercies.) Both abfolutely free*
Grace , and alfo Rewarding-Grace, do here (hew
themfelves.
But yet I add, i. That Light is a [elf-demon-
fir Ming thing* and will not eafily be hid. 2. And
thofe that are the Children of Light, /and have been
true id former helps .and convictions^ and are, wil-
ling to fell all for the. Pearl, and fear not being lo-
fers by the price of Kjtotvledg, but would have it
whatever Labour or Suffering it rnuft coft, and
whcj fearch for it impartially and diligently, and
forfeit it not by Sloth, or a fkfhly., proud, oi
worldly Mind, thefe, I fay, are prepared to difcerr
the Light \ when others fall. under the. heavy Judg-
ment of being deceived by the Wr anglings, Scorns
'Clamours, and threatnings of PROUD IGNO-
RANGE. And thus one dugujlirnxvas a LIgh'j
in his time, and though fuch as Profpcr^ fulgen*
im^'Scc. knew Him, Pelagius and the MaJJilienJej
Wrangled .againft him : And I^uther^ Melantthoth.
T5ucer\thagiMs-> Z^milm^Cdlvin^Mt^c^lus^ Zanchm
were fuch in their times \ and foincdifcernfd them
to be fo, and more did not : If Men rnuft have
gone by the judgment of Rulers ,,pr the m?joi
Vote of Teachers, what had become of the Re«
formation > If you can better dire£V Men how to
'difcern Gcds Gifts and Graces in His Servants, do
it, and? dp hot.cavjl againft it.
As for vour { 0\&e Jingle Proteffani in fuch a caft
t JuJiificatioH]^ ana your [Irpijh h be not your
^ning] Pag- 31 . they deferve no further knfwer 3
I dl the anger y >^:-3 1, 32.3.33.
§. XIX,
9. ^wvv. cm fag. 3^. inotc -^ain, i. mat :r
is not ObjeUive Definitions, (as fome cj// thtrrij
but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] fuppofed to
be Mens needful Ads, which you fay are 21^ the
fame with the Definitum. 2. And that yet j
itiuil have it [fitppofed that ibefe Definitions are
true]. And I iuppoie that few Good Christians
comparatively know a true one, no, norrtrhiti a
Definition, (or the Genus and Differentia which con-
fijtute ?0 * ? *
You fay, £/ abfolutely deny what you fo rajhly
avow, that the Definition of Justification is controver-
ted by the great eft Divines : "this is cm of your libe-
ral Didates i The Reformed Divines are all, I tkznk^
before you, agreed about the nature of Jttfiification^
its'CaufeS) &c. and confequently cannot differ about
the Definition"]*
Anfrv. 1. But what if all Divines were fo ft-
jrreed? So are not all honeji Men and 'Women thar
inuft have Communion with us : Therefore m
not Definitions more necefiary than they are, nor as
fceceffary as the Thing.
2. You muft be confirained for the defending
of thefe words, to come off by faying, that jbxi
meant, That though they agree not in the WjstTs,
or Logical terms of the Definition i but one fiirb,
This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and
another that it is not this but that\ one faith;
and another that is the Formal, or Material Caxjh
&c. yet de re, they mean the* fame thing , WjSc
they fo happy as to agree in their Logical defining
terms and notions I And if you will do in this,
as you have done in your other QVuml", corr.cQif
by fcyin'2 as I fay, and (hewing Men ibt .
S 2
IW)
of Truth, thbugh you do it with never fo mfoeTi
anger, that you waft agree, I (hall be fatisrted, that
the Reader is delivered from your fnare, and that
Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or fay of
me.
3. But becaufe I mud now anfwer what you fay,
and not what I fore fee you will or mttjl fay, I mutt
add, that this paffage fecmech to fuppofe that your
Reader Jiveth in the dark, and hath read very little
of Juftiticafion. 1. Do all thofe great Divines,
who deny the Imputation of Chrijls aftive Rigbte-
enfnefs, and take it to be but Jujiitia Perfon£ y mn
Meriti, and that we are Juftified by the Pajjive only,
agree with their Adversaries, who have written
againft them, about the Definition and Caufes of
Jujlification ? Will any Man believe you> who hath
read OlevianJUrfme, Parens, Scuhetus, Pifcator, Ca-
rolus Molin<eus , Wendeline , Beckjnan, Alftediuj,
Camero, with his followers in France, Forbes, with
abundance more , who are for the Imputation of
the Paflive Righteoufnefs only ? Were Mr. Anth.
IVotton, and Mr. Balmfordy and his other Adver-
farics, of the fame Opinion in this ? Was Mr*
Bradfhatp fo fbttilh as to write his Reconciling
Treatifeof Juftification in Latine and EvgHJh, to
reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while
he knew that there was no difference, fo much as in
the Definition? Was hemiftaken in reciting the great
differences about their Senfes oi Imputation ofCbrifis
Rigbteoufnrfs, if tbere/vere none at all ? Did Mr.
Gataker a^ree with Lucius and Pifcator, when he
wrote againft both (as the extreams) ? Did Mr.
Wotton , and John Goodwin, agree with Mr. G.
Walker, and Mr. Roborough? Doth Mr. Lawful*
( 61 )
in his Tbeopolitica agree with you, and fuch others ?
Doth not Mr. Cartnrigbt herediffct from thofe that
hold the Imputation of the A&ive Righteouf-
nefs >
What abundance of Protejlants do place Juftifi-
:ation only in Foghmfs of Sins ? And yet as ma-
ny ( I know not which is the greater fide) do
make that Forghenefs but one part, and Imputation
f Righteoufnefs another. And how many make
Forgivenefs no part of Justification, but a Concomi-
rant? And many inftcad of [Imputation of Rigb-
y toufnefs~] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the
r akf* or merit of Cbrijis Right eoufntfs imputed"]
viz. as the Meritorious Caufe). And Par£M tells
as, that they are of four Opinions, who are for
Zhrifis Right eouj nefs imputed', fome for the PaJJiie
pnlys fome for the Pa{JjvemdA8tvc% fume for the
Fajjive, Afiive y and Habitual > fome for thefe three
ind the Divine. And who knowcth not that fome
Krefodiftinguiih Caufcs and Erllds, as that cur
Original Sin tor Habitual f.<y fome) is pardoned
[ot Chriffs Original ("and Habitual ] Ho] inc k : Our
Omifftons for C brifis A dive Obedience, and our Com-
wffims for His Pafjive ?■ Or as more fay that Chrifis
?afive Righteoufnefs as 'Satisfaction , favech us
iom Hell or Pun i ft men t, and His Alive as meri-
torious, procurech Life as the reward > When ma-
ly others, reje&ing ch3t Divilion, fay > That both
Freedom from Pnnilhment, and right to Glory are
:he conjunct erfedis of His Habitual, AdHve, and
PaiTive Righteoufnefs, as an entire Caufe (in lis
kind)* as GuiL Forbes , Groiius , Bradjharp , and
others truly fay : Betides that many conclude with
jataker, thai theft are indeed but one thing ar.d
S 3 tCdj
( 62,)
effe<?i% (to be Glorified, and not %o be Damned o%
Punifhed)* feeing not to be Glorified is the P&na
damm, and that the remitting of the whole Penalty
dxmnl & fenfus, and fo of all Sin of Omillion and
Commiffinn, is our whole Justification.
And I need not tell any Man that hath read fuch
Writers, that they ordinarily diftinguifh of Ju-
ftification, and give not the fame Definition of one
fort as of another, nor of the Hame in one Senfe as
in another.
Many confefs (whom you may read in GuiU[
Forbes, and Vine, le Blanck^) that the word \J}hA
ftifie~] is clivers times taken in Scripture (as the;
Papijis da) as including SanUification : And ib\
lYuh Beza again'! Ihjricus, pag. 218. as cited by
Q. Forbes, \ Si Ju\iificationem generaliter accipiasy
ut imerdum nfurpatur ab Apoftolo , San&ificatio no'tt,
erit ejus effeUns^ed pars am fpecies] : And as I find
him (tnihi) pag. ljp. ®htamvis Jujtificationis no~,
men inter dum generaliter accipiatur pro omniillius
Juftitia dono quam a ptatre in Chrifto accipimus y
&c
And how little are we agreed whether Reconci-
liation be a part of J unification or not? Yea, or
Adoption either ? .' Saith Illyricus \jtioc affirmo, re&e
pofle did Jujlificationem ejfe Caujam omnium benefit
riorum Jequentiitm : Nam ]u\tificatio eft plena Recon-
ciliath cum Deo, qu<z nos facit ex hoftibusfiliosDei :~]
To whkh Beza ibid, faith, (dilHnguifhing of Re^
conciliation) Neutro modo idem eft Reconciliaiio ac
Jujiificatio. — Si Remijji.o peccatorum eft Juftificatio-
nis Definition quod negare non aufis, &Cc
Of ihc three forts or parts of Chrifts Righteouf*
. nefs 'imputed to make up three parts of our Juftifica-
tion.
C«3 >
{ion, fee fcim . de PredejU pag. 405. Col 2. which
Perkins and feme others alfo follow.
Olevian (as all others that grofly miftake not
herein) did hold, that God did not judg us to have
fulfilled all the Law in Chrifi *, and that our righ-
teoufnefs confifteth only in the Remillionof $ia>
and right to Life as freely given lis for anothers
Merits : But Beza inilfteth full, on the contrary, and
jn his Epiille to Olevian, (pag^^S.Epiji^sO Caith,
Quid vanius ejl quam Jujlum arbitrariy qui Legem
non impleverit ? Atqui lex non tantum probibet fieri
quodvetat^ verumpr&dpit quodjubet. \ Er-
go qui pro non peccatore cenjetur~in Chrijio, mortem
quidem ejfttgerit > fed quo jure vitam J>r<eterea. petet^
nift omnem jujlitiam Legis in eodem Chriilo impleve-
rut (This is the Dodhine which Won on andG*-
t j^er (in divers Books largely) and Bradjhaw, af-
ter many others do Confuted Yet faith he, Mr-
que vero id objiat^ quominus noftra Juftificatio Remif-
fione peccatorum apte & retle definiatur~] , Which is
a contradiction. Yet was he for Love and Gen-
tlenefs in thefe differences i ibid*
Yet ght. & Refp. Chnji. pag. 670. He leaveth out
Chriils Original Habitual Righteoufncfs, [Nmitla
efientialis qua Deitatis ejl, nee ilia Habitualis^ vt
itahquar^ Puritas Carnis Chrifti. Qu£ qnum
nondijiingueret Ofanderfadijjime eft hallucinates.
And {fad. 670. he givcth us this dticiiption of
Juilification.
Qu. Quid Jufiificationem vocal Paulus hoc loca ?
R. I'tlud quo Jttjli fimus > id eil, eoufque perfect,
integri , ctfA,<e'A7i\oi £ ctfjuo^oi , ut pleniflime, non
tantum aboleatur qnicqitid in nobis totis in -e(i turpi-
fudinif) qua Dtus fumme puxus offend'i uIIq modo
S 4 ?$*>
( 94 )
fofftt,verttm etiam in nos comperiatur qutkquid in hac
humans natters ufque adeo poteft enm delegare, ut
iHud vita £t ems pro bona fits voluntate coronet].
Yet (as in his Annou in %om. 8. 30. & alibi) he
confefftth that Justification in Scripture, fometime
is taken for Santtificafion> (or as including it) fo
hctzkcth our Sarittification to contain the Impu-
tation of Ghrifts Sancflity to us. (Qu. & Refp.
pag. 6ji>) i. Vko noftras Perfonst* imputatsip-
fmsperfeUafanUitate& integritate-> plene fanUas &
integras, acp'rbinde Pdtri acceptas^ non in nobis fed
in'Chrifto cenfemur. • 2. And next the Spirits San-
dHficration Vand thus Chrift is made SanUiftcation
to us. "
• Dr. 'Twifte, and Mr. Femble, Vind. Grat. diftin-
gurlhof Juftiiicatibn as an Immanent Ad in God
from Eternity^ and as it is the notice of the former
irt oijr Conferences : But doubtkfs the commoiiefl:
Definitions of Juftification agr^e with neither of
thefe: And Pemble of Juftification other wife de-
fineth it (*s Mrijeffop faith Dr. fmjfe did).
Lud. Crocks Syntag. pag. iixp'i thus defineth
it, '[faftificdiio Evangelica eft aUus Divih* grati£ y
quaVeus adopt atpecdatotem per ' approbationem obe-
diemi* hegts in fpfflfort toque interceftore Cbrifto y
& per Remijjionerh' ptccatorum ac Juftitia imptttaii-
*nem in eo qui perftdem Chrtfio eft infitHs']. Arid
faith, pag. 1223. [Fides fold juftificat quatenus no-
tat Obediential quandam expeSantem promijjionem
ut dwuMgratHitum-— '& appbnitur illi Obedientia
qu£ non expedat premijjionetn ut donum ommnograiu-
itum fed ut merdedem propofitamfubConditione opens
alicu uz ff&ter acceptations & gratitudinem debit am^
qutfasNatttra in ottini donation* quamvis gratuita
V - ■■ - : ' l ' requiri
( 6% )
reqitirl folet. Et ejufinodi Obedientis peculiariter
opus abApoftolo, & Latiw proprie Meritum dicitur \
& quifub bac condixione obediunt Qperantes vocantnr y
Rom. 4.. 4. & 11. 6* This is the truth which I
aifert.
Conrad. Bergius Prax. CathoL dif 7. pag. £83.
tells us that the Breme Cat chifm thus openeth the
Matter : £Qu. ^nomodo Juftificatur Homo coram
J)e9 ? R. Accipit Homo Remifiionem peccatorum
& Juftificatur^ hoc eft, Gratut fit coram Deo in vera
Converfione, per flam fidenij per Chrijium^ fine pro-
prio Merito & dignitate.
Cocceius difp. de via falut. de Juft. pag. 189.
Original^ Cbrifli Juftitia correfpondtt nojiro Originali
peccato, &c. vid. ccet. plnra lid* de feeder*
Macovw Colleg. de Juftif. diftinguifheth Justifi-
cation into Aftive and Pajjive^ and kith, JujUfica-
tio Attiva fignificat abfolunoncm Dei^ qvtz Hominem
reum a reatu abfohit : And he would prove this
to be before Faich, and citeth for it (abufively)
Par&ws and c f(ffanus > and thinketh that we wero
abfolved from Guilt from Chiifts undertaking our
Debt, Thef. 12. thus arguing, \Cu)us debit* apud
Creditorem aliquis recepit exjuhenda* & Creditor
iiiius fpotffionem ita acceptat, ut in ea acqniefcat y
"ille jam ex parte Creditor]* liber eft adelitU: At que
Eleflorum omnium in fingulari debita apud Deunt
Patrem Cbriftm, ex quo faUut eft Mediator* recepit
exolvenda, & Veus Pater illam Jponfionem acceptavit^
&c. Paflive Juftihcation^which he fuppofeth to be
our application of Chrifis Righteoufnefs to our
felves daily as oft as we offend, fk 5. (And
Part 4. difp. 22. he maintaineth, that 'There are no
Vif
I pafs by.
Spa*berniut Vifput. de Jufiif. faith, that £The
Form of Pajjive Juftificatiou confifteth in the appre-
henfion zndfenfe of RemifTion of Sin and Imputa-
tion of Chrifts Righteoufnefs in capable Subjects]
groily : Whereas Adtive Juftificatiqn (Juftifican-
tit) ever immediately caufeth PaJJive (JuiHficatio-
nem jufiificati) which is nothing but the effedt of
the A&ive, (or as mod call it, AUio ut inpatiente):
And if this were the Apprehenfion and Senfe (as
aforefaid ) of Pardon and imputed Right eoufnefs,
then a Man in his ileep were unjuftified, and fo of
Infants, &c. For hethat is not Paffively juftified,
is not at all juftified*
I told you elfe-where, that the Synopf Leidevf.
de Jujlif. pag. 41 5. fy. 23* faith, That Chrifts
Righteoufnefs is both the Meritorious , Material,
and Formal Caufe of our Ju unification.
What Fayus, and Vavenant, and others fay of
the Formal Caufe, viz. Chrifts Righteoufnefs impu-
ted, I there (hewed: And how Partus, Job.&ro-
dm, and many others, deny Chrifts Righteoufnefs
to be the Formal Caufe.
Wendeline defineth ]uftification thus ( Thepl.
Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603.) Juftificatio eji aftio Vet gra-
tuita , qua peccatores JLletli , maledt&ioni legti cb-
noxii*, propter jujlitiam feu fatisfa&ionem Chrijii fide
applicatam & a Deo imputatam, coram tribunali DzV
vino, remflis peccatis, a maledtWtone Legis abfolvun~
iur & jufti cenfentur. And pag. 615, 616. He
maintaineth that \jObedientia adiva , fi proprie &
accurate loquamur, non eft materia nojlr£ Juftifica-
tionh, nee imputatur nobis> it a ut nofira cenfeatur,
&
^ ®1 )
& nobis propter earn peccata remiiianiur, & debiiur% f
\rgis pro nobis folvatur \ quemadmodum Pafliva per
imputationem cenfetur mftra, &c Etpoft QSi dicws
Chriftum faVxum effe hominem pro nobis, hoc eft, no-
flro bono % conceditur : Si pro nobis, hoc eft, noftro'loco*
negatur : Quod enim Chrijius noliro loco fecit , &
faftus eft, idnos non tenemur facer e & fieri, &c.
Rob. Abbot approver h of Tfbpmpfins Definition
of Evangelical JuitiHcation, (pag. 153.) that it is,
§hta pozuitenn & Credenti remittuntur peccata> &
jus vita <£t.ertt£ concjjkur per & propter Chrifti obe~
dientiamilii impttHmm : (Which is found) taking
Impuiatam foundly, as he doth).
'job. Credits, Difp. 1. p. 5. thus defineth it,
[Actio Dei qua ex gratia propter fatisfaaionem Chrifti
peccatoribus in Chriftum iotius M*ndi redtmptorem
nmcutfUy vere credenilbus gratis fine opcribus aut
meritis propriis omnia peccata remittit, & juftitiam
Chrifti imputat ad fui nominis gloriam & thrum fa-
Intern £ternam. And he maketh only [Cbriftsfullfa-
wfaUion for Sin,to be the Itnpulfive-External, Meri-
torious, and Material Caufe, as being that which is
imputed to us j and the Form of Justification to
be the Remifiion of Sin, Original and Actual, or the
Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs (which he ma-
keth to be all one) cr the Imputation of Faith fit
Righteoufnefs^].
Saith Bi{hopD<?»7Mf»* of juftif. p. 305. [To be
Formally Righteous by Chrifts Righteoufnefs imputed^
never any of us, for ought I hnotv, affirmed' The
like faith Dr. Prideaux, when yet very many Pro-
teftants affirm it*
Should I herefet together forty or fixty Defini-
tions of Protectants verbatim, and (hew you how
much
f 69 )
much they differ, if would be unpleafant, and tedi-
ous, and unneceflary." "
And as to thofe fame Divines that Dr. Tully na ?
meth as agreed, Dr. t>avenants and Dr. Yields
words I have cited at large in my Covfef. faying
the fame in fubftance as I do > as alfo Mr. Scuddcrs,
and an hundred more, asisjbeforefaid.
And let any fober Reader decide this Controycrfie
between us, upon thefe two further Confederations.
i. Perufe all the Corpus Confeffionum^ and fee
whether all the Reformed Caches give us a De-
finition of Juftification , and agree in that Defi-
nition : Yea, whether the Church of England in
its Catechifm, or its Articles, have any proper De r
finition : Or if you will call their words a T>efi*
nitioity I am fure it's none but what I do con&nt
to. And if a Logical Definition were by the Church
of England and other Churches held necejfary to
Salvation, it would be in their Catechifms (it not
in the Creed) : Or if it were held neccifaiy to
Church-Concord, and Peace^and Love, it would be
in their Articles of Religion, which they fubferibe.
i 2. How can all Proteftants agree of the Logical
^Definition of Juftification , when i. They agree
not of the fenfe of the word [Jufiifie^"] and of the
fpecies of that Juftification which Paul and James
fpeakof? Some make Juftification to include Par-
don and San&ification, (fee their woids in G.
ForbeSy and Le Blanl^) \ many fay otherwife. Moft
fey that fanl fpeaketh moft ufually of Juftification
in feafu foren% but whether it include [Making
jtiff] as fome fay, or only [Judging juji] as others,
or Nolle punire, be the ad as Dr. 2W/J>, they agree
not. And fome hold that in James Juftification is
that
< *9 )
that which is cflnzra hominibusy when faid Co be bf
War\^\ but others (m*/y) fay, it is that coram
Veo.
2. They are not agreed in their very Logical
Rules, and Notions, to which their Definitions
are reduced > no not fo much as of the number
and nature of Caufes, nor of Definitionr (as is
aforefaid) : And as I will not undertake ro prove
that all the Apoftles, Evangelifb and Primitive
Patfours, knew how to define Efficient > Material*
Formal and Final Caufes in general, fo I am fort
that all good ChrifHans do not.
3. And when Jujiification is defined by Divines,
is either the A&ns Jufiificantis, and this being in
the predicament of Adion, what wonder if they
difagree about the Material and Formal Ctmftf
ofit>
Nay, it being an Adt of God, there are few Di-
vines that tell us what that Aft is : Ueus operatur
per eJfcHtiam : And Ex parte agentis, his A£s arc
his Efftnee, and all but one. And who will thus
difpute of the Definition and Caufes of them,
Efficient, Materia], Formal , Final ? when I pre-
fumed to declare, that this A& of Justifying is
not an immanent Adc in God, nor without a Me-
dium, but Gods Ad by the Inftrumentality of his
G°fpel-Covcnant or Tromife , many read it as a new
thing* and if that hold true tfoait the Firft Juliifi-
cation by Faith, is that which Gods Gofpei- Dona-
tion is thelnftrumentof, as the Titulus feu Funda-
ntentum Jurti, being but a Virtual and not an A£h>
al Sentence, then the Definition of it , as to the
Caufes, muft differ much from the moil common
Definitions.
But
( 7° )
But moftlProfeftants fay that JujUfcaiion is SVtf-
ientia Judicti. (And no doubt but there are thred
feveral/tfrfj, or Ads called Juftification, i. Condi-
tutive by the. Vouative Covenant ^2. Sentential^. Ex-
ecutive.) And here they are greatly at a Jofs, for the
decifion of ihcCa'Ccfvbai Att of God ihkSententiaJu-
di is. What it will be after death,we do not much dis-
agree ; But what it is immediately upon our believ-
ing. Itmuft bean A£i as in patiente^ or the Di-
vine effence denominated from fuch an effiett. And
what judgment and Sentence God hath upon our
believing, few open, and fewer agreee. Mr. Tomhes
'faith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the An-
gels : But that is not alitor the chief; fome xun back
to an Immanent Ad ; moft leave it undetermined i
A$& Cure the Name of Sentence in general, fignifkth
' ho true Conception ofit at all., in him that know-
eth not what thit Sentence is, feeing Univerfals are
Nothing (out of us) but as they exift in individuals*
TS&r/Latbfon hath faid that wihch Would Reconcile
Proteftants,and fome Papifts, as to the Name, iijs*
that Gods Execution is his Sentence \ He Judgetb by
Executing : And fo as the chief punifhment is the Pri-
vation of the Spirit^ Co the Juftifying Ad:, is the exe-
cutive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we disagreed
about AUive Jufijficaiion (which I have oft eiidea-
Voured Cbnciliatprily fullier to open.)
And as to Tafjive Justification (ox as it is Status.
yujiijicati) which is indeed that Which it co'ncevn-
eth'us in this Controverfie to ope«v I have told you
)iow grotty fome defcribe it here before. And all a-
gree not what Predicament it is in : fome take it to
be in that of AUion\ ut recipitur in pajfo h and fome
in that of Quality and Relation ConjundrBut moft
place
. . . . < 71 ;
place it in Relation *, And will you wonder it all
Chriftian Women,yca or Divines^cannot define that
Relation aright. And if they agree not in the notions
of the Efficient, Material, Formal and Fin J CaufeJ,
of that which muft be defined fas it iscapablej by
its fubjeBum, fundamentum and terminw.
I would not wifh that the Salvation of any Friend
of mine (or any one) fhould be laid on the true Lo-
gical Definition ofjuftification," A&ive or Paffive,
Conftitutive, Sentential or Executive*
And now the Judicious will fee, whether the
Church and Souls of Men be well ufed by this
pretence, that all Proteftants are agreed in th£ Na-
ture, Caufes and Definition of Juftification i and
that to depart from that one Definition (where is
it?)is Co dangerous as the Do&or pretendeth.becaufc
the Definition and the Vefinitum are the fame.
§ XX. P. 34. You fay [Ton tremble not in the cm-
dience of God andMan tofuggeji again that hard-jren-
tedCxilumny^ viz. that I prefer a Majority of Ignorant*
before a Learned man in his own profejjion*
Anfvp. I laid it down as a Rule-, that 'they are not
to T)e preferred : You aflault that Rule with bitter ac-
cufatibns, asifitwere unfound- (orelfc to this day
I underftand you not.) Is it then [a hard-fronttd
Calumny'] to defend it, and to tell you what is con-
tained in the denying of it. 'fhe audience of -God rnuli
be fo dreadful to(you and)rne, that (without calling
you to confider whether theCalumny be not noton-
oufly yours) I heartily defire any judicious per feu
to help me to fee 5 that I am here guiky 3 if k be i"u
you add,
" [Tm
r r J '
, u [Ton knot? not what the Event of all this may be s
** Forfuppofe now.bsing drag*d in my Scarlet^ (a habit
<c more Juit able for him that Triumphs) at the Wheel of
41 your Chariot in the view ofallmenjfhould happen to
** be degraded and turned out of my literate Society \
" would it not trouble you? no doubt: but then it might
41 happen to be too late*
Anftv* i. It would trouble me : becaufe (though
1 know you not)our fame here faith that you are an
bonefl ,and very modejl mankind thofe that areNickna*
med Calvinijis prefer you before mod others of your
rank. But alas, what is Man.and what thay Tem-
ptation do?
5. did yon think that your Scarlet or Majlerfhip
tdid allow you to write copioufly^as you did,againll
your Neighbour who never medled with you, and
triade it a crime in him,whom you accufe,to defend!
himfelf, Jind a irighteous caufe ? I fee in this age wc
deal on hard unequal terms with fome Men that
can but get into Scarlet*
3. You would ixiake your Reader believe by theft
words that you are really Melanchdlly, and fear
whek no fear is. PL Reveierid Do&or>whofe Book
hath the Patronage of one of the greateft Eps« of En-
gland writeth againfiorie of no Academical degree ,
who hath theft 13. years and more been judged
imworthy to preach to the moil: ignorant Congrega-
tion in the Land, and by th£ (Contrived) diftin-
& ion of Nonconformijis from Conformi/is r goeth un-
der the /corn and hatred of fitch, as yoii pretend to
be in danger of, and hath himfelf n6 fecurity for his
liberty in the open Air \ that this Learned man in
his honour ,fhould conceit that an Anfwer from this
hated perfon might endanger his degradation and
turning
turning out of his place, is fo ftrarige a fanciers will
make your Readers wonder.
4. But whether you are MelanchoIIy or no I
know noti but if you are not unrighteous, I know-
not what untighteoufnefs is. Will you bear with the
diver fion of a'ftory ?
When the Moors were fenteiiced to ruin iti Spain,
oneoftheDifciplesof Vdidejfo fa Scholar) fell into
the difpleafure of the Bp. of Toledo: A Neighbour
Dodlor knowing that the Bps. favour might beflead
him . (whether accidentally or contrivedly I
know net) hit upon this happy courfe : The Scho-
lar and he being together inafolemn Convention*
the Scholar was taking Tobacco, and the Dr. feeing
the fmok threw firft a Glafs of Beer in his face* and
eryed Fire, Fire<> The Scholar wiped his face, and
went onjThe Dodor next threw an Ink-bottle in bis
Face, crying ftill Fire, Fireh The Scholar being
thusblackt, perceived that he was like to betaken
for a Moor, and ruined, and he went out and care-
fully wafh'd his face: the Doftbr charged him open-
ly for affronting him fyea and injurkufly calum-
niating him) by the fad: For faith he, there was
neceflary Caufe for what I did : There is no fnloaJ*
without fome fire: that which fired you might next
have fired the Houfe, and that the next Houfe, and
fo have burnt down all the City : and your a&ioit
intimateth as if I had done caufekfly what J i
and done you wrong : The Scholar anfwered hitni
I knew notjSi^thayt was unlawful to wafh mt,but
I will take no more Tobacco that I may no more
erfend you ^ But if in this frofty weather the thick;
ttefs o( my breath (ho\i\& be called fmoal^ may I not
Wafh my face, if vou again call: your Ink upon it I
T No,
( 74)
No, faith theDo&or, It is not you, nor any private
man that muft be judg whether you are on Fire or
not,in a publick danger;Muft theCity be hazard ed,i(
you fay that it is not Fire > The Scholar asketh,
may I not refer the cafe to the ftanders-by, and wafli
my face if they fay, It was no Fire? No, faith the
Dr. that is but to call in your AfTociates to your
help, and to add Rebellion and Schifm to your difo-
bedience; I perceive what principles you are of.
Why then, faith the Scholar, if I muft needs be a
Moor? my face and I are at your mercy.
But pardon this digreffion,and let you and I ftand
to the judgment of any righteous and competent
Judge, whether you deal not with me in notorious
injuffice, fo be ic the Cafe be truly ftated.
The perfon whom you affaulted is one, that at-
tempted (with fuccefs) the fubverfion of Antino-
mianHm and the clearing of truth ; their Ignorance
of which was the Caufe of their other Errours But
having let fall, (for want of ufe in writing) fome
incongruous words ("as Covenant for Law-> &c.)
and that fomewhat often, and fome excepting a-
gainft the Book, he craved their animaverfions,and
promifed to fufpend the Book till it were correded j
and purpofely wrote a far greater Volumn in expli-
cation of what was dark, and defence of what was
wrongfully accufed,and many other Volumns of full
defence : No man arifwereth any of thefe ; but after
twenty years, or thereabout, (though I protefted in
print againft any that would write againft the A-
phorifrns, without regard to the faid Explications)
you publish your Confutation of part of thofe Apho-
v ifms, and that with moft notorious untruth, charg
ing me to deny all Imputation ofCbrijlsRigbtecvfnefsj
when
(75)
when I had there profeft the Contrary, and taking
no notice of any after-explication or defence, ana
parallelling me with Bellarmine^ if not with Here-
ticks or Infidels (for I fuppofc you take the denyers
of all Imputation to belittle better.) This Book you
publifh without the leaft provocation with other
quarrels,dedicating it to that R. Rd. B. who firft fi-
lencedmes (as if I muftgo write over again all
the Explications and Defences I had before written,
becaufeyou (that are bound to accufe me) are not
bound to read them :) and this you do againft one
that at that time had been about 13 years filenced,
ejected, and deprived of all Ministerial maintenance^
andofalmoft all his own perfonal Eftate, defiring
Ho greater preferment than leave to have preached
for nothing, where is notorious neceflity, could I
have obtained it, fometimes laid in the common
Jail among Malefadtors, for preaching in my own
houfe, and dwelling within five miles if it : after fi«
ned at forty pound a Sermon for preaching for no-
thing s looking when my Books and Bed are taken
from me by diftrefs, though I live in conitant pain
and langour, the Constable but yefterday coming
to have diftrained for fixty pound for two Sermons *,
hunted and hurryed about to Jufiices at the will of
any ignorant Agent of that will be an In-
former, and even fain to keep my doors daily lockt,
if it may be to fave my Books a while : Yet the ex-
citing of wroth by public}^ Calumny againUonefo
low already, and under the perfecuting wrath of
your friends^ was no fault, no injustice in you at all !
(nor indeed did I much feel it. )
But for me who am thus publickly by vifibte Ca-
lumny traduced>tru!y to tell you where you miftake,
T 2 and
( 70
and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more
than me,' and if alfo I offer peaceably to wafti my
own face, this is hard fronted Calumny, dragging a
Dodlor in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot-, which
might occafion hti degrading and turning out, &c*
This over- tendernefs of your honour as to other
mens words, (and too little care of the means of it,
as to your own) hath a caufe that it concerneth you
to find out. Had you the tenth part as many Books
written againft you,as are againft me ( by Quakers,
Seekers, Infidels, Antinomians, Millenaries, Ana-
baptifts, Separatifts, Semi-feparatifts,Papifts, Pfeu-
do-Tilenus, Diocefans, Conformifts, and many E-
ncmies of Peace, (to whom it was not I, but your
felf that joyned you) it would have hardened you
into fome more patience. If you will needs be
militant you muft exped replies : And he that will
injuriously fpeak to the World what he (hould not
fpeak, muft look to hear what he would not hear.
But you add.
Sir, the Name and Quality of a V OCT! OK and
Mafter of a Literate Society, might have been treated
more civilly by you*
Anfw. i. I am ready to ask you forgivenefs for
any word that any impartial man (yea or your
Reverend Brethren of that Academy themfelves,
whom I will allow to be fomewbat "partial for you)
fhall notifie to me to be uncivil or any way injuri-
ous. 2. But to be free with you, neither Doftor-
foip, Mafterfhip nor Scarlet will Priviledg you to
fight againft 'truth, Right, and Peace, and to vent
grofs miftakes,and by grofs untruths in matter offaB*
fuch as is yox\x[Omnein ludibrio habet imputationem\
to abufe your poor Brethren, and keep the long-
con*
( 77 )
confuming flames ftill burning, byfalfe reprefenting
thofeas Popi(h,andI know not what, who fpcak
not as unaptly as your (elf, and all this without con-
tradiction. Were you a Bp. my Body and Eft ate
might be in your power, but Truth, Juftice and the
LoveofChrijiians, and the Churches pace, fhould
not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretenfe of re-
verence to your Name and Quality. I am heartily
defirous that for O R D E R-fake the Name and
Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently u-
fed. But if they will think that Errour Jh)ufliee'&xi&
Confuftou muft take fandtuary under bare Ecclefia-
ftical or Academical Names and robes, they will find
theinfelves miftaken : Truth and Honefty will con-
quer when they pafs through Smithfield flames :
Prifons confine them not *, Death kills them not y
No fiege will force an honeft Confcience by fan/
to gjve up. He that cannot endure the fight of his
own excrements muft not difh them up to another
mans Table, left they be fent him back again. And
more freedom is allowed againft Peace-Breaktrs in
Frays and TFars ^thm towards men that are in a qui*
eter fort of Controverfie.
§ XX. P. 36. 37. You fay \Y or your various r
finitions of Justification, Qonftituthe, Sententia
ecutive, inForo Dei, iriforoGopfcivniiJt, &c-
IVhat need this heap of dlftinUions here y when yon
tytow the queftion betwixt us is of no other JujjtificatU
on, but the Constitutive in fro Vei.th.it which ma'--
us righteous in the Court of Heaven ? 1 have nothuf\
do with you yet in anyelje, as your oivn Confcience
tell you when you plea fe : If 'you have not more J*
and civility for your intelligent Readers, 1 wi(h you
X 2 would
<7$)
WQuldjhen? more Gompaffion to your Ignorant Homai,
gets, and not thus abufe them with your palpable Eva^
pons.
Anfw- Doth the gueftion, Whether the feveral forts
of JujUHcation will bear one and the fame Definition*
deferveall thisang^r (and the much greater that
folio wcth)>
i. Seeing I am turned to my Reader, I will crave
his impartial judgment : I nt ver received and agreed
on a iiace of thequeftjor* with this Do&or : He
writeth againft my books : Id thofe Books I over
and over and pver ditiinguifh of Juftification, Con*
jiitutive, Sentential, and Executive (befides thofe
Subordinate fores,by JFitnefs, Evidence, Apologyfoc.)
I oft open their differences: He writeth againft
rne 5 as denying all Imputation of Chrifts Right eoufnefs*
and holding Popifh fufiification byworks^ and never
tells me whether he take the word iJuftification]
in the fame fenfe that I do, or in which of thofe that
I hadopened : And now he paffionately appealeth
to my Confcience that I kpew bis fence : What he
faith [my Confcience will tell me"] it is not true : It
will tell me no fuch thing ; but the clean contrary,
that even after all his Difputes and Anger* and thefe
words, I profefs I know not what he meaneth by
\_Juftification.~]
2. What [Conjlitutive inforo Veijhat which ma-
heth us Righteous in the Court of Heaven] meaneth
with him, I cannot conje^ure. He denyeth not my
Difjin&ions., but faith, what need they : I ever di^
ftingnifhed Making Righteous y Judging Righteous.
Executively ufeing as Righteous : The firft is in our
fives j The fecond is by Divines faid to be inforo
peiy an a 51 of Judgment* the third is upon us after
both:
(79)
both; now he feemeth to confound the twofirfi,
and yet denyeth not their difference*, and faith, he
meaneth [Confiitutive inforo : J He that h.made
Righteous is fuch in fe *, and as fuch is Juflifiable
inforo :] Wc are CMade 'Righteous by God as free
Donor and Imfuter, antecedently to judgment ;
We are in for ofentenced Righteous by God as Judg:
fo that this by fentence prtfuppofeth the forjtoer :
God never Judgethus Righteous and Juftifieth us a-
gainrt Accufation, till he have firit Made us Righteous
and Juftified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and
Donation. Which of thefe meaneth he ? I ask not
my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I,
but his httellizent Reader. He taketh on him to
go the Commoneft way of Proteftants : And the
Commoneft way is to acknowledg that a Conjiitutive
Jujiification, or making the man Jujl, (antecedent
to the Adusforenfis) muff need go firft : but that it
is the fecond which Paul ufiuWy meaneth , which is
the alius forenfis, the fentence of the Judg inforo ,
contrary to Condemnation : And doth the Doctor
think that to make Righteous and to fentence as Righ-
teous are all one ? and that we are made Righteous in
foro otherwife than to bejuft in cur fives ,and To Ju-
ftifiable inforofrtfore the Sentence ? or do Proteftants
take the Sentence to be Confiiiuting or Making us
Righteous ? All this is fuch talk as had I read it in
lAx.Bunnyan of the C6venants\or any of my Ignorant
Homagers, I ihould have fa id, the Author is a fir an-
ger to the Controverfiefinto which he hath rajhly f lunged
himfelf : but I have more reverence to lo learned a
man, and therefore blame my dull undemanding.
3. But what if I had known fas I do not yet)
■what fort of Jufhfication he meaneth ? Doth he not
X 4. know
( 8o )
ktfow ttat I was then debating the Cafe with him^
whether the Logical Definitions of Jujlificationy
Faith, 8cc. are not a work of Art , in which a
few wellftndied judicious Divines ( theie were my
words) are to be preferred before Authority^ or Ma~
jority of Votes. And Reader, what Reafon bound
me to confine this Cafe, to one onlyjm of Ju(lifi~
cation ? And why, (I fay, why) muft I confine it
to z fort which Dr. 'fully meaneth^ ivhenmy Rule
and Book^ was written before hti^ and when to this
day I know not what he meaneth ? Though he
at once chide at my Diftinguifhing, and tell me that
All Proteftants agree in the Nature, Caufes, and
Definition, (and if all agreed, I might know by
other Mens words what he meaneth) yet to all be-
fore-faid, I will add but one contrary Inftancc of
many.
ClutOy in his very Methodical but unfound Idea
*fheoL (fignalized in Voetii Biblioth.) defineth Ju-
ilification fo, as I fuppofe, beft pleafeth the Do-
ctor, viz* [Eft AUio Dei Judiciality quaredemptos
-propter pajfiones juftitU Divina fatifaUorias a Chrifto
fuftenfatM) redemptifque imputatasj a peccatis puros^
& confequenter a points liber os, itemque propter Obe-
diential a Chrifto Legi Divina praftitam redemptif"
queimputatamy jttftitia prtditos-, & confequenter vita
sterna dignos-y ex miferecordta pronunciat\. In the
opening of ^vhkh he telleth us, pag. 243. (a-
gainft multitudes of the greateft Proteilants Defi-
nitions.) [Male alteram fuftificationis partem, ip~
fjm Juftiti'£ Imputationem ftatui , cum Juftificatio
non fit ipfa Imputation fed Pronunciatio qu$ Impu*
Utione-) tanqtiam fmdamento fefto, nititun
["*' ' And
( 8i )
And he knew nofenfeof Juftification, but [Vel-
ipfiim ftntenti& Jnflificatort£ in mekte Vivina pro*
lationem^ five Conjiitutionem, vel ejus in Cordibus
redemptorum manifefiantemRevelationem : And faith,
Priori modo fafium ejlautem omnemfidem, cum Veus
omnes^quibus paffiones & juftitiam Chrijii imputabat*
innocentcs & jujios reputaret, cum ejus inimici^ ade-
oque fine fide ejjent, (To that here is a JuOihcaiion of
Inficiels^as innocent for Chrifts Righteoufnefs impu-
ted to them) : Quare etiam ut jam fafta fide appre-
hendenda eft* The fecond which follows Faith,
is Faith, ingenerating a firm perfwafion of it. Is
not here fad defining, when neither of thefe are the
Scripture- J unification by Cbrifl and Faith ?
And fo §. 32. the time of Juftification by Faith
he maketh to be the time when we receive the feel-
ing of the former : And the time of the former
is prefently after the Fall i of all at once : And
hence gathereth that \JLx eo quod Jujlificatio did-
fur fieri propter paffiones & obedientiam Chrijii. 2 qui*
bus ad perfettionem nihil deeji 3 nobis imputatas
(before Faith or Birth) confequitur innocentiam &
jujlitiam in Kedemptis quam prirnum pcrfeaas & ab
omni macula puras ejfe ] and fo that neither the
pronunciation in mente Vivina , or imputation
ullii gradibus ad perfeciionem exfurgat*
Eut what is this pronunciation in mmte Vivina ?
He well and truly noteth, §. 29. that [Omnes
aUiones Vivim-i fi ex eo <ejiimentiir quod re ipfa in
Deo funty idem funt cum ipfo Deo^ ideoque depen-
dentiam a Caufa externa non admittant : Si tamen
confiderentur quoad rationemformalem bujus vel illius
denominations ijtfis impofit£ in relatione ad Crejtu-
ras confijlentem, ipfis caufa impulfiva affignare pof*
(§2)
funti &c. This diftindtion well openeth, how
God may be faid to juftifie in His own Mind: But
what is that effed, Vnde effentia vel mens Vivina
ita denominator juftificans ? Here he is at a lofs,
neither truly telling us what is Jufticatim Confti-
tutlve, Sentential* nor Executive (but in the little
part of [Feeling] Gods fecret Att) yet this dark
Definer truly faith [Ex fenfu Scripture verijftme
affirmetur hominem -per fidem folam juftipcari > quia
ex noftra parte nihil ad Jnflificationem conferendum
jpeus requirit, quant ut Juftificationem in Chrijio fun-
iatam credamus % & fide non producamus* fed red"
jpiamus.
If yet you would fee whether all Proteftants
agree in the Definition of Justification, read the
multitude of Definitions of it in feveral fenfes >
in Learnrd Alftedim his Veftniu "tbeol. c.i^. §.2.
pag. 97. &c. [Juftificatio bominis coram Deo eft qua
homo in foro Vivino abjolvitur, feu jujius effe evinci-
tur contra quemvis aUorem, Veo ipfo judice^ & pro
eo fcntentiam ferente~\> But what is this Forum ?
Forum Vivinum efi ubi Veus ipfe judicis partes
agitj & fen fententiam fecundum leges afe I at as ?
But where is that Eft internum vel externum ? Fo-
rum divinnm internum eft in ipfa bominis Confcientia,
in qua Veus "thronum juftiti* erigit in hac vita ibi
agendo partes aVtoris & judicis : Forum Conf dentin
(•But it is not tbvs that is meant by the Juftification
by Faith). Forum divinum externum eft % in qua
Veus poft banc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium*
1. Particular, .2. Vniverfale. This is true and
well : But are we no where Juftified by Faith but
in Confcience-y till after Death > This is by not confi-
dering, 1, The Jus ad impunhatem & vitam do-
natum
vatum per fxdus Evangelicum upon our Bdieving >
which fuppofing Faith and Repentance is our Coh-
fiitutive JujUfication, ( virtually only fentential ).
2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life,
pronounced fpecially by Execution. Abundance
of ufeful Definitions fubordinate you may further
there fee in Alftedius, and fome wrong, and the
chief omitted.
The vehement paflfages of the Do&ors Conclu-
fion I pafs over * his deep fenfe of unfufferable Pro-
vocations, I mud leavoitohimfelf^ his warning of
the dreadful tribunal which I am near, it greatly
concerns me to regard : And Reader, I (hall think
yet that his Conteit (though troublefome tome
that was falily affaulted, and more to him whofc
detedted Mifcarriages are fo painful to him) hath
yet been Profitable be\ ond the Charges of it to him
or me, if I have but convinced thee, that i. Sound
mental Conceptions of fo much as is neceffary to our
oven Jujiification , much differ from proper Logical
Definitions : And that, 2 . Many mil liens are Jujii-
fied that cannot define it : 3. And that Logical De-
finitions are Workj of Art more than of Grace, which
require fo much Acutenefs and Slqll, that even worthy
and excellent teachers may be , and are difagreed
about them, efpecially through the great ambiguity of
Words* which all underhand not in the fame fence \
and few are fufficicntly fnfpicious of, and diligent
to explain. 4. And therefore that our Christian
Love, Peace, and Concord, Jhould not be laid upon
fuch Artificial things. 5. And that really the Ge-
nerality of Protectants are agreed moftly in the Mat-
ter, when they quarrel fharply about many Arti-
ficial Notions and Terms in the point of Juitifica-
( B4)
tion. (And yet after all this, I (hall as earnefiljr
as this Dodtor, defire and labour for accuratenefs
in Dillmguifhwg, Defining and ^Method , though
I will not have fuch things to be Engins of Church-
Divilion.)
And laftly, Becaufe he Co oft and earneftly pret
feth me with his Quern quibus, who is the Man>
I profefs I dreamed not of any 'particular CMan i
But I will again teU you whom my Judgment mag-
nifies in this Controverfie above all others , and
who truly tell you how faPPapifis and Proteftants
agree, viz. Vine, le Blaq^, and Guil. Forbes, (I
meddle not with his other Subjetts), Placeus (in
Thef. Salmur.) *Davenant, Dr. Field, Mr. Scud-
der (his daily Walk,fit for all families) Mt.JPbtton,
Mr. Bradfbaw, and- Mr. Gataker, Dr. Prefton, Dr.
Hammond, (Tratt. Cat.) and Mr. L^wp/* (in the
main) Abundance of the French and Breme Divines
are alfo very clear. And though I muft not provoke
him again by naming fome late Englijh men, to re-
proach them by calling them my difciples, I will
venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our
wrangling tedioufnefs,thzt Mr* "trumans Great Profit.
and Mr. Gibbons ferm. ofjujlif. may ferve him well
without any more.
And while this worthy Do&or and I do both
concord with fuch as Vavenant and Field as to Ju-
fiificationby Faith or J^j^,judg whether we differ
between our felves as far as he would perfwade the
World, who agree in tertio ? And whether as he
hath angrily profeft his concord in the two other
Controverfies which he raifed (our Guilt of nearer
Parents fin, and our preferring the judgment of the
wifeft, Sec.) it be not likely that he will do fo alfo
in
(85)
in this>when he hath leifure to read and know what
it is that I fay and hold, and when we both under*
fiand our felves and one another. And whether it
be a work worthy of Good and Learned men, to al-
larm Chriftians againft one another for the fake of
arbitrary words and notionsfwhich one partly ufeth
lefs aptly and skilfully than the other) in matters
wherein they really agree.
2 Tim. 2.14. Charging them before the Lord that
they ftrive not about words Jo no profit , but to thefub-
verting of the Hearers (yet) ftudy tojhew thyfelf ap-
proved unto God j a workman that need not be a]hamed 3
rightly dividing the word of Truth
Two
(%6)
Two Sparks wore quenched^
which fled after the reU
from the Forge of Dr. Tho*
Tully.
Did I not find that fottie Mens Tgno^
ranee and factious ^edoufie is
great enough to make them com-,
buftible Recipients of fuch Wild-
fire as thofe Strictures are 5 and did not
Charity oblige me to do what I have here
done, to fave the afTauked Charity of fuch
Perfons, more than to fave any Reputati-
on of my own* I fhould repent that I had
written^ one Line in anfwer to fuch Wri-
tings as I have here had to do with : I have
been fo wearied with the haunts of the like
Spirit, in Mr, Crandon^ Mr. Bag(haw 7 Mr.
Darners^ and others, chat it is a work I
have
(8 7 j
have not patience to be much longer in, uri-
lefs it were more necefTary.
Two fheets more tell us that the Doftor
is yet angry • And little that's better that
I can find. In the firft, he faith again,
that {J am bujie in fmoothing my way where
none can ftumble in^ a thing never quefti-
oned by him>> nor by any Man elfe 7 he thinks^
who ovens the Authority of the fecond Com-
mandmenf]. And have I not then good
Company and Encouragement not to
change my Mind ?
But, i . He feigneth a Cafe ftated be-
tween him and me, who never had to do
with him before, but as with others in my
Writings, where I ftate my Cafe my felf #
2. He never fo much as toucheth either
of my Difputations of Original Sin , in
which I ftate my Cafe and defend it#
3. And he falfly feigneth the Cafe itated,
in words ( and he fuppofeth in a fenfe) that
I never had do do with : Saying, \l charge
you with a new fecondary Original Sin y
whofe Pe degree is not from Adam : / engage
not a fj liable further^. And pag. 8. | Tom
have averted that this Novel Original Sin
is not derived from our Original Father 5
no line of Communication between them; a
fin be fides that which is derived from Adam,
as
( 88 )
m you plainly and positively affirm]* I ne-
ver faid chat it had no Pedegree^ no line of
Communication^ no kind of derivation from
Adam. 4. Yea 5 if he would not touch
the Difputation where I ftate my Gafe^ he
ihould have noted it as ftated in the very
Preface which he writeth againft 5 and yet
there alfo he totally overlooketh it, though
opened in divers Propofitions. 5. And
the words in an Epiftle to another Mans
Book) which he fafteneth ftill on were thefe 5
[Over- looking the Inter eft of Children in the
Actions of their nearer Parents^ and think
that they participate of no Guilt 7 and fuffef
for no Original Sin, but Adams only]. And
after, [They had more Original Sin than
what they had from Adam]. 6. He tells
me, that \l feem not to under ft and my own
(^ueftion, nor to know well how to fet about
my Work]* and he will teach me hoW (
to manage the Bujinefs that I have un~
der taken , and fo he tells me how I
MUST ftate the Queftion hereafter, (fee
his words). Reader, fome Reafons may
put a better Title on this Learned Do&ors
actions ; but if ever I write at this rate,
I heartily defire thee to caft it away as
utter DISHONESTY and IM-
PUDENCE/
M
It troubleth me to trouble thee with Re-
petitions. 1^ hold, I. That Adams Sin
is imputed (as I opened) to hR Po;ierity.
2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains
nature received from Adam, was the dif-
pofitive endining Caufe of all his Adual
Sin : 3. But not a neceffitating Caufe of
all thofe AdS 5 for he might poffibly have
donelefs evil and more good than he did.
4. Therefore not the total principal Caufe *
for Cains free-rviil was fart of that. 5 . Caws
actual Jin increased the pravity of his na-
ture. 6. And Cains Poferity were (as I
opened it) guilty of Cains actual Jin • and
their Natures were the more depraved by
his additional pravity 5 than they would
have been by Adams (in alone (unlefs Grace
preserved or healed any of them).
The Dodtor in this Paper, would make
his Reader believe that he is [for no meet.
Logomachies'] and that the difference is not
in words only^ but the thing. And do you
think that he differeth from me in any of
thefe Propofitions, or how this fin is deri-
ved from Adam i Yet this now muft be the
Controverfie de re.
Do you think (fori muft go by thirihin
that he holdeth any other Derivation than
this i Or did I ever deny any of this >
( 90 )
But it is vain to ftate the Cafe to him :
He will over- look it, and tell me what I
jhould have held;, that he* may not be
thought to make all this Noife for no-
thing.
He faith pag 8. {If it derive in a direct
line from the fir ft Iranfgreffion, and have its
whole Root fajlened there jwhat then* why then
fome words which he fets together are not the
bejl fenfe that can be fpoken. It is then but
words, and yet it is the thing: What he
may mean by £a direct Line% and what
by [whole Root fastened] I know not ; but
I have told the World oft enough what I
mean 5 and what he meaneth, I hav£ little
to do with.
But if he think, i . That Adams Perfon
did commit the fin of Gain, and o£ all that
ever were fince committed ; and that Ju*
d&shisacl, was Adams pergonal act. %• Or
that Adams Jin was a total or necejjitating
Caufe of all the evil fince committed; fo
do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And -
now I am caft by him on the ftrair, either
to accufe him of differing de re, and fo of
Doctrinal errour, or elfe that he knoweth
not when the difference is dere y and when
de nomine^ but is fo ufed to confufion, that
Names and Things do come promifcuoufly
into
( pi )
into the Queftion with him: And which
of thefe to chufe, 1 know not.
The Reader may fee that I mentioned
fcAtfual Sift, andGuilf\ : And I think few
Will doubt 5 but Adams [Actual fin, and
Cains^ were divers • and that therefore,
the Guilt that Cains Children had of
Adams (in and of Cains was not the fame:
But that Cauja caufe is Caufa caufati^ and
fo that all following Sin was partly (but
partly) caufed by Adams > we ihall focn
agree.
He addeth that I mud make good that
new. Orioinal Sin (for he can make ufe of
the word New , and therefore made ir)
doth mutare naturam^ as the Old doth. Jnj.
And how far it changethit^ I told him, and
he taketh no notice of it : The jir ft fin
changed Nature from Innocent into Koccnt ;
the Second changeth it from Noceni triiv
-more Nocent : Doth he deny this t Or why
muff I prove any more i Or doth nothing
but Cbnfufion pleafe him <
3. He faith, I muft prove that the De-
rivation of Progenitors Jins is conftant and
neceffarv, not uncertain and contingent.
Jnf. (if this alfo I fully (aid what I held,
and he diffemblem it all, as if I had never
done it : And *hv muft I prove more i
'v z £y
K 91 )
By what Law can he impofe on me whaf:
%o hold**
But really doth he deny that the Re at us
$ulf<z^ yea and ad la?nam 7 the Guilt of
nearer Parents lins is n'cejfartly and cer-
tainly thtGhilds^ thoug; Urace may far don
it? If he do not, tfhy doth he call on ra^
to prove it i If he do confefs the Guilty
and deny it necejfary^ when will he tell us
what is the Contingent uncertain Ca»fe i For
we take a 'Relation (Tuch as Guilt is) neceffa-
yily to refult apfitofundamento*
§• %. He next cavilleth at my Crtati*
qns^ about which 1 only fay > either the
Reader will perufe the cited words^ and my.
words ^ which /hew to what em I cited them
(to prove our Guilt of pur nearer parents
fins) or he will not. If he will not, I can-
not expeft that he will read a further Vindica-
tion : If he will, he peedeth not*
j,
§. 3. His fecond Spark is Animadver-
Jians on a fheet of mine, before mentioned,
which are fuch as I ana not willing to med-
dle with 5 feeing I cannot either handle
them., or name them as the nature of them
doth require, without offending him : And
jf what is here faid fof Imputation and JRf-
v ^5 /
presentation) be not enough, I will add no
more, nor write over and over ftill the fame
things, becaufe a Man that will take no
notice of the many Volumns which an-
fwer all his Objections long ago, will call
for more, and will write his Animadverfions
upon a fingle Sheet that was written on an-
other particular occafion, and pretend to
his difcoveries of my Deceits from the Sir
knee of that Sheet 7 and from my naming
the Antinomians.
1 only fay, i. If this Mans way of Dif-
puting were the common way, I would ab-
hor Disputing) and be afhamed of the
Name.
2. I do friendly defire the Author of the
friendly Debate, Mr. Sherlock, and all o-
thers that would fatten fuch Do&rines on
the Non-GonformifiS} as a Character of the
J? arty i' to obferve that this Do<5W fuffici
ently confuteth their partiality ; and that
their Academical Church- Dodors, are as
Confuted, as Vehement maintainers of fuch
exprefifions as they account moft unfavoury,
as any even of the Independents cited by
them : Yea 5 that this Doctor would make
us qneftion whether there be.now znyAntino-
mians among us 5 and fo whether all the Con-
formifts that have charged the Conformifts,
yea, '
( 94 /
yea or the Sectaries > with having among
them Men of fuch unfound Principles, have
not wronged them, it being indeed the Do-
ctrine of the Church of England which they
maintain^ whom I and others calljlntino-
mians and Libertines : And I hope ^t leaft
the fober and found Non-Gonformifts are
Orthodox^ when the vehementeft Sectaries
that calumniated my Sermon at Tinners
Hall, are vindicated by fuch a Do&or of
theGhurch.
3 . I yet conclude, that if this One Mans
Writings do not convince the Reader, of the
Sin and Danger of Aliarming ChrifUans a-
gainft one another, as Adverfaries to great
and necefTary Do&rines, on the account of
meer Words not underjlood^ for want of accu-
ratenefs and skill in the expreflive Art, I
take him to be utterly unexwfeMe .
Pemble Vind. Graf, p, 25. It were fomewbat if it
were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burtbsn >
where many weak^Men may bear that which One or few
cannot: But in the fe arch of Knowledge it fares as
in dif crying a thing afar off j where one quick- fight
will fee further than a thoufand clear Eyes.
F I JA£ I S,
75
fmmmmmmm
A
POSTSCRIPT.
ABOUT
Mr. DA^VE^s
Laft BOOK.
WHen this Book was coming out of the
Prefs, I received another Book of Mr*
Qapvers againft Infants Baptifm, in
which he mentioneth Dr. Tallies fro-
t/lflg what a Papiftlam, in his Juftif. Paul, (with
Dr. Pierces former Charges) arid lamenting that
no more yet but one Dr. Tally hath come forth to
'Encounter rnc^ Epift. and Pag. 224. The perufal of
that Book ("with Mr. Tombs (hort Refledions) diV
re^eth me to fay but this intfead of any further
Confutation.
That it is (as the former) fo full of falfc Alle-
gations fet off with the greateft Audacity (even a
few Lines of my own about our meeting ar Sainc
James's left with the Clerk, grofly falsified) anct
former falfifications partly juftified , and parriy
part over, and his mod paffionate Charges grou-d-
F
74 3t ^oftfcript about
ed upon Miftakes , and managed by Mifreports* j
fometime of Words-, fometime of the Senfe* and ■
fometime of Matters of Faft > in fhort , it is ,
fuch a bundle of Miftake* Fiercenefs and Confidence* \
that I take it for too nfelefs and unpleafant a Work j
to give the World a particular Detection of thefc j
Evils. If I had fo little to do with my Time as
to write it, I fuppofe that few would find leifure
to read it : And I defire no more o,f the willing
Reader, then ferioufly to perufe my Book (More
Keafons for Infants Chitrch-memberjhip) with his,
and to examine the Authors about whofe Words
or Senfe we differ. Or if any would be Informed
at a cheaper rate, he may read Mr. 'Barrets Fifty
Queries in two (beets. And if Mv.Tornbes revile ]
me, for not tranferibing or anfwering more of
his Great Bool^* when I tell the Reader that I fup-
pofe him to have the Book before him* and ani not
bound to tranferibe fuch a Volume already in
Prinr, and that I anfwer as much as I think needs
an Anfwer, leaving the reft as I found it to the
Judgment of each Reader , he may himfelf take
this for a Reply > but I muft judg of it as it is.
I find but one thin^ in the Book that needeth any
other Anfwer, than to perufe what is already Writ-
ten : And that is about Baptizing Naked : My
£ook was written i6* r p\ A little before* common
uncontrolled Fame was* that wot far from us in one
place many of them were Baptized na^edy reproving
the Cloathing way af Antifcriptura! : I never heard
Man deny this Report : I converted with divers of
Mr. tombes's Church, who denied it not : As ne-
ver any denied it to me* fo I never read one that did
deny it to my knowiedg : He now tells me Mr.
Fijhet t
$0t. Dan ver's fctft 2I500&* 7?
Tifoer, Mr. Haggar^ and Mr. Combes did : Let any
Mao read Mr. T'ombes Anfvver to me, yea and that
Paffage by him now cited, and fee whether there
be a word of denial : Mr. Fifher or Haggar 1 never
faw : Their Books I had ieen*, but never read
two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. Fifhers,
though I numbered it with thofe that were writ-
ten on that Subject, as well I might : I knew his
Education and his Friends, and I faw the Great
Volume before he turned Quaker, but I thought it
enough to read Mr. 'tombes and others that wrote
before him, but I read not him, nor all Mr. Wg-
gars: If I had, I had not taken them for compe-
tent Judges of a fad far from them ? and that
three years after : Could they fay, that no one ever
did fo ? The truth is that three years after, mifta-
king my words, as if I had affiimed it to be their
ordinary praUice (as you may read in them) which
I never did, nor thought, they vehemently deny
this: (And {ach he edlefs reading occafioneth many*
of Mr. Danvers AccufationsJ. I never faid that
no Man ever denied it j for I have not read all that
ever was written, nor fpoken with all the World :
But no Man ever denied it to me, nor did I ever read
any that denied it. And in a matter of Fa&, if that
Fame be not credible, which is of things Late and
Near, and not Contradicted by any one of the m Ji
interejfed Perfons themfehes, no not by Mr. T'ombes
himfelf, wemuft furceafe humane Couverfe : Yet
do I not thence undertake that the fame was true,
either of thofe Perfons, or fuch as other Writers
beyond Sea have faid it off. I faro not any ore Bap-
tized by Mr. T'ombes or any other in River cr die-
[Where by Dipping at Age : If you do no fuch %lm§%
F 2 I
7A £ ^oftfcript about I
1 am forry that I believed it, and will recant it° J
Had I not feen a gjtyaker go nakec( through JVorce-
fieratthc Aflizes, and read the Ranters Letters full
of Oathes, I could have proved neither of them.
And yet J know not where fo long after to find my
Witnefles t I abhor Sjanders, and receiving ill Re-
ports unwarrantably : I well know that this is not
their ordinary Practice : The Quakers do not thofe
things now, which many did at the rifing of the
SecSti and if I could, I would believe they never
did them.
2. This Book of Mr. Vanversjwith the reft of the
fame kind, increafe my hatred of the Vifputing Con-
tentious way of writing, and my troublie that the
Caufe of the Church and "truth hath fo oft put on
me a neceffity to write in a Difputing way, againft
the V^ritings of fo many Aflailants*
3. It increafeth my Grief for the Cafe of Man-
Irind, yeaof well-meaning godly Chriftians, who
are unable to jiidg of many Controverfies agitated,
otherwife than by fome Glimpfes of pocr Probabili-
ty, and the efteem which they have of the Perfons
which do manage them, and indeed take their Opi-
nions upon truft from thofe whom thf'y moft reve-
ience and value \ and yet can fo hardly know whom
to follow, whilft the groffeft Miftakes are fet off
with as great confidence and holy pretence, as the
greateft Truths. Q how much (hould Chriftians be
jpitied, that muft go through fo great Temptations !
4. It increafeth my RefoJution, had I longer to
|ive, to con verfe with Men ' that I would profit? or
profit by, either as a Learner hearing what they have
to fay, without importunate Contradiction, or as
a 'teacher tf they delire to Learn, of me : A School^
1 J '•' ; r : * -; ' ' ■ - - • •* ' way
£Pt% Danver's iatt BOOR. 77
way may do fomething to increafe Knowledg *
but drenching Men, and Jiriving with them, doth
but fee them on a fiercer driving againfi the Truth;
And when they that have need of feven and feven
years Schooling more, under fome clear well ftudicd
Teacher, are made Teachers thtmfelves, and then
turned loofe into the World (as Sampfons Foxes)
to militate for and with their Ignorance, what tLuft
the Church Tuffer by fuch Contendeis ?
5. It increafeth my diflike of that Sectarian di-
viding hurtful Z^al, which is defcribed James 3.
and abateth my wonder at the rage of Periecntors :
For I fee that the fame Spirit maketh the f*me kind
of Men, even when they moft cry out againft Perffe-
cutors, and feparate furtheii from them.
6* It refolveth me more to enquire lefs after the
Anfwers to Mens Booty than I have done : And I
(hall hereafter think never the worfe of a Mans
writings, for hearing that they are anfwered ; For
I fee it is not only eaiie for a talking CM an to tall^
QH-i and .to fay fomething for or againji any thing, but
it is hard for them to do otherwife^ even to hell
their "tongues , or Fens , or Peace : And when I
change this Mind, I muft give the greateft belief tA
Women that will talk moil, or to them that live
longeji, and fo are like to have the laft word, or to
them that can train up militant Heir* and Succel-
fors to defend them when they are dead, and fo
propagate the Contention. If a fober Confidcra-
tion of the firfl and fecond writing fyea of p fu he
Principles) will not inform me, I (hall have littfc
hope to be much the wifer for ail the reft.
7. I am fully fatished that even good Men are
here fo far from Petfe^ion, that they puft bear
'• ■ witli
73 % #oftfcttpt about
with odious faults and injuries in one another,
and be habituated to a ready and eafie forbearing
and forgiving one another* I will not fo much as
defcribe or denominate Mr. Darners Citations of
Dr. Fierce, to prove my Popery and Crimes, nor
his paflages about the Wars, and about my Chan*
ges , Self-oontradi&ions , and Repentances , left
I da that which favoureth not of Forgivenefs; O
whff need have we all of Divine Forgivenefs !
8. I (hall yet lefs believe what any Mans Opinion
(yea or Practice) is by his Adverfaries Sayings,
Collettionsj Citations, or moft vehement Aftevera-
tions, than ever I have done, though the Report-
ers pretend to never fo much Truth, and pious
■Zeal,
p. I (hall IeYs truft a confounding ignorant Reader
or Writer, that hath not an accurate defining and
difiinguijhing Underftanding, and hath not a ma-
ture, exercifed , discerning Knowledg than ever I
have done \ and efpecially if he be engaged in a
Se& (which alas, how few parts of the Chriftian
World efcape ! ) For I here (and in many others)
fee, that you have no way to feem Orthodox with
fuch, but to run quite into the contrary Extream :
And if I write againft both Extreams, I am taken
by fuch Men as this, but to be for both and again(h
both, and to contraditl my felf When I write a-
gainft the Per(ecutors, I am one of the Sectaries,
and when I write againft the Se&aries, I am of the
Perfecutorsfide : If I belie not the Prelatifts, I am
a Conformift ; If I belie not the Anabaptifls, In-
dependants, &c. I am one of them : If I belie not
the Papifls, I am a Papift V if I belie not the Ar-
menians, Jam an Aminian > if I belie not the Cal-
• yinijls
$)r* Dan ver's foft 1B00k; 7 9
vinilh-, I am with Pfeudo-Tilenw and his Brother,
pwus putus ?nritanus y and one Qui totum Purita-
nifmumtotus fpirat (which Jofepb Allen too kindly
interpreted) • If I be for lawful Epifcopacy, and
lawful Liturgies and Circumftances of Worfljip , I
am a temporizing Conformijl: If I be for no morejmx
an intollerable Non-Conformift (at this time forced
to part with Houfe, and Goods, and Library, and
all fave my Clothes, and to poifcfs nothing, and
yet my Death (by fix months Imprifonment in the
Common Goal^ is fought after and continually ex-
pected. If I be as very a Fool, and as little under-
stand my felf and as much contradiU my felf as all
thefe Confounders and Men of Violence would havs
the World believe,it is much to my cofl, being hated
by them all while I feek but for the common peace.
10. But I have alfo furthetr learned hence to take
up my content in Gods Approbation , and (having
done my duty, and pitying their own and the Peo-
ples fnares) to make but fmall account of all the
Reproaches of all forts of Se&aries * what they
will fay againft me living or dead , I leave to
themfelves and God, and (hall not to pleafe a Cen-
forious Sect, or any Men whatever, be falfe to my
Confcience and the Truth : If the Caufe I defend
be not of God, I defire it may fall: If it be, I
leave it to God how far He will profpet it 5 and what
Men (hall think or fay of me : And I will pray for
Peace to him that will not hate and revile me for
fo doing. Farewell.
Septemb. 4.
U75,
F I N I S.
TVNews
OpenLibrary