(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

Full text of "Of justification : four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth, against the unnecessary oppositions of divers learned and reverend brethren"

■p-RT-Nrn'RT'msr "kt t ™* 


Collection of Puritan Literature. 




777 2fr 

* 3 


Of Juftification: 



Clearing and amicably Defending the 
Truth, againft the unnecefTary Op- 
pofitions of divers Learned and Re- 
verend Brethren. 

j ^ 

"By ^cbard'Baxter, 

A fervant of Chrift for Truth and Peace- 

JOHM 3.18,19. 
He that Btlievtth on him % is not condemned : but hi that beluvtth not 
U condemned already • becaufe he hath not believed in the Name of 
the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation % that Light 
is come into the world, and men loved darknefs rather then Light , be* 
cattfe their deeds were evil. 

Dr.Twi/s> Vindic.Grat.tit.i.part.s.pag. (Vol.min.) J 02. 

X Vcrum in diverfo genere ad Juftitiam Dei refcrtur Cbrifti fatif- 
faftio, & fides noftra : Chrifti fatisfadio ad eandem refertur per 
modum,meriti & condignitatts ? noftra vero fides ad eandem re 
ferturduntaxacpermodumcongruxdifpoficionis. J «£D 

Printed by /?. W . for Nevil Simmons Bookfellerin Kederminfter % and 
arc co be fold by him there ; and by Nathaniel Skint, at the Gun 
in Pauls Cburch-Yard. 1658. 

The Preface. 



' » ' F 

Cbriftian Readers, 

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

A 3 about 

The Prefaced 

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

The Preface, 

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

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


The Preface. 

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

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

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


The Preface. 

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

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

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

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

The Preface- 

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

The fourth Dif put at ion was added \becaufe it is the ve- 
ry heart of our Cont rover fie, which mo ft of our Difputes ■* 
about the infirumentall Caufality of Faith as to $ufttfi± 
cation, and the other Concomitant ,are refolved into. 

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

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

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

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

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


The Preface. 

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

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

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

7. Though our Phyfical Communion withe bri ft is ef- 
fected by a Phyfical change on the foul •, yet our Right to 
him and to ^ufiification, and other following benefits is 
the effeft of a free Gift, or Tefiament , or Promife, and 
that Promife or free Gift is our Title jvhich is Fundamen- 
tum juris, or the efficient Infirumentalcaufe. 

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

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

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

(ai) of 

The Preface. 

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

1 1 . Chrifts pardon and life are given by this Gofpel- 
Fromife on condition of our faith in Chrift, that is , if we 
become Believers in Chrijl - 7 or Chriftians - y which is, if 
m accept cf Chrift as offered in the Gofpel, and that is, to 
bring us from our fins and f elves to God>bythc atts of his 
teaching, Prieflly, andjCingly office • Or, if we believe 
inChrtft as Chrift. So that it is not any one jingle act 
of Faith that is the condition of purification : nor are the 
fever al Benefits of Chrift given us on condition of fever al 
affs of Faith -, as if we had Right to pardon by one aft, and 
to Chrift himfelfby another, and to adoption by another ; 
and to Heaven by another, &c. Nor have the fever al afis 
of our faith as divided an Inter eft in procurement of the 
Benefits as Chrifts aBions had: But it is one and the fame 
entire faith in Chrift as Chrift, that is the condition of all 
thefe confequent fire rial Benefits • without divifion in the 
procurement. So that the Belief in Chrift as our Tea* 
cher and King hath as much hand in our fuftification^ as 
believing in him as Vrieft % it being the backwardnefs of 
nature to the acceptance of Chrifts Government and Do- 
tfrine, that is afpecial Reafon why faith is made the con- 
dition ofthM pardon, which Nature is not jo backward to 

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


The Preface . 

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

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

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

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

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

(as ) 17. T6« 

The Preface. 

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

18. purification at judgement , being the Adjudg- 
ing us to Glory, hath the fame conditions as G lor if cat ion 
it [elf bath. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. 7bis 

The Preface. 

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

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

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

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

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

By theft unwarrantable Definitions, and DinincJions, 

and i 

The Preface. 

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

— fc*s 

The ' 

The C o n t e t s. 

Diftutat'wn i. 


liether we are jufiifiei by 
believing in Jefm Chrift as 
our King and Teacher , at 
well as by believing in hie 
blood t jiff, pag I. 

The ft ate and weight of 
the Contr over fit. p. 2 , &c. 

Ten Propofitionsfor fuller explication, P« 10, &c. 

Argument firft. p. 13 

Argu. 2. p. 14 

Argu.3. p. 19 

Argu.4. p. 24 

Argu.5. * p.27 

Argu. 6* p. 28 

Argu. 7. p.30 

Argu.8. p.31 

Argu.9. p. 3 5 

Argu. 1 a p.38 

defended again ft Mr. Bilk's affault. p.4 o 

Whether the LaV? of Grace condemn any, and how. p.44.45 
The Difitntlion of fides qua juftificat,^ qua julttficat confider- 
ecL f^t&c. 

(b) Mr. 

The CoNTENt & 

Mr. BUksfirft Argument anfftered* p. j 3 

Argument 2. anf veered, p. ^ 5 

Argument 3. p. 57 

Argument 4. p.63 

Argument 5. and6. $.6$ 

Difputation z. 

WHetloer Veorkja'e a condition of condition of 
fufiification 3 andfo whether we are jufti- 
fied by works as fitch a condition t 
The terms [ Work* and fufiification ]] explained, p.70 ,71 
The Term Condition explained. p.72 

The Truth laid do Vvn in fetter al Proportions. p.75 

Negative and Affirmative 
The main Propofition proved. P-79j -&C, 

Queft. Can Chrift be Itftrumental in juflifying. p.84. 

Que ft, DJ Chrifi expiate the fin s y that by the G off el men are 
obliged to pHnifhment for ? p. 86 

Of Repentance, and the hub it of Faith in fufiification, p. 85, 


Queft. Doth the Gofptl jufiifie mi p.86,87,88,89 

Other point: briefly difcujfed. p 90 

The Opponents fiating of the Jguefiion. p. 94,9.5 ,96 

Divers unjufl charges repelled. • P.97.CO 101 

The Opponents Tljefis and Arguments . p. 101,1 02 

Hoty Abraham "to as juftified, debated to p. 1 1 o 

All Worlds make not the Reward to be not of (jr ace y proved by 

fix Arguments* p. 1 1 1 ,to 1 1 5. And by Expo* 

fitors. p. 1 1 5,^. 

Hisfecond Argument front the difference put between faith and 

other Graces in J unification, p, 1 r8 

The cafe of faiths Interefi opened bf a fimiliiu\e. p. 120 

Fits third Argument confidered : Our fir ft Justification koto 


TheC ON T t E N TS. 

different from the following. p. 122,123 

Bis fourth 'Argument of ft If Right 'eoufiefs and cat* fat condi- 
tion*. p.n4,^. 
His Fifth Argument^ Works are the fruits, therefore not the 
condition. p. 1 28 
His ftxth Argument. p 1 3 2 
Hisfeventh Argument* Of a twofold Righteoufnefs or 
Juft if cation, p 1 33 
His eight Argument that cannot be a condition of Jufltfi cation^ 
which it f elf needeth f unification, p. 1 36 

Tauljudgeth them dung. P 14° 

How juftify'ng faith belongs to the L*w>./m4 the difference be- 
tween the L^o ar.d C of pel. \J ,J p r 4 2 
More of Chrifts fuffiring for the violation of the neto C ove- 
nar.t. p. 1^6 
Hi* r . rt 'h Argument^ we fill mex ftitb dcubts. p. 1 47 

His tenth Argument. p. 1 49 

Of the reconciling of Paul and James, p t $o.&c 

Letters that pafi between tkls Reverend 'Brother and me. p. 157 
In which « difcuffed the Argument from Abrahams f unifica- 
tion, esfnd in tke Ufi Letter thefe a^ft-.or.s. 

3 . Whether Faith be ftffve i.. ^umentzHtj. 

4. Whether the OproneKti ctfyrCi 
Jnftruments of fujlipcatio;;; i 

<r Whether Faith be a pre;. 


6. Queflion. If Faith be an l>ftrument\ fihtiher it yifl.fie 

primarily and proxime as fuch,or as an apprehenfion oj Ch iff 

or Righteoufnefs. P-2I4 

.Wjftion, Which it the more clear Jafe and certain Dotlrine. 

p. 220 
Reptmance, whether excluded. p .227 

di) Of 

TheCoNTEN : -tS. 

Of Faith relative!} taken, p,228 

Of the Affemblies Definition of faith. P« 2 3Q 

The Judgement of jome Oivines. p»*33,C0v 

whether a djing man may look, on his own A&$ asthtfindi- 

tiontof the Covenant performed. ty*^i.&c 

Further Explications. p.244.tfv f 

Difputation 3 . 

Whether <Befides the Righteonfneft 
of Chrifi imputed, there be a per- 
fontl evangelical Right eoufnefs ne? 
ceffary to f unification and Salvation ? AfiSr. p 2 y 9 

DiftinHions and Proportions Negative and Affirmative for ex- 
plication* p.260iCfa 
Troved. p 266 
Objections anfatred. p.2<59 , &e. 
Mr. Warner's Arguments confuted. P^7S 

to 22$ 

Mr. Warner's 1 3 th chap* confuted about Juftiftc*tien % and the 
Intereft of Obedience, &c. p.*86 r 

Mafter Warner's Arguments an fiver ed, bj which he Would 
* exclude Chrifi as King, &C. from being tbeOb)e£t ofjufti* 
f tying faith, p. 293 . &e. 

ether chief fafftgetinbu Bookftnfidtrei' f-105,&c. 

Hit diftin&ian of fides quae & qua. p.£°8><£*« 

Hit Preface an/Wered in an £ fifth. p. 1 i J 


The Contents. 

MR. John Tomb^a , his friendly Animadverjlons on 
m) Aphorifms, w.lha Difcuffion of them. p. 3 2 s 
jufilfication in LawMtle-by tbtTromife fully vin- 
dicated* P- 3 3 *,<#•<:, 
Whether fuftification be a continued Aft, or but one All. p. 341 


Whether Faith comprize Love., Subjeftion or other graces ; at 

large. P-MS^&c.- 

Whether Faith be only in the Intellects alfo in theWtll. p. 3 J4, 

ffsftifying Faith receiveth Chrifi at Lord, &c. p.358 

ft is Faith, and not only Love , or other Graces, by which the 
Will receiveth Chrifi, P- 3 6 1 , &C. 

The Qojpel is a Law. p #3 69,&c. 

Repentance neceffary to fuftification* p. 3 7o>&c. 

How Faith juftifietb. p. 3 77 

Whether Chr iji had a Title on Birth to Rule. p. 3 79 

Of Chrifts univerfal Dominion and Redemption. p. 3 80 

More of the f unification by the Go/pel- Promife . p. 3 84 

Of Preparatives to fuftification. p. 3 87 

What Paul excludeth as oppofite to faith in J uftifi cation, p. 3 9 1, 

Of Intercifion, of fuftification, and thi guilt of particular fins. 


Deputation 4. 

W- Httber the Faith which Paul oppofeth to 
works in f unification 9 be one only Phyfical 
All of the Soul ? Or, Whither all Hu- 
mane Alts* except one Phyfical Atlof Faith* be the works whch 
Paul exctudethfrom f unification ? Neg. P«399 

The Qutftion opened: send its proved that this Faith is not one on* 


ly A El. I, Either Numerically, 2* Or of an inferior G Unus \ 
jo at to be of one only Faculty y Nor only God the Father] 
Chrifl % TromifeiFardonfleavenfiictbe Objetf. 3 I Nor m 
fpecie fpeciclifljme, froved by m**y Arguments. 

E g R A TA. 


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

» ^^l£^^««^ 



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

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

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

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

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

B clear 


-dearRefolution, and the Confirmation thereof , and the Con- 
futation of the contrary conceits. 

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

B 2 tfcer 


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

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

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

" a* 


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

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

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

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

B 3 


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

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



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

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



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

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

. by 


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

C and 


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

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

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

And here I need but to rehear fe what I have faid already to 
Mr. Blakf, pag. 3 . 4. or to give you fome (hort account of my 
thoughts to the fame purpofe. 

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

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

Thirdly, We muft diftinguifh between our firft Juftificati- 
on from a ftate of fin, and our daily Juftification from particu- 
lar Ads of fin. 

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Qi exciting 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 3 bclievcth 


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Object, h u not J fifi ifi cation but Salvation that it there pro- 

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



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

Secondly, fohn 3. 15 16, t8. He that believethin him [hill 
not ftrijby but have ever I a ' ing life.'] 'He th*t btiieveth on htm is 
net condemned."] Not to be condemned, is to be j'ftifi d. Con- 
demnation find Juftification are oppofed in Scripture., Rom. 8. 
35 ,4. Here therefore a favingh\i\\ and a juftif Ug are made 
all one. And itis£ Believngin Chrift } without execution of 
any effential part, that is this faith ; It xsJ^Believing in the Name 
of the only begotten Son of God. \ ver. 1 8- which is more then to 
believe his Ranfom. 

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

Fourthly, #<?», 1.16,17,1 8. lamnota[hamedoftheGofpelof 
Chrift 1 for it is the power of God to [alvation to every one that be- 
lieveth for therein is the Righteoufnefs of Qod revealed from 

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

D If 


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

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

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



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

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

I prove the Antecedent by many Texts. 

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

D 2 for 


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

Rom.** 24>2 5 • C But for U6 alfo % to Whom it /hall be imputed^ if 
we believe on him that raifed up fefus our Lord from thi dead ^ 
Here ic is evident that it is J unification it felf that is the Benefit 
fpoken of, even the imputing of Righteoufnefs : And that faith 
Jhcre is mentioned as the Condition of that Imputation \ If we be- 
. lieve ] And that this faith is defenbed to be firft a believing in 
him that raifed Chrift, and not only in Chrift. Secondly, A be- 
lieving in Chrift fefu* our Lord 9 who is the exprefs objed of it ; 
and fo his Lordihip taken in ; and thirdly, a believing in his Re 
furrettion, and not only in his blood or obedience. So that I fee 
no room left to encourage any doubting, whether we are juflifi- 
ed by believing in Chrift as Lord, and in his Refhrre3ion, and in 
God that raifed him , as the Condition of our Justification. 
John i .9, 1 1,1 2. £ That was the true light that light eth every 

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

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



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

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

And fo hbn 5. 22 2 } ,24. Q He bath committed all judgement 
to the (on^ that a'lmen fiould honour the Son, even at they honor 
the Father; V9rilj % verily, I fay ur.to you, ht that hrareth nj 
Wordi andbelieveth on him that ftnt me ka bevedafimg life-* and 
JbaBnot come into Condemnation] hhre ihe faith mentioned is 
that Which freeth men f*om Ctnumnaticn, and therefore is is 
by which we are Suftified: And the object of ic is the Word of 
Chrift ( and therefore no: only his Prielthood ) and the Father 
as fending the Son, even to his whole office of Redemption. 

Moreover, that faith by which bur Juftificu. >n is con r nued, 
it is begun by this (both they and we are agreed in , though 
fome yield not that any thing more is requi.ed to its continu- 
ance.) But the faith by which Juffificacion is continued, is ''he 
'Belief of the Gofptl, Which u preached to every Creature and not 
only one branch of it. Co/. 1.21,12,23. And it is called, CW. 2. 6. 
a Receiving Cbrift lef.a the Lord. 

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

D 3 bavi 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Atts 3 . 1 9. 22 .1 5 . Repent therefore and be Converted, that 

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

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

cufed for killing the Prince of \ife,verf. 1 5 . and exhorted to Re- 
pent thereof, and fo of their Infidelity, and be converted (to 
Chrift, and fo to become Chriftians, ) which is more then one 
act of faith ; and this was that their fins may be blotted out : 
And Chrift as Prophet is propounded to them as the object of 
this faith, which they are exhorted to. 

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

defer ibed 


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

v4Cl. 16. 3 1. The faith of the Jaylor aspcrfwaded to for life: 
is the believing in the Lord fjuj Chrift entirely : and it* called 
a Beli ving in God y ver. 34. 

1 Tet.z. 4,5,6,7. The faith there mentioned k that By which 
We are juftified ; he that belieytth en him fhAl not bs confounded^ 
and the Objed of it \s,rthole Chrift <*; the Corner fton^EUtt and 

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

tJrtat* n. 27,28,29. The faith there mentioned, is called 
£ a comming to (thrift wear} and heavy- laden , that he may give 
t htm reft "J which muft comprehend Reft from the Guilt of 
fin and pumfhment. And the Ad of that Faith is directed 
to Chrift' as one to whom all FoVter is given by the Father, and 
as one whofe yoak and burden we muft take upon us. But I (hall 
add no more for thh. 

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

1 Argument 


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

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


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

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

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

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

And therefore Faith in order to Juftirlcation, muft according- 
ly refpect him. 

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

E that 


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

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

Let us now hear what The Scripture faith inthefe cafes, 
Mattthe^9.6. [Tint that you may knW that the Son of man 
bath PoWer on earth to forgtve fins, &c. ] Here it is plainly 
made an Ad ofPower>andnotof Humiliations forgive fins. 
Mat. 1 1. 27*28, 29. *AU things are delivered unto me of 
my Father ,&c. fometo me a ^) e ***** **' wmtj, &c fo Mat; 
%%. 18, 19. compared with Markj6. 15,16. (hew that it is 
an acl: of Chrift exalted or in Power, to pardon , or grant the 
promife of Grace. 

John 1 • 1 2. To give power to men to become the Sons of Qod^ 
mufl be an aft of Tower. 
John 5. 22,23,24' it is exprefs of the fentence. 
*ARs 5.31 .£Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savi- 
wr, for to give Repentance to Ifraelaud forgivenefs of fins. ] He 
forgiveth as a Prince and Saviour. 

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

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

torn. 8. 33 >3 4. XjPho fhalllay anything to the charge of Godt 
Hfiff?, UuQcdibat jfiftifieth: wh&ti he thatcondemnetb ? it it 



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

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

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

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

I Pet.$ .1 1 . £ The like Figure whereunto even 'Baptifm r doth 

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

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

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

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

£ 2 tioo 


tion of our aUual Kewiffun of fin , that we re Ally believe in more 
than Chrifts Humiliation and Merits : But the Antecedent is 
ccrtain.For thePrefcript,Af*; .28. 19,20, and theconftandy ufed 
formof Baptifm, and the Texts even now mentioned, 1 Tet^. 
21. J£t.%.$7>do all (hew it : And I have more fully proved it in 
my Difpute of Right to Sacraments. And the Confequence is 
undeniable : And l think all will be granted. 

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

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

The Antecedent I prove, CMatt h. 1 6.2 1 .22,23 . [ From that 
time forth began fefus to fhtw unto his 'Difciples, how that he 
muftgo unto Jerufalem, and fuffer many things of the Elders and 
chief Pr lefts and Scribes, and be kjlled t and be raifed again the third 
day : then Peter took, him and began bo rebukjth'm* faying, He it 

far fnom the e Lord, this (hall not be unto thee ] &c. John 1 2. 

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

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



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

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

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

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

Yet that they were juftified, is apparent in many Texts of 
Scripture,where Chrift pronounccth theme/MH by the word which 
kehad fpokenjohn 1 5.5. and oft called them bit fed, Mar. 5. & 
16.17. Lu\e 6. And he faith that the Father loved them : John 
16.27. They were branch s in him the living Vine-, iWexhorted 
to abide in him, John 1 5.5,6,7. — And that they were Belie- 
vers is oft expreft , and particularly that they Believed in him as 
the fon of God, and trufted it was he that fhould redeem Ifrael : 
that is by Power, and not by Death : and that they took him for 
their UMafter and Teacher ,and the King of Ifrael ; fome of them 
defiring to Jit at his right and left hand in his Kingdom , and 
ftrjving who fhould be the grcattft about him, John. 16.27. Tht 
Father h'mfelf loveth joufbecaufc ye havtlovtdmt, and have be- 
lieved that 1 came out from God.] John 1 .49. [ Nathaniel an* 
ftoered and faith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the fon of god : thou 
art tht King oflfraeQ Here was the faving faith of the Difci- 
ples, Matth. 16.16. Simon Peter anfwered and faid , Thou art 
Chrift , the fon of the living God. ] 

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

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

E 3 I 


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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Secondly, And as Faith in EfTence is but One faith, fo this 
One faith is bat One undivided Condition of the Covenant of 
Grace, and it is nor one pa«c of faith that is the Condition of 
one benefit, and another part of another, and fothe feveral 
benefits given on feveral ads of fair h, as feveral conditions of 
them : but the entire faith in its EfTentialsis the condition of 
each benefit: and therefore every eflentiai partis as well the 
Condition of one promi fed benefit, as of another. This I 
prove : Firft, In that Scripture doch nowhere thus divide , 
and make one part of faith the condition of J uftifi cation, and 
another of Adoption, and another of Glorification $ &c> 
and therefore it is not to be done. No m?*n can give theleaft 
proof of fuch a thing from Scripture. It is before proved that 
its one entire faith that is the Condition. Till they that divide 
or multiply conditions according to rhe feveral benefits and ads 
of Faith, can prove their divifien from Scripture , they do no- 

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

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



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

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

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

aline ) other iiingt Jbtllbt* ldtd % Ma 

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

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

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

I John 5, 1 1 $ i 2. £ God hath given us eternal I fe, and this lift 
U in his fon . He that hath the fon hath life ; una ht that hath not 
the fon hath not life.] So that accepring Chrift as Chrift, makes 
him ours ( by way of condition; ) and then our life ot Juriifica- 
tion and fan&ificationisinhirn and come* with him ¥ 
. faming to Ckrifl as Chrift, is the fole undivided condition 

F of 


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

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

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

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



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

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

F 2 gar, 

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

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



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

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

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

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

F .3 all ,i 



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

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

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

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

The Antecedent 1 prove. Firft, from John 3. 18,19. 20,21. 
£ He that belteveth on him u not condemned 5 (T here 3 s the justify- 
ing faith : ) But he that belteveth not , u condemned already^ 
(Theres the condemning unbcliefjContradidory to the juttfying 
faith ) [Btcanfe he hath net believed in (he name of the only begot' 
ten Son of god: ] ( here is a fpecial condemnation proved, 
diftin&from that by the Law of works. ) £ And this i; the con- 
demnation (\\\1X is the condemning fin or taufe) that light is 
come into the World, and men loved darky eft rather then light, be- 
caufethtir deedtivere evil] For every one that doth evil hatetb 
the light, &c. The ioverfedefcribeth the Condemning unbe- 
lief, and the 20.gives the reafon of mens guiltinefs of ir. And the 
unbelief defenbed is a (hunning or not coming to Chrift as he 
is the Light to difcover and heal their evil deeds. So that if con- 
tradictories will but (hew the nature of each other, I think 
our controverfie is here plainly refolved. 

So is it in Pfal 2. 12. [ Kife the Son left he be angry, and je 
ferijbfrom the Way 5 when hh Wrath is kindled but a lhth> blefed 



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

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

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

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

And 1 fohn 5. 10. 1 1, 1 2. This faith and unbelief are oppofed; 
and the unbelief confiftcth in [ not believing the record that God 
h*th given of his Son ] and that record is not only concerning 
Juftification, or the merit of it. 

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repi Firft, A palpable miOake. Meriting, and faving by me- 
rit, arc effects or efficiencies, fo plainly fe parable from the things 
themfelvcs, that the invalidity of the Confequence eafiiy ap- 
pears : But in good fadnefs, did you believe when you wrote 
this, that he that argueth from the defcription or nature of a pri- 


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

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

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

G cur and' f^ 


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C kefaved. 

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

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

Gi tranfgrejfion 


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

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

oblivion fives many^bm condemns none. — ~| 

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

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

But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

C 3 ftrange 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

Thirdly, Butnowto the dWnftion, ] ft. ill rc4lycu freely 
my thought of it, and the reafons of my ufifting your ute of 
it, and then anfwer your reafons for it. 

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

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

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

H faith 


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

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

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

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



Where I have difproved it by many Argument!. 

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

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

And now I come to perufe all that I can find that is pro- 
duced to fuppore this diftinction, And the raoft is certain pre- 
tended iimilitudes , that have little or no fimilitude as to 

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

H z plwfo, 


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

H3 cus * 


oiis: and either fignifieth Chrifts procurement of our Juftifi- 
cation,or ours : In the former fenfe I grant as aforefaid, thefe 
Types ftiew us that Chrift a*/? as Prieft and facnfice doth fa- 
tisfie for us. But as to the procuring Interefi of our faith, thefe 
Types (hew us not that only this act procurech our Intereft. Nor 
is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any fuch thing. 
Jo. i. I9.faith that,Chrift^« Lamb of Godtakethatitaj the fin of 
the world, J but it doth not fay that only believing in htm as the 
Iamb of God is the faith upon which we have pare in his blood, 
and are juftified by him. i Pet. i . 1 8. tels us we frere Redeemed 
by bis precious blood\ but it doth not tell us that only believing 
in that blood is the faith by which we have" intereft in ic-but con- 
trarily thus defcribes that faxlhjver. 21. [ Who by him do believe 
in God that raifed him from the deadend gave him glory, th*tyour 
faith and hope might be in God. ] 2. £or. 5.21. tells us that he 
was made fin for us, &c. but it faith not that our believing thus 
much only, is the full condition of our Imeteft in his Righieouf- 
nefs;But contrarily exprefTeth it by [ our oVrn being reconciled to 
God ] to which c Paul exhorteth. 

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

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


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

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

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

in the Lords Supper is received. 

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

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



i<5 him as their Mafler, <ver. ip. Go je therefore and Dlfdpk 
( or teach ) alligations, baptizing them* Thirdly , The words 
Of the Jews to John ( If thoH be not that Chrijl nor Elias, nor that 
Prophet, Why baptizeft thou? John 1.25.) and their flocking 
to his baptifm, and the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 14. 15. ( I thank 

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

I that 


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

1 2 Whereas 


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Fifthly, And as to the point in difference between us,the diffe- 
rence is palpable and weighty between believing in Chriftas 
Kng, and believing or obeying his Commands. As his King- 
ly Power belongs to the Ccnftittition of his myfticalbody or Re- 
publ ke, and his commands that flow from it to the AAmiriftrz- 
tiok : fo Subjection to his Power and Relation, and confent- 
ing to this conffitution do enter us into the Body and unite us to 
him : wtan believing and obe; ing his Laws for Adminiflr4uUn % 
do follow as the fruits. If you could have diftinguiftied between 
the Root and Fruits , between Faith and Obedience, between 
tnakiig Difciples^a d teaching to obferve,&c. Wat* 28. 19,2 \ or 
b coming ^Difc pies, and Learning j you might have diftinguifiied 
between becoming a Subjttl and obtjing. And what ever you 
do I am fure others of your way do grant, that Receiving 
Chrift *s Lord and Teacher, is the faith that juftifieth, though 
not.f tea talit, but they will not fay fo by receiving or obeying his 

1 3 (governing 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Mr. BU)st.FifthIy 9 That way that Chrift tco\ to bring us to GW, 
cttrfdith muft eye ana follow : But Chrift by de*th the Sacrifice of 
of h:mf elf brings us to (y^,lPer. 3 .1 8. Chrift alfo hath once juffer- 
ed for fins >the] aft for the unjuft&c. 

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

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

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



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

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

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

Z^e-u. \6 5 6. K 



Whether any Wor\s beany Conditions 
of it X 

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

By Richard "Baxter. 


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


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

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

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

K 3 againft 



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

We muft therefore neceflarily diftinguifh : And firft of 

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

In Naturals the word Condition is oft ufed pro ratione formally 
per quam alicttjtts difciplina fub)eUum adaquatu conflituifotet. As 
€. Q.Thyficus con fiderat corpus, cum conditione mobditatis^ Geo- 
meter eonfiderat quant it at em cum conditione continuitatis, Arith- 
metics cum conditione disjunftionu» OWedicus confiderat human u 
corpus cum conditione, fiil.qutUnus agret are & fanari pot eft. 
Sometime alfo any quality, or action, which is/fa* qua non to an 



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

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

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

L raifes, 


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

L 2 fixation 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thing.* ; 


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

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

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

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

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

L 3 which 

(78 J 

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

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

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

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

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

. I come 


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

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

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

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

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

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




what is the unwarrantable fenfe ? I know not of any lower fenfe 
that they can put on thefc words, then what importeth the In- 
tereft of a condition ; As for that of Mat. 1 2. they fay little 
to it. And as to that s of fames, they interpret it differently 
among themfclves Firft,Some of them fay that fames fpeaksof 
Juftification before men, and others fay he fpeaksof Juftificati- 
on before God. The former are eafiiy confuted ( as they re- 
train the text to that atone ) by the exprefs words of the Texr. 
For, firft, yer, 1$. it exprefly fpeaks of Righteoufnefs by dw 
vine Imputation, and of Gods accepting Abraham into friend- 
Chip. Sccondly,The text fpeaks of that Juftification which con- 
curreth with Salvation, ver. 14. [ can faith fave kim ? 1 Thirdly, 
It fpeaks of the Death of faith without works, as to Profiting, 
ver. 16.17. which is different from manifestation. Fourthly, 
Itinftanceth in the fecrct act of Rahab, and fuch an act of *sl- 
brabam, as we read of no men that then juftified him for, nay 
they were likcr to condemn him. Fifthly, Men may juftifiean 
Hypocrite asfoon as the truly godly, and can but conjecture at 
the faith by the works. But the fcope of the text (hews that ic 
is no fuch fVivolous juftification that is here meant. 

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

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



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

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

My next proof is from thofe texts that fay, we (hall be fudg- 
id according to our workj, and regarded according to our Labour , 
dec. 2 Cor. 5.9, 10. 1 CV.3.8. 1 Pet. 1. 16,17. MattheW 16. 
27. &c. 

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

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

M Luke 


Luke 13. 3S- 7 /<M5^7- and t. 16, 17,18. £4*4.33.? *; 
16 end iS. 28,29,30,3 i^z.Prov.iS. 13. ^#. 3. 19. with ma- 
ny more. Ihe Conference is plain, in that Pardon is by very 
many made the whole of our Justification ; and by others 
confefTed a chief part ; and by all its confefTed to be made ours 
on the fame terms as is Juftification it felf. 

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


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

I run over thefe briefly and generally, both becaufe leaped 
that the bare texts without my Commenrs^ould work upon the 
Considerate, and becaufe I have been fo much upon it former- 
ly in other writings(as Confefs. $. 3. p. 56. eaf.$.& cap 5.$. 2. 
fag. 1 17,1 18. & alibi pajftm) as that I apprehend in this work 
more tedioufnefs than necefficy. 

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

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

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

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

M 2 are 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

M 3 Anfwtr* 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


(8 7 ) 

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

Treat, ex/; the grant or promife of our SanUif cation U not our 
SaKtti fie at ion, 

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

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

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

2. From your own Argument reverft , Iunrefiftibly make 
good my Caufe againft you. Condemnation adive is the Laws 
ad, and condemnation Pafsive is the Laws immediate effed : 
therefore Juftification is alike produced by the Promife or Gift 
in the Gofpel. The Antecedent is proved, lolcn 3. 1 8. he that 
bileveth onhimjs not condemned^ ( for the Obligation is diflbl- 
ved ) but he that bet eveth mt^is condemned already.^ Which 
muft be by fome Law, it being before Judgement and Executi- 
on, 2. Cor. 3 9. "I he Law in its delivery is called [ the miniftra- 



tion of condemnation]] and that of the Gofpcl £the nrni* 
ftration of righteoufnefs ] lam. 2. 9. men arc faid to be [_ con- 
.vincedoftbeLAtoMtranfgreffors.'] Though Taul confute the 
falle conceits of Juftification by the Law, yet he took them for 
no unfit phrafes , tofpeakof [the Law Morning wrath'} Rom. 
4. 1 5. [ The curfe of the Law ] Gal. 3.13. And faith, What fa- 
ever the LaVt faith, it faith to them that are under the Law ] Rom. 
3.19. When the LaW comes , fin reviveth^ndtoedie, Rom. 7. 
8,9. therefore we are faid to be [delivered from the LaVo^"] 
Rom.%, 2. & Gal. 3.13. Rom. 7. 6. hndGal. 3. 21. Jf there 
bad been a Law given which coti f d have given life , right eoufnefs 
fhould have been by the Law. Hence then is mention of being 
lufttfied by the Laftfial. 5,4. and mens being debtors to the Law, 
Gal. 5. 3. And fomewhacthis way is implyed by Nicodemus , 
John 7. 5 1. doth our LaVo judge any man before, &c. ] In a word, 
what more common among Divines , then to fay, [ the Ltito 
curfeth or condemneth fanner s~\ And then it is not abhorrent 
from the nature of a Law of Grace, an ad of Oblivion, to ab- 
foive and juftifie finners. 

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

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

a n 4 


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

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

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

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

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

N Treat. 


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N 2 Treat. 


Treat, pag. 141 . We cannot call Rem f ion of fin afkate } tu wt 

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Treat, ib. SctfomefeVc^ even a remnant a fide, comparatively , 
the whole (fkriftUn rvorla* both T>ottors andpeople t learned and UK- 
learned, f aft en on a J aft if: c At ion by rvorkj* 

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



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

Treat, pag. 167. Byallthefejubttle Dflinttionsy men^ouli 

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

ifm . 

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



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

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

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

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

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


dicnce or fanctification, to lie ( in order to Justification ) in 
the degree of excellency. I never ro my remembrance fo thought, 
or wrote,qr fpoke. But the difference I laid here, firft, That 
( as to actual obedience, yea and Repentance ) faith hath a pe- 
culiar aptitude to this office, as being a Receptive act, and fit- 
ed to the object,as that object is fitted to our necefsity . Second- 
ly, That( astoaflent, defire of Chrift. love to (Thrift offered, 
accepting him as Teacher, and Lord ) they are effential acts of 
faith ,and fo differ not at all,as they are by many fuppofed to da 
NayJ rather expected that fome fhould have charged me with 
preferring Holinefs before faith in excellency,while I made faitb 
butthefeed,andholynefs as the fruit; faith to be but the cove- 
nanting, and Obedience the performance of what we confentcd 
to i and in a word,while I made perfect holinefs the end of faitb, 
becaufe the end is better then the means : And I was glad 
when I found you faying the like, V indie. Legis^ Lett. 4. pag. 
45 • C 1 3 holinefs and Godlinefs inherent, is the etid of Faitb and 
fnfiification. ] But little did I think to have been charged, and 
that by you, for making the difference to lie in faiths higher de- 
gree of excellency , and only in that. Thirdly, I never 
owned the phrafe of [ jttfttfying Repentance, juflifjing Love "\ 
nor ever faid that we may as well ufe thefe as \Jjuftifywg f*ith~\ 
And when none of thefe things were ever faid or written by rac, 
ought you to have left on record to* Generations , that [ tku 
ii foftttvely and vehemently affirmed. "| On the confiderati- 
on of this dealing , I muft fay again, O what is man , and what 
a fad cafe were we in>if the beft of men were our Judges 1 when 
they will not flick deliberately to publifh to the prefect and fu- 
ture Ages, that wepofitively and vehemently affirm thofe things, 
which we never thought nor wrote, but have by Letters and in 
printed books both pofitively and vehemently, & very frequent- 
ly profeffed the contrary. Is here any room for further de- 
puting? yea, when I have told you of this dealing, you own it 
liill, and defend it in your Preface to your Sermons on fckn 
17. 1 (hall therefore before 1 proceed, examine that Defence. 

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

O that 


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

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

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

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

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

real It- 


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

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

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

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

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

O 2 you 

C i'o<0 

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

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

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

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


you will fay thic faith is no A ft, or Inftrumentaliry is no pre- 
tended notion. 

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

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

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

Ifhall now return to your Left, of Juftificatioo, and there 
fpeak to the other paffage in your preface, about juftify ing Re- 
pentance and Love, &c. 

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

» Anfwer. But remember that ttisjuftification, eklcrasbc- 

O 3 £ua 


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

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

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

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

2. 1 dfftinguifh of J*ftifjwgi quoad modum procurandi, or of 
the diftmd Interefts of mens adions therein, fignified in the 
prepofition £#/.] Paul fpeaks of Juftification C^/l 


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

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



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

Now let us hear your Replies. 

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

&c. When We read the Holy Cjhoftf pake generally of all 

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

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

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

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

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

3. And why might not Abraham be inftanced in > Your proof 
is none. 1 . Is it not a good Argument 2{egative , ^Abraham 
was not juftified by works, therefore we are not ? And a good 
Argument to prove the Antecedent : Becaufe he had no works 
that could juftifie : No nor thofe which were thentruftedon 
to Juftification. 2. Doth not TWfhewthathcfpeaksof thefe, 
when he proves bisaflertion, 1. Becaufe Abraham was then in 
uncircurncifion , Rom. 4. 10. (what's that to Gofpel obedi- 
ence ? ) 2. Becaufe the Law was long after the promife , and 
was not then given, £*/. 3.17. 3. Taul maketh it all one to 
be juftified by works , and to be juftirled by the Law ; as abun- 
dance of paflages (hew. A multitude of particular Texts do 



expreQv fhew that it is a£cgal luftifkation only thathefpca*ks 
of, and that he direftly intendeth only Legal works. I will now 
initance but in one, viz,. Rom. 4. 15. compared with Gen. 22. 18; 
£ For thtpromife that he fiould be ke:r of the world , was not to 
Abraham and his feed by the Lax*, bat through the right eoufnefs of 
faith. ] Now compare with this, the words of the proraife it 
felf , f tsfnd in thy feed [ball aU the Nations of the earth be blef- 
fid, becaufethou haft obeyed mj voice. ] So ver. 1 6, 17. Be- 
caufe thou ha i done this things &c- ] 

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

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

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

P tion : 


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

* I will not therefore be guilty ©f your charge of limiting the 
Holy Ghoft. If he fpake of all works, 1 will believe be means 
All Veorkj. But 1 . If he over and over near an hundred times 
at leaft, explain himfelf as fpcaking of the Law, I will not fliut 
my ears againft that explication. And 2. 1 will grant it is alfo 
all Evangelical PF^rkj , at leaft by confequence : Put I need 
not therefore grant that becaufe he excludeth All Wot^ there- 
fore bee xcludeth All kind of Intereft of all works ; but only 
that fort which he difputeth againft. 

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




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

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

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

P 2 ful- 


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

P 3 ving 


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Argument 2. Thofe works which a man cannot be juftified 
without, make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace : 
But there are fome works that a man cannot be juftified without, 
Jam. 2. 24. Atatthew 1 2. 37. what ever tbey be, fomethey 



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

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

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

Therefore there are fome works that make not the Reward ef 

Debt and not of Grace. 

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

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

Heirs according to the hope of eternal life, Rom. 6. 23. For the 
Wages of fin is death, hut the Gift of (jod is eternal life through 
fefus Chrift our Lord,] Acl.4. 12. Neither is there falvation in any 
other, Mat. 25.34* Come je blejfed of my Father , inherit the 
Kingdom prejwed for yoUf&c. ] whence Expofuors conclude 
againlt works. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q^ work 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Q^2 Panlta 


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

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

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

fed tanqvam otfiiteiua. poftulajfet merkorum fuorum debitum 

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

zati & condftBi inter hominet recepto jure : qui enim locar 

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

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

fid ex opera cum ipfa merctde ointhr/* ■- j£*gumentum 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

itar gftfo ranquam frufiut vel emmodumquoddam- — (Thi* 

feetfetnk&net here meant. ) 

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

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

ft&tinsijmftitfam exgnuia impHtwtnuttownrito aut debit* - 

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


C i'7> 

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

dem ex indebit a faciens debitam propter ytftitiam. Abrabac 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ct* bet 


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

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

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

14. In like manner Georg Calixtus ( a Lutheran ) in loc. pag. 

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

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

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

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



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

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

C IZo 3 

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

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



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

3 . I further anfwer to your obfervation , that the fame Scri- 
pture that faith , £ Weareyuftified by faith] doth alfo fay, that 
Except ye Repent^ ye (ball all perifb, Luke 13.3,5. And R^ptnt 
and be baptized every one of jou in the name of 1 e ftu Chrift for 
the Remiffton of fi«s, Acts 2. 38. and mentioncth the Baptifm 
of Repentance for the Remijfionof fin ; and joyneth the preaching 
of Repentance and Remffion , Luke 24. 47. Repent and be Con- 
verted, that your fins may be blotted out, &c. Lnke 6. 37. For- 
give and it fball be forgiven you, fam, 5.15. The prayer of faith 

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

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

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

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

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

R Treat. 


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

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

2. By Q the fame manner ] either you mean , [ the famefpe- 
cifically ( asfpecifiedfromthe Covenant and Objed ) as di- 
ftindfromJewiftiRighteoufnefs, or from all falfe waies, or all 
Mercenary meritorious works ( fo intended ) , or any manner 
that is not fubordinate to Chrift, and implyed in Believing ~\ 
And thus your Antecedent is true , and your Confcquence ( in 
your fenfe of faith and works) is falfe • Or elfe you mean [*fo 
fame manner ] in oppoikion to any additional ad implyed in 
our flrft believing as its neceffary Confequent. "] And thus 
your Minor or Antecedent is falfe. If you will not believe mc, 
believe your felf, who as flatly fpake the contrary Doclrine, as 
ever I did , being not as it feemsih every Ledure of the fame 
thoughts ; f*g. 1 1 8. you write it for obfervation in a different 
Cbarader , thus {_ For though holy works do netjufifie , yet by 
them a man is continued in a ft ate of ]uftifi,C6t : on : fo that did 
not the Covenant of grace interpofe, grofs and wicked Waies would 
cut off our J ufi ideation , and put us in a ft ate of Condemnation. ] 
Butbecaufeyoumay avoid your own authority at pleafue many 
waies, I fhili give you a better authority that cannot be 

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

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

3. Id 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R 2 him 


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

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

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

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

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



T.nth to be the Condition of Juftirication, and To look to be ju- 
stified by it ss a Condition, as againft them that make Repen- 
tance or Obedience the Condition : Andit concludeth them all 
excluders of the true and only Justification. J am lech to dif- 
fers from you : but I am Ioather to believe that allthofcare 
unjuftiried, that take faith for the Condition of Juftificati- 
on. They are hard Conclufions that your Arguments in- 

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

R 3 Gofpel 

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

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

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

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


C I2 7) 

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

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

2. Either you mean that Adams frorks would have been 
Caufall quatenus a Condition performed,or elfe quatenus merito- 
rious ex natura materia , or fome Other caufe : The firft I flill 
deny, and is it that you fhould prove, and not go on with na- 
ked affirmations : The fecond I will not yiefd you, as to the no- 
tion of meritoriou-, though it be nothing to our que'ftion. The 
fame I fay of your later inftance of Gofyel Conditions. Prove 
them morally efficient, qua tails, if ycu can. 

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

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

f fup- 


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

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

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




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

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

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

S Anfto 


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

2. I argue againft you from your own Dodrine here, thus ; 
If Juftification be it that gives us Right or Title to falvation , 
then that which is the Condition of our Right to falvation , is 
the Condition of our Juftification : the Antecedent here is 
your own Do&rine, and is pattly true : And the Confequence 
is undcnyable; whereto I add, QBut the Doing of Chrifts 
Commandments is the Condition of our Right to falvation : 
therefore alfo of our Right to Juftification, viz. as Confum- 
mate. The Minor I prove, from Rev. 22. 14. Blejfed are they 
that do his Commandtmtnts, that they may have Right to the tree 
of lift , and may enter in t tec. ] Whofoever fhallcall on the name 
of the Lordfha!lbefaved r Rom. 10. 13. Ads 2, 21. Wtarefa- 
ved by hope, Rom. 8. 24. Whofo Vralketh uprightly fhall befaved % 
Prov. 28. 18. Saptifm doth fave us y 1 Pet. 3. 21. [ In doing this 
thou Jhall both favt thy felf and them that hear thee. ] I Tim. 
4. 16, If he [ have not Works % can faith fave him ? J lames 
2. 14* 

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

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



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

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

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

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

S 2 lation 


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

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

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

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

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

C r £) 

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

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

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

S3 to 


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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

T t 


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

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

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

05 9) 

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

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

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

T 2 ing 

C *4° 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mijfionis , whiclvmakes it in fome meafure or other a condition 

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

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

hitherto find out> or apprehend. 

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

T 3 DBS 

04- 2 -) 

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

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

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

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

My opinion fo oft already explained in other writings , is 

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

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

2. And 


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U manded 


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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

7. 21 » 


7. 11. Not every one that fatth Lord ^ Lord 9 fball enter into t hi 
Kingdom of heaven, hut he that doth the will of my father which 
id in heaven. 23,24. tf%ofoever heareth thefe /ay ings of mine, 
an* doth them, &c. Mat. 5. throughout, verfe 20. Except y ur 
righteoufnefs exceed the righteoufnefs of the Scribes and Phartfees, 
ye Jhall in no cafe enter into the Kingdom of heaven. 1 John 3. 10. 
in this the children of God are manifefi , and the children of the 
Devil : who fo ever doth not righteoufnefs is not of God , neither he 
that loveth not his brother.'] An hundred fuch paflagcs might be 
cited. And will you meet all thefe with your objections, and 
fay, [ How /hall I k*ow Vehen I have the full number f Sec. ] 
Know that you hwtfnccre Faith, Repentance and Obedience, 
and you may know you perform that Condition of the Gofpel : 
elfe not. 

Treat, pag. 236. That if good Vcorkt be a Condition of Jxfli- 
fication, then none are jnftifi;d till their death; bee anfe in every 
good worku required perfeverance, info much that per fever ance is 
that to which the fromife is made , Mat. 24. 6. Heb. 10. g8 r 
Rev. 2. 7, 23. So that it is not good Vporkjfim ply , but pe* fevered 
in that is required : and therefore no fuftifi:ation to the end of our 
dates, fo that we cannot have any peace with Cj od till then. Nei- 
ther doth it avail to fay, Justification is not compleat till then ; for 
it cannot be at all till then, becaufe the Condition that gives life to 
nil it not till then. 

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

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

U $ Obedience* 


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

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

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

-jfiaJ- *»* — 

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

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

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

1. The 


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

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

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

An[w> I haveanfwcredthisinthcbegmrringof this Difpu- 

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

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

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


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

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

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

2. Every Expofition and application is an addition of ano- 
ther fort, but not as of the fame. 

3. lufenotthe a&ive phrafe th&t Worlds jft/tifie, agreeing fo 
far with you? who note a difference between thele fayings, 
Faith juftifieth, and»* art jttfttficd by faith: for all that Mr.: 
Blakjt defpifcth the obfervation, which perhaps he would 
fcarce have done, if he had known that you bad being guilty of 

4. Scripture fuppofeth Grammer, Logick, Phyficks, &c. and 
no more is to be expected from it but its own part. If fames tell 
you that we are juftified by works, he doth not fay that Aw*-*** 
is a verb, and s*py»F is a noun, andfoof the reft; bat be war- 
ranted you to fay fo without any unjuft addition fuppofing that 
Grammer fo call them ; If the Scripture fay, that God ert- 
atedtht Htavtnsand the tarthjx. doth not fay here in terms, that 
God was the efficient caufe : but it warranteth you to fay fo ; 
If it fay, that Chrift dyed for us, and was a Sacrifice for our 
(ins, and hath obtained eternal redemption for us 5 yet it faith 
not that he is the meritorious caufe, or the material caufe of 
our Juftification ; But it will warrant you to fay fo, without the 
guilt of unjuft additions. If you may fay as a Grammarian 
and a Logician, when you meet with fuch words in Scripture, 
£ Thefe are Paronyma , and tbefe Synonyma , and thefe 
Homonyma, and this is an univerfal, that a lingular, that a 
particular, and that an indefinite 5 this is an efficient caufe,that a 
material, formal or final ; this is a noun, that a verb,theother a 



participle or an adverb ; I pray you then why may not I fay, 
when I read in R$m. io.9.that£//a&0« eonfefs Vvahtby mouthed 
believe in thy heart , &c. ] that [ // ] is a conjunction con- 
ditional? Is this adding Co the Scripture unjuftly > If j did, 
when ever I read that we are juftifled £/ faith, coiled thence* 
that faith is an Inftrumental caufe, as if by were only the note 
of an Inftrument, then you might have accufed me of unwarran- 
table addition, or colleclion5,indeed. 

Laftiy, If you have a mind to it, I am content that you lay 
by the unfcriptural names (or additions as you fpeak ) of nouns, 
pronoun?, verbs, antecedents, confequents, efficient, or mate- 
rial caufes (£•.:. and I will lay by the name of a condition, as 
you do of an Instrument : and we will only ufc the Scripture 
pbrafe, which is, If y on forgive men , your Father Vvill forgive 
you i if we eonfefs onr fens^ he i< faithful/ and jtifl to forgive : 
we are j'4 fit(ied by faith Without tbi rvor^s vf the Lav : A man is 
j«Cifit><b* work* and not by faith only \ By tkjVvcrdi thou Jbalt be 
j-iiifieL Every mm fh*ll be judged according to his worfa,] 
&c.Let Us keep to Scripture phrafe i( you defire it,and you (hall 
find me as backward as any w o lay muchltrefs upon terras of 

Having gone thus far, I fhall in brief g've you a truer re- 
conciliation of 'P.iul and fimes then you here offer us. i. 
They debace different, queitions. 2. And that with different 
forts of perjbns. 3. And fpeak diredly of different forts of 
works. 4. And fomewhac differ in the fen fe of the word Faith. 
5. And fomwhat about the word Juftification. 6. And they 
fpeak of works iu Several Relations to Juftification. 

1. TheQuefticn that Pant difputed was principally Whe- 
ther Juftification be by the works of the Mofa cat Law, and 
confequently by any mercenary works , without Chrift, or in 
Co-ordination with Chrift , or anyway at all conjunct 
with Chrift ? The queftion that Jimes difputed , was, Whe- 
ther men are juftified by meer believing without Gofpcl-Obedi- 
ence ? 

2. The perfons that Paul difputed againft, were, 1 The 
unbelieving fetos 9 that thought the (Jtfofaical Law was of 

X fcch 


fuch perfe&ion to the making of men righteous , that there 
needed no other, much lefs fhould it be abrogate. Where 
fpecialiy note, that the righteoufnefs which the Jftos expected 
by that Law,was not fas is commonly imagined) a righteoufnefs 
of finlefs obedience, fuch as was required of Adam ; but a mixt 
Righteoufnefs , confiding of accurate Obedience to the 
Mofawal Law in the main courfe of their lives, and exacl facri- 
ficing according to that Law for the pardon of their fins com- 
minted, ( wherein they made exprefsconfefton of fin ) fo than 
thefe two they thought fufficient to juftifie, and lookt for the 
Meffias but to free them from captivity, and repair their Tem- 
ple, Law, &c. And 2. Paul difputed againft falfe Teachers, 
that would have joyned thefe two together (the Righteouf- 
nefs of Mofes Law,and Faith in Chrift ) as necefTary to life. 

But fames difputed againft falfe Chriftians, that thought it 
enough to falvation barely to believe inChrift, (or lived as if 
they fo thought) its like mifunderftanding Pauls Do&rinc of 
J unification as many now do. 

3. The works that Paul fpeaks of directly, are the fervices 
appointed by Mofes Law fuppofed to be fufficient, becaufe of 
the fuppofed fufficiency of that Law. So that its all one with 
him to be juftified by the Law, and to be juftified by works ; . 
and therefore he ofter fpeaks againft Justification by the Law 
cxprefly, and ufually ftileth the works he fpeaks of, the works 
of the Law; yet by confequence, and a parity of Reafon,he may 
well be faid to fpeak againft any works imaginable that are fee 
in oppofition to Chrift, or competition with him, and that, 
are fuppofed meritorious , and intended as Mercenary. 

But fames fpeaks of no works , but Obedience to 
Cod in Chrift , and that as (landing in due fubordination to 

4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Juftification, Paul means our 
AiTent to all the effential Articles of the Gofpel, together witt? 
our Acceptance of Jefus Chrift the Lord, as fuch, and affi- 
ance in him-, that is, To be a Believer; and fo to have faith, 
is with Paul, to be a Difciple of Chrift, or a Chrift ian : Though 
fometkne he fpecialiy denominates that faith from one part of 



the objecl: ( the promifc ) fbraetime from another ( the Wood 
ef Chrift ) fometime from a third ( his obedience. ) And in 
other cafes he diftinguiftieth Faith from Hope and Charity :but 
not in the bufinefsof Juftification, confidering them asrefpe- 
cling Chrift and the ends of his blood. 

But fames by faith means a bare ineffectual Affent to the 
Truth of the Chriftian Religion , fnch as the Devils them- 
felves had. 

5. PuhI fpeaks of Juftification in its whole ftate, as begun 
and continued. But James doth principally, if not only 
fpeak of Juftification as continued. Though if by works any 
underftand a difpofition to work in faith, or conjunct with ic 
( as Dr. Uckton doth ) fo his words are true of initial Juftifica- 
tion alfo. 

6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works 
mentioned. Paul fpeaks of works as the immediate matter 
of a legal perfonal Righteoufnefs, in part or whole. But 
James fpoak of Works, not as anfwering the Law, but as 
fulfilling the condition of the Gofpel , and implyed ( as promi- 
fed or refolved on) in our firft believing, and fo as fubfervienc 
to the Sacrifice, Merit and Righteoufnefs of Chrift , as the 
avoiding of poifon or dangerous meats ( that may kill ,though 
the conrtary cannot cure ) is fubfervient to the curing medicine 
of a Phyfician, and implyed in our taking him for our Phyfician 
at firft. 

And fo much briefly to fatisfic you and the world, of the 
Reafons of my DifTent from you, that I may not differ from 
fo Dear and Reverend a Brother, without making it appear, 
that necefiity did compel me. 

That which I have paffedover, being about the Inftrumcn- 
tality of Faith, 1 (hall fpeak to, ( if fciod will ) together with 
Mr. Blak.es Reafonings on tha* Subject, in another Difputation. 

X2 Of. 


Cppotf. Works arc not a Condition, much lcfs a Caufe of 
our Juftification, under any Notion whatsoever they are taken: 
*. e. Neither Faith in Chrift as Lord and Teacher, becoming 
his Difciples, Repentance* Love , Hope, Prayer for Pardon, 
Confe/Tion, Selt-denyal, fincere Obedience, &c are Caufcs 
or Conditions of Juftification, as begun, continued, or as it is 
moft eminent in the fentcncc at Judgement. 
Conf£r£/rbisFaith,Repentance,Prayer,Obedience % e^.arenot 
truly means of our Juftification now or at Judgement, 
I Srgo. Not means to the pardon of fin, and freedom from 

Ergo. Not means of Salvation from Heil, or of that Glo- 
ry to which the final juftification will adjudge us. 

Ergo. i. They are notnecefTary niceflitatt medii, and 2. 
No Man muft ufe them as means to his prefent pardon, or 
Juftification, or final Juftification or falvation. 

Ergo. No means muft be ufed for prefer! or final Juftifica- 
tion or Salvation, but only the Jr.fti umenul receiving or ap- 
prehending of Chrifts Righteoufnefs* crof Chriftas Prieft 

Objeft. There are means befides Caufes and Conditions. 
Anty. Befides Ccmfas & Condwnts p nximas, there arc ; bat 
befides Caufas & Condttiows & prtxwas & remote , in this 
cafe there are none that I know of : it there be, name them* 



That paft between 






And my Self. i 64.9, and 1 6% o, 


Printed by Robert trhitt, for Ntvil 47^w,]Book-fetlcr 
in Ktdirminfttr* 

Jving heard that Mr, 

diflikgd fome things inmyA~ 
phortfms^andhy the perfwa/i" 
ons of fome intended a Confu- 
tation of them : I wrote to him an ear* 
ntjl Ttyuejl, that he mould acquaintme 
with what he dijlikgd , annexing his 
Ifeafbns to convince me of my Errors, pro- 
fefsing my earncjl T>efire of Information, 
efpecially from him : To which he re* 
plyed, as followeth; 


Tear Sir, 

Have indeed declared to fome, who happily 
may have informed you of it, as I defired, 
that there were feveral Do&rinal points 
aflerted in your Book, to which I could not 
pedtbtts ire, much lefs corde ; fuch are many 
pofitions about Chrifts Righteoufnefs, about 
faiths Juftifkation in your fenfe, and the Efficacy of new Obe- 
dience in this work as well as faith. Yea Love made fome kind of 
the actings of Faith : The good old found definition of Faith 
waved, and a new one fubftituted. Not the ™* credere, but the 
™ operxri alfo called into Evangelical Righceoufnefs, and this 
made our pcrfonal Righteoufnefs. Th-fe things and divers 
others do make me vehemently diffent from you in the maters 
aflerted. Yet I do really honour you, for your great Abilities 
and zealous Piety ,earneftly defiring of God that he would pro- 
long your life, and have mercy upon hss Church by fyaring this 

But whereas you have been told, that I had animadverfions on 
your Book, this was a miftake : for the truth is. though I have 
caft my thoughts upon fome part of ic, yet I have not anydi- 
geftcd or prepared confiderations about it: but do defer fuch 
a work, till Khali have opportunity to difcharge that part I 
have publiquely promifed about imputed Righteoufnefs ; which 
Subjedr I cannot yet profecute, being hindred by other avoca- 
tions .- It is true, I have had advertifement from fome honour- 
ed friends of mine at London, that it is expected, I (hould do 
fomethir.gin thofe points, becaufe by your Infcriprion of my 
name ( which I take as an A& of your real Love and refped 
to me, though I am unworthy of any fuch Teftimony ) they 



think I am inrerefted. Had I known the Contents of the book 
before publifhed, I would have moft importunately urged you 
at leaft to have taken more time of deliberation about the 
divulgation of them , which you know have much novelty 
in them. I know things are not to be embraced or rejected, 
becaufe either old or new ; yet Taul doth diflikc KmvofuvU; f 
if we may fo read it, and not x*vo<pwUf. I jfhali con- 
clude wich this ; Let not any difference from you in 
Judgement be any obftmi&ion to improve your utmoft Abilities 
( which are many and lovely ) to the finding out, and propa- 
gating of Truth. If God prolong your life, I hope this next 
Summer we may rfave mutual oral Conference together, which 
is the moft conducive way to clear both Truth and our Opi- 

Your ftithfull Friend and Brother 

Decemb. 3: 

To the Reverend , and hi* much Honoured Friend , cft/r. 
Baxter, Preacher of the Word of Qod at Kederrainftcr, theft 



1 Received yours , which I acknowledge a Favour : but 
not fo great as I expedt. Your diflent is fo generally known, 
that I cannot bur. hope to know foroe of the Urounds of it. I 
hope you cannot fo vehemently difTcnt in points of fuch Mo- 
ment, and vet deny me adifcoYcryof mine Error. The defer - 
ing of fuch a work till you have wrote another Book, Joth 
intimate what will be injurious to the Church , your felf 

Y and 

( Itfl) 

and me : If you intend to publifh a Confutation , when I 
am dead, and deny me any help for convidion while I live. 
i.The Church will lofe the fruit of my own Recantation.2.And 
your felf, one part of the fruit of your Labor. 3 . And I may dye 
in error unrecanted, and you ( being now importuned for s your 
help ) be guilty of it. If you did but know how gladly I would 
publiqueiy recant, you would not deny your help. You that 
would havefo importuned me to deliberate^ you had known 
before, I hope will not deny your affiftance for ray recovery, 
I did not haftily that! did. But though I wanted the oppor- 
tunity of confuting you before, yetl hope it is not too late. I 
am confident if you know rae,you are not fo uncharitable as to 
think me uncurable. It is therefore your flat duty not to fuffer 
fin upon me. Let me therefore intreat you to fend me one 
or two of your ftrongeft Arguments againft fpme of the 
weightyeft points in difference; and to anfwermine. I know 
it is not an hours work with you to do that much; and I would 
beftow twenty for you; If you fufped that I will any way 
mif-imploy your papers, you (hall prcfcribe me the Law therein 
your felf. Whether you will read wo<pavUt or vj&ofavU^ 
I am indifferent, being no friend to either. I thought it a 
greater novelty to fay, Faith juftifieth only or primarily as an 
Inflrumtnti then to fay, it juftifieth as the Condition % which the 
free Lawgiver hath promifed? unification upon. I knew it was 
no novelty to fay, wemufthave a perfonal Righteoufnefs be- 
sides that imputed : And I took it to be as old as the Gofpel, 
to fay, that this confifteth in Faith and fincere Obedience. I 
called it Evangelical, becaufe I trembled to think of having aa 
inherent Righteoufnefs which the Law of works will fo deno- 
minate. What you fay of the £ Efficacy of Obedience and 
Faith ] I difclaim both, as never coming into my thoughts? 
Iacknowledge no efficiency as to fufiification in either,but a bare 
conditiona/ity. I aver confidently that I give no more to 
works, then our Divines ordinarily do, viz. to be a fecondary 
part of the Condition of the new Covenant, and (0 of Juftifica- 
tion y 4s continued and corifummate, and of Qiorification : only if 
I err, it is in giving lefs to Faith, denying it to be the hftrumen- 
tal Caufi of fttftificatwt, but only.a condition. My Defini- 


(ion of Faith is the fame ( in fcn(c) with Dr. Prefiont % Mr. 
Cutverwelt, Mr. Throgmorton , Mr. Norton of new England 
in his Catechifm, &c. O how it grieveth me to diflent from 
my Reverend Brethren ! Some report it to be a pernitious 
Book: others overvalue \t, and fo may receive the more hurt 
if it be unfound. Truly Sir I am little prejudiced againft 
your Arguments ; But had rather return into the common 
road then not, if I could fee the Light of truih to guide me. I 
abhor affected Angularity in Doctrine: therefore I intreat you 
again to defer no longer to vouchfafe me the fruit of one hours 
labour, which I think I may claim from your Charicy and the 
Intercft God hath given one member in another, and you (hall 
hereby very much oblige to thankfulnefs 

fan. 22. 1649. 

Tour nnftorth) fellow >[ervant 

Richard Baxter. 

To my %jvtrend and very much valued friend* Mr. *, 
'Preacher of Gods Word at • 

Thefe prtfent. 

Dear Sir, 

I Received your Letter, and 1 returned fome AnfwerbyMr. 
Bryan, viz.. that now the daies growing longer and warmer, 
I (hall be glad to take occafion to confer with you mouth to 
mouth about thofe things wherein we differ ; for I conceive that 
to be a far more compendious way, then by letters,whercin any 
miftake is not fo eafily rectified .• I (hall therefore be ready to 
give you the meeting at Bremicham any Thurfday you (hall 
appoint that may be convenient with your health - y that fo by 
an amicable collation, we may find out the truth. In the mean 

Y 2 while 


while I fliall not wholly negled your requeft in your letter, but 
give you an hint at one of thofe feveral Arguments that move 
me to diflent from you ; which although it be obvious, yet fuch 
Arguments as moft men pitch upon, have the greateft ftrength : 
and that is the peculiar and proper cxpreflions the Scripture 
giveth to faith in the matter of Juftification, and that when 
the Do&rine is purpofely handled, as Paul m hisEpiftle to the 
Romans , attributing it fo to faith, as it excludes not the pre- 
sence, but the co-operation of any other, He doth fo include 
faith, as that he doth exclude all works under any notion ; for 
Abraham was then godly, and abounded in other Graces, yet 
the Apoftle fattens his Justification upon this .- in fo much 
that if a man would have defired the Apoftle to make a diffe- 
rence between faith and other Graces, it could not have been 
done more evidently. As for the Apoftle James, your fence 
cannot be admitted to reconcile them , but rather makes 
that breach wider : the one faith,a Juftification without works ; 
you make Faith as well as works,though one primarily : where- 
as the Orthodox both againft P*fi/?/ and Arminians, and Soci- 
»!*»/, do fwectly reconcile them. By the hint of this, I fee 
a Letter cannot reprefent the vigor of an Argument. I (hall 
only add one thing: we may hold Opinions, anddifputc them 
Speculatively in Books; but practically, and when we come to 
dye, we dare not make ufe of them. I know not how a godly 
man at his death can look upon his Graces as Conditions of the 
Covenant fulfilled by him ; though the Grace of God and the 
Merits of Chrift be acknowledged the procuring caufe. The 
Papifts alfo verbally come to that refuge : For how come the 
Imperfections in the Conditions to be pardoned, and conditions 
have a moral Efficiency > Raptim. But of the'fe things more 
fnllywhcnlfee you. 

The Lord preferve you an Inftrument in his Church, and di- 
reel; and faxi&ifie all your parts and abilities for his Glory. 

Feb. 1 3 . Tour living brother in the Lord 

To his very laving and much refpeEled Friend Air. Baxter, 
Minifitr of gods Word at Kederminfter, theft be delivered. 

Sir $ 



FOr the exprcffions of your love in your two Utters, and 
your offer to meet me for conference ; I return you hearty 
thanks. But I told you of my weaknefs, which is fo great,thac 
I am not able to travel.nor to difcourfe to any purpofe if I were 
with you ; a few words do fo fpend me ( except when I have 
a little eafe, whicti fals out perhaps once in amoncthfora few 
hours unexpected ) therefore I am refolved to importune you 
once again, and if you now deny me, toceafe my fuit. Icis 
expedtcd at London^ Cambridge % &c. that you write a confotati- 
on,and you intimate your purpofe to do fo hereafter, which I will 
not diffwade you from, fo I might but fee your Argumcnts,tbat 
beforeldye, I might know whether Ihave erred, and not dye 
without repenting or recanting : and if I err not , that I migbc 
(hew you my grounds more fully ^ And if you deny this rcqucft 
to one that hath fo even unmannerly importuned you, and yet 
purpofe to do it, when I can neither be the better for it, nor 
defend my felf, you walk not by that Rule as I thought you 
did, nor do as you would be done by. But for my part, I have 
done my endeavour for information, and fo have fatisfied my 
own confeience. For what (hould I do ? There is none in this 
Country that will attempt a convincing of rae, by word or 
writing, nor for ought I hear, gainfay : and you are the 
neareft from whom I may hope for it. Ih your laft you 

overpafs all the particulars almoft touched in your former, and 
pitch on Juftification by works. Where you mention Pauls 
attributing it to Faith, to which Ihave anfwered, and have no 
Reply, i. Where you fay Paul excludes the Co-operation of any 
other ; I anfwer, So do I. And of Faith too I deny the ope- 
rations as erTeaive. 2. When you fay, he excludes works under 
any notion, I anfwer. 1. Would I could fee thatSroved. 
2. Then how can James fay true r^.Thcn he excludes faith un- 
der the notion of an Inftrument. 4. And Repentance under 

Y 3 the 

C i«) 

the notion of a preparative, or condition. 5. But if you mean 
only that he excludes the co-operation, or efficiency of works, 
I yield as before. 6. Paul exprefly excludes only the works 
of the Law, that is, fiich as are conlidered in opposition to 
Chrift, or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works, 
and not fuch as Chrift hirafelt enjoyneth in fubordination to 
himfeif, fo they keep that place of fubordination. 7. Pauls 
Queftion is^What is the Righteoufnefs which muft denominate 
a (Inner juft at the Bar of the Law ? And this he faith is no 
Works(under any notion Jno not Faith,but only Chrifts Righ- 
teoufnefs, and fo faith muft be taken relatively : for certainly 
it is Chrift, and not Faith chat is that Righteoufnefs. Isnoc 
this all that our Divines fay, or require ? and fo fay I, over 
and over. But Paul doth not refolve there £ what is the 
Condition on which Chrift makes over this Righteoufnefs of 
his ] fodiredly, but collaterally. 8. Or if you fay he do: 
yet if Paul fpeak of our firft pofleffion of Juftification, I fay 
it is without, not only the operation, but the prefence of works, 
which is more then you fay. 9, Or whether he fpeak of begun, 
or continued Juftification, I fay we arejuftified without works 
m "Pauls fenfe : yea that they are not fo much as a condition of 
the continuance of Juftification. For works in Pauls fenfe 
relate to the reward as of debt, and not of Grace. As a man 
that works to yearn wages, as Paul plainly faith, Rom. 4.4. To 
him that worketh, the Reward is not of Grace , but of Debt 
Thefe works I difclaim as finfull in their ends. But obeying the 
Gofpel, or being willing that Chrift who hath redeemed us, 
fhould rule over us, and running that we obtain, and righting 
she good fight of faith, and furfering with Chrift that we may 
be glorified with him, and improving our Talent, and enduring 
to the cnd^ andfo doing good works, and laying up a good 
foundation againft the time to come .■ I think Paul excludes 
not any of thefe from being bare conditions, or caufit fine aulbus 
mn of our Juftification at Judgement, or the continuance of in 
hers* • Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls fenfe, as be- 
fore, but not works in this fenfe, or in fames his fenfe. When 
you fay my fenfe for reconciling Paul and fames cannot be 
admitted, t . I would you had told me what way to do it better: 



andanfweredwhatlhavefaid intbat. 2. Your rcafon appears 
to me of no feeming fo*ce. For firft you fay [ the one faith a 
Juftification by faith without works, you make Faith as well 
as works, &c. ] Anfxter. 1. "Paul faith not barely without 
works, but without the works of the Law. And J have (hew- 
ed you whathe means by works, Rem.^. 2. I fay no more 
then f*mef,tb*t a man is juftified by works,and not by faith on- 
ly : i believe both thefe Scriptures are true, and need no re- 
conciling, as having no contradi&ion in the terms. And yet I 
fpeak not fo broad ufually, as fames doth. Where you fay that 
~ the Orthodox do fweetly reconcile them ]] I know not who 
you mean by the Orthodox. For I doubt not but you know 
the variety of interpretations to reconcile them. Pifcator and 
Pemble have one Interpretation, and way of Reconciliation; 
Cahiv, Par am and moft Divines another. Camero confuteth 
the beft efteemed,and hath another. Brochmond with moft of 
the Lutherans have another. Jac. Lanrentiu* , Althemer % 
and many more tell U3 of divers: which of thefe yoa mean 
by the Orthodox, I know nor. But if you exclude all thofe 
from the Orthodox, that fay as- 1 fay in this, you will exclude 
as Learned Divines, and well reputed of, as moft Euro}* hath 
bred, w*.. excellent CW-a^. Bergitts^Ludov* Crocius,fohan.Cro- 
***** ftba.v. Bergius. Sec. Who though they all difpute for Juftifi? 
cation by faith without works,underftandingit of the firft Jufti- 
fication ( for moft Divines have taken Juftification to be rigidly 
fimsil & fewel, till Dr. Zfctt^w evineed that it is a continued 
A& ) yet they both take works for meriting works , that refped ' 
the reward as of Debt, and they fay that otherwife Obedi- 
ence is a Condition Oor caufe as they make it ) of continuing, 
or not lofing Jultifteacion once attained. And is not that to fay 
as much as I? And many more I can name you that fay as much. 
And you approve of Mr. 5Wr book^which faith that work* ( or 
*pt*rpofirin.\X>j/k^ with God ) do ye fit fit as a pajfive qualification 
of the Sxbjetl capable offrflifijatie-n. You add that [_ Vt>t may 
difpute^ &C. but you knorv not ho\\> a godly wan at his death can 
4ook^ on h-s Graces cu Conations cf the Covenant fulfilled by him, 
&c. ] Which fptah feems ftrange to me. Iconfefs if it 
be fo ; I am u-g^dlv. Fori have beeaas oft, and as long in 

the ' 


the expectation of death as mod men, and ftill am; and yet 
I am fo far from being afraid of this^that I fhould live and dye in 
horror and cVperation , if ] cotild not look upon the conditi- 
ons of i he Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my felf through goes 
workings. If by our Graces you mean Habits, I think it more 
improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Cove- 
nant. Forwhatyoufay of thePapills, you know how funda- 
mentally almeft they differ from me in this, confounding the 
Covenants Righteoufnefs , &c. If it were not to one that 
knows it better then my felf, I wculd (hew wherein. For 
yourqueftion, How come the imperfections in our conditions 
to be pardoned ? You know I have fully anfwered it, both in 
the Aphorifmsj and Appendix. And I would rather you had 
given me one difcovery of the inefficiency of that anfwer, then 
asked the Qpeftion again. Briefly thus. Guilt is an obligation 
to punifhment ( as it is here to be underftood ) Pardon is a 
freeing from that Obligation, or Guilt and Punifhmenr: All 
Punifhment is due by fomc Law. According to the Law or 
Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith, Love, Obe- 
dience , &c< defervc punifhment , and Chrift hath fatifficd 
that Law, and procured forgivenefs of thefe imperfections, and 
fo acquit us from Guilt and punifhment. The new Law, or 
Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final 
Unbelievers, and fo not to the imperfe&ion of our Faith, Love, 
Obedience , where they are finccre. And where the Law 
threatneth not Punifhment, there if no obligation to Punifh- 
m ent ( or Guilt ) on the party from that Law, and fo no work 
for Pardon. Jmperfcd believers perform the conditions of 
the new Covenant truly: and it condemneth none for imper- 
fection of degree, where there is fincerity .-No man is ever par- 
doned, whom the new Law condemneth, that is, final Unbe- 
lievers, or Rejecters of Chrift. So that Chrift removech, or 
forgiveth that obligation to punifhment, which by the Law of 
Works doth fall on us for our imperfe&ions. And for the Law 
of Grace where ic obligeth not to punifhment, that obligation 
which is nor, cannot be taken off : nor that man pardoned, 
that was ntver guilty. Your Queftion cceafionethmetobe 
unmannerly in opening tjiefe^afie things to you, that 1 doubt 
*i not 

not knew thetn fare twenty years ago and more. Though I 
coafefs I had not the clear apprebenfions of thetn feven ycars 
ago. \ybiz ever I was then thought by others, I confefs I was 
ignorant, and amglai that CJod hath in any meafure healed 
my ignorance, though with the lofs cf ray reputation of b.-i^g 
Orthodox- Where you add that ccnJitions have a moral effi- 
ciency, either you mean all or fome ; if all, or if this whereof 
weareinfpecch, though lam loth toconreft with you in Phi- 
lofophy, yet I rr.uft confefs I never read fo much in any Author, 
nor can force my felf to believe it, dafu fine ?«* » », eft c 
fax*. Jc is as ScWibler and others, a mcer Antecedent. The 
word floral \i arr.biguou^but if you mean it as I conjecture you 
do.for an efficiency, interpretative in fenfe of Law> as if the Law 
would afenbe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition : 1 ut- 
terly deny it in the prefent cafe • or if you mean that our fulfil- 
ling the conditions hath an^fficiency on God to move him to 
juftilie us, as an impulfive procatarctick caufe ; I not only deny 
it, but deny that any fuch caufe is properly with God, or hath 
efficiency on him ; nor can it have the operation of the fi- 
nal caufe, which fome call moral, feeing it is none of Gods 
end, nor can any thing move God but God, nor be his end but 
himfelf. If you mean by moral efficiency any thing clfe which 
is indeed no efficiency, I (lick not on meer words. 

Sir, I fliould not have prefumed to exped fo much labour 
from you as to write a fheet for my fatisfadion, had I not per- 
ceived that others exped much more to lefspurpo'e, and that 
your letters exprefs that hereafter you intend more. If you 
deny meyourznfwer to this,I will trouble you no more. And 
becaufel would have your labour as (hort as may be, I (hall 
only defire your anfwer to thefe few Queftions, which I ground 
on both your letters, becaufe the clear refolving of thefe, will 
be the readieft way to fatisfie me. 

Qgeft- i. Hath the Covenant of Grace ( which promifcth 
Juftifkation and Glorification ) any condition on our parts, or 
none? If it have 

^utft. 2. What are the ConditionsPIs not Love and Obedience 
part of the Condition ? 
Sjftfi. 3 -Muft not thofe Conditions be fulfilled by our felvcs ? 

Z or 

C i7°) 

pt hathChrift fulfilled them by himfelf for any man. 

JVaeft. 4. If we muft fulfill them, why may not a dying mm 
look on them ? Or what means Paul to re Joyce in the teftimony 
of his Confcience,that in iimpliciey and godly fincerity he had 
his converfadon? e^.And that he had fought a good fight, and 
finifhed his courfe, e£-,\and that in all good conference, e^\and 
Hezekjab , Remember Lord that I have walked before thee, 

Queft. 5. €an a man have any aflurance ordinarily that 
death (hall not let him into Hell, who hath no aflurance that 
he hath performed thefe conditions, and how fhould he have it ? 
Can he know that all (hall work to him for good, though he 
know not whether he love God?or that there is no condemnati- 
on to him , though he know not that he is in Chrift, and 
walk not after the flefh, but after the Spirit ? 

Queft. 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to 
falvacion , but as meer figures, then is not the Antinoml- 
an Doftrine true, that we may not Ad for Salvation ? 
4L. 7. What do you mean your felf,when you write againft thofe 
that deny Repentance to be a Condition to quxltfie the SubjeEl to ob- 
tain for givenefs^ but a fign Led. 2Q.of J unification ? And when 
you fay that Scripture limits fuftification, and Pardon only to tbofe 
Subjects that are fo and fo qualified, p. 171. where you inftance 
in Repentance^ C on f € (f l0ft t Turnings Forgiving others? &c, and 
make faith an Instrumental caufe, but foy t there are many quali- 
fications in the Subjett. p. 172. And what mean you when 
you fay, p. 2 10. In fome grofs fins there are many conditi- 
ons requisite ( be fides humiliation ) without "tohich Tardon of 
fin cannot be obtained : where you inftance in Rfiitution. Be- 
fides thofe.j?. 148,149^50. Is it not fafe when a man hath 
prerformed thefe conditions, to lookjm them either living or dy- 
ing} Or what do you fay lefs then I do here? I know you are 
none of the men of contention, and therefore will not recant 
your own Dodrine in oppofitson to me. And if you did not 
mean that thefe are conditions of ?ardon,and Juttification,when 
you fay fk/^, whocanunderftand you ? If thofe grofs fins 
beintheunjuftified,youwillnotfay that the conditions of his 
Pardon are no conditions of his Juftification. I know that you 



give more tof*ith( and fo to roan )then I do, viz* to be the 
Ivjlrument of his own Jstftincation, ( which I will not contend 
againft with any that by an improper fenfeofthe wordlnftru- 
ment, do differ only in a term ; but what do you give lef$ to Re- 
fontanct^zA the reft then I do ? you fay they are conditioned 
1 fay no more. 

Qh& And what do thcgenerality of our Div'ne5 mean, when 
they fay that Faith and new Obedience are our cond;t ; ons of 
the Covenant? As I have cited out of 7>jLres» % Scharpias, 
jvilht, Pi ester, Junius , Areiitis, Alfttdius, who faith, the con- 
on of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith, and part- 
ly Evangel cal Obedience, or Holinefs of life, proceeding 
from faith in Chrift. Dift'mtt. far- l 7- f-71- An ^ Wendtitx 
the like, &c. If it be faid that they mean they are cond tionsof 
Salvation but not of Juftirication ; Then 

Queft. 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final 
Juftification at Judgement (which you have truly (hewed is 
more compleat then this f aft tfcati 9 vi 4 ,' and our Glorification 
have different conditions on our part, and fo of our perfevering 
Juftification here. 

Que ft. 10. And whether it be any lefs difparagement to 
Chrift to have mans works to be the conditions of bis balvation, 
then to be the tare conditions of his ultimate and continued 
Juftirication ? Seeing Chnft is a Saviour as properly as a Jufti- 
iier, and Salvation comprizeth all. 

Queft. 11. What tokarafte fenfe can be given of that 
multitude of plain Scrip:ure? which I have cited > Thff.6o. 
For my part, when I have oft ftudyed how to forfake my prefent 
Judgement, the bare reading of the 25 of UWuttheft hath 
ftill utterly filenced me,if there were no more. Much more 
when the whole Gofpel runs in the 1 Ke fir 4 

Queft. 12. Is not the fulnlling of the conditions of the 
new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righ r e- 
ous,that is, not guilty of non-fulfilling, or not obliged to pu- 
mfhment, or guilty as from that fame L j w or Covenant ? And 
doth not every man tha r is dved fo fulfill the conditions of the 
new Covenant ? and fo is Evangelically righ'eous ? The con- 
dition is not Believe, s.ndobey firfett'y^ b'dtfencerety. 

Z 2 Que]?. 

C i 7 o 

Qktft. 13. If there be no fuch thing as a perfonal Righce- 
oufnefs neceffary to falvation, befides imputed Righteoufnefs : 
1 . What is the meaning of all thofe Scriptures cited T kef 22. 
that fay there is ? 2. And of our Divines that fay there is inhe- 
rent Righteoufnefs ? And 3 . What real difference between the 
godly and the wicked, the faved and damned ? 
Queft.iA* Have you found out any lower place for Love and 
Obedience, then to be bare conditions, if you acknowledge 
them any way. conducible to final Juftification, or Salvation ? 
Ifycu have, what place is it ? and how called ? and why hath 
it not been difcovered unco the world ? To fay they are quali- 
fications of the Subjettjs too general,and comprised! qualificati- 
ons of different Natures- and it (hews not how they are con- 
ducible to the faid ends ; and why a man may not be faved with- 
out qualifications, as well as with them, if God have not made 
them fo much as conditions ? 

Queft. 15. Seeing I afcribe not to Evangelical Obedience 
the leaft part of Chrifts Office or Honbr, nor make it any jot 
of our legal Righteoufnefs, where then lies the error or danger 
of my Doctrine ? 

Qtteft. 1 6. Do not thofe men that affirm we have an inherent 
Righteoufnefs, which is fo pronounced properly by the Law of 
works, accufe the Law of God for bleffing and curfing the 
the fame man and aclion } And how can that Law pronounce a 
man.orhisafSion righteous, which curfeth him, and condemn- 
eth him to Hell for that fame A&ion ? It makes me amazed to 
think what fhouldbe thereafon that Divines conteftfo much, 
that it is the Law of Works that pronounceth them inherently 
righteous, which they know condemns them ; rather then the 
Law of Grace or new Covenant, which they know abfolveth 
them that fmcerely perform it. When all D. vines acknowledge 
an inherent Righteoufnefs, and jhat the Law of Works is ful- 
filled by none, and that it pronnunceth none righteous, but the 
fulfillers ; and when the condition of the new Covenant muft 
be performed by all that will be faved : and when the Holy 
Ghoft faith that it was by faith ( and fo pronounced, and mea- 
sured by the Law of faith ) that Abel ( the fecond Righteous 
man in the world } offered the excellent Sacrifice, and by it ob- 


rained witnefs that he was righteou%God teftif ying of his gift, 

•Que(t. 17. Do not thofe Divines that will affirm that£ our 
inherent Righceoufnefs is fo called from its imperft ft conformi- 
ty to the Law of works ] and that £ ic is the Law that pronoun- 
ceth them righteous ] lay a clear grouud for Juftification by 
works in the worft fenie ? for if the Law pronounce their works, 
and them properly righteous, then it juftifieth them : and then 
what need have they(at ieaft fo far ) of drift, or Pardon ? yet 
and what Law fliall condemn them, if the Law of Works jufti- 
fiethem ? At Ieaft do they not compound their Rtghteoufnefs 
(as to the law of Works; partly of Chrifts fatisfa&ion, and 
partly of their own Works ? 

£t$tjt. 18. Whether you ftiouldnot blame Dr. ?rtfton\ 
Mr. Norton, N*r. Culverwel, Mr. Throgmorton, &c. for lay- 
ing by the good found definition of Faith fas you call it) as 
well as me? And is it not great partiality to let the famepafs 
as currant from them, which from me muft be condemned ? And 
why would you agree to fuch a corrupt definition, being one of 
the AiTembly, when theirs in the leiTer Catechifm ( and indeed 
both ) is in fence the very fame with mine ? And why may noE 
.1 be judged Orthodox in that point, when I heartily fubferibe 
to the National AfTemblies Definition? viz. that Faith -is a 
facing Grace, whereby rve receive, and reft ok Chrift alone for 
Salvation, as he is offered to us in iheGo'ptl, ] 
4>w. 1 9 -Do I fiy any more then the A (Terribly faith in the pre- 
ceding Queftion?[ff4^ doth Godrequirtefus, that we may efcafe 
hn wrath and cur fe due to us for fin ? Anfw. Cjodrequintk of us (to 
efiape the J aid wrath and curfe, &c.) FaithinJefttsChrift, repen- 
tance unto life, Vetththt diligent ufe of all the cut* aril means, 
thereby Chrij} commtjnjcateth to us the benefits of Redemption, J 
And is not Juftification one benefit ? And is no; final Juftificatt- 
on a freeing us from that Curfe ? 

Q(teft. 20. Which call you the good, found definition of 
Faith ? When our famous Reformers placed ic in A durance ; 
Cumero, and others in perflation f fuch as i< in the underftand- 
ing) others in A(Ten:,as Dr. Downam^ &c .Others in a Belief of 
Gods fpecialLove, and that fin is pardoned. Others in Arfi- 

Z 3 ance 


anceor Recumbency. Others in divers of thefe. Some, as 
Mr. B //, calling it a fiducial Affent. Others an obediential 
Affiancce- Did not each of thefe forfake that which by the 
fo rner was accounted the good found Definition ? And why 
may not I with Dr. Prefton, Mr. Walin % &c. fay it is an Ac- 
ceptance^orconfent.jojned With Affent? or with the Aflembly,and 
the reft, fay it is a rtceiving s which is the fame in a more Meta- 
phorical term. 

Quefe. 21. If you fudge as Melancbton^ John Croc if*;, Da- 
venant, t,4mejiw 9 &c. that Faith is in both faculties ; how can 
you then over- leap the Elicite Ads of the will ( which have re- 
fped to means; Eligere^conjentire^ uti ? 

Que/i- 22. If the formal rcafon of juftifying faith lie in a 
Belief or Perfwafion that Chnft will pardon and fave us : or 
in an Affiance or refting on him, or Trufting to him only for 
Salvation : or in an Acceptance of him as a Saviour, meerly 
to juftifie and fave from Hell : Why then are not almoit 
all among us juftifted and faved? when I fcarce meet with one 
of an hundred, that is not unfeignedly willing,thatChrift fhotsld 
pardon, and juftifie, and fave them, and do verily trult, that 
Cbrift will do it • and the freer it is, the better they like it. If 
they may whore and drink,and be covetous,and let alone all the. 
pradifc of Godlinefs,and \ et be faved,they will confent. If it be 
laid that they reft not on Chnft for j unification fincercly;! Anfi 
They doit really.and unfeignedly, and not diiTembiingly, which 
as we may know in all probability by others, fowemay know 
it certainly by our own hearts, while unregenerate. So that it is 
not the natural, but the moral Truth, that is wanting : And 
what is that? And wherein istheElTen ial, formal difference 
between a wicked mans refting on Chrnt for Juftirication, and a 
tru s Bchevers ? To lay it is feen in the fruits, is not to ftie w the 
EiTennal difference. 

£>j?eft. 23. If refting onChrift for Juftification be the only 
condition of final Juftification, What is the reafon that Perfyns, 
Hobott, Hooker t Pr e ft -m, Taylor Elto/i ,Whatel]^T\&2.\\ rhe godly 
Divines alfo yet liv ng do fpend moft of their labour to bring men 
to obey Chrift as their i ord, and not the hundreth line or word 
to prefs them to Truft that he will pardon and fave them? All the 

po werfull 


powerfull Prrachers that ever I heard, however they difpute, 
ye: when they are preaching to the generality of people, they 
zealouflycry down lazinefsjukewarmneft, negiigence,unho' 
nefs, prophanefs, &:. As chat which would be the liklycft ciufe 
of the damnation of the people. But if only the forefaid 
faith be the condition, and all other Graces or Duties be but 
meer fignal effects of th s, and Cignal qualifications of the fub- 
ject, and not fo much a< conditions, wnat neei a ! l this? Were 
it not then.better to perfwade all people, even when they are 
whoring, or drunk , to truft on Chnft to pardon and juttirle 
them? And then when they have the tree and caufe , the 
fruits and iignal effects will follow. 

•Queft. 24. Yea, Why do the beft Divines preach fo much 
againft Prefump:ion ? And what is Prefumprion , if it be not 
this very faith which Divines call juftifying? viz.. the Trufting 
to Chrilt for Pardon and Salvation only, without takng frim for 
their King and Prophet ? If it be faid that this laft mutt be pre- 
fent, though not juftifie : How can the bare prefence of an idle 
Accident fo ma*e,or marr the efficacy of the canfe ? 

Quejt.25.tf to be unwilling that Chriffc fhouldraignoverus, 
be part of the dire&ly condemning fin,Z,ȣe 19. 27. why is 
not the willingnels he fhould raign, part of Caving, juftifying 

Queft. 7 6. Seeing refting in Chrift is no Phyfical apprehen- 
fionof him ( who is bodily in Heaven ) nor of his Righteouf- 
nefs ( which is not a being capable of fuch an apprehension ) 
How can that Refting juftifL more then any other Ad bu: only 
asicischcc \ to which the Promifc is made? Refting 

on a friend for a Benefit, makes it not your*, but bis [ 
that. A; Firkins ( cited by me ; Tg bfhevt tb: wof 

France fj dl be mine-, ma^ it not mire : 'But : 
and the Kingdom . ( vid. 

much as I J vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not faid £ He tbat 
btlitzeth fball be ju^iped and favtd , ] would Z>< >ave 

done it ? And if he had faid, [ He that repenteth^ or , 
callitbon the name of the Lird, ftuii b: jzftified or 
not thefe have done it ? if fo ; then doth not faith ju 
diredly, as the condition of the Gift, Promife, or new Cove- 

nant? AnA\tsapprtbe*/io*\sbutksaptitftdfto be fct apart for 
this Office : And if it juftifie as a condition of the Promife: 
rouft not others do it fo far as they are parts of the Condi- 
tion ? 

Sir, If you fhculd deny me the favour I hope for in revol- 
ving thefe doubts, yecletme hear whether I may expect it or 
not. And in the interim I (hall fearch in jealoufie, and pray for 
direction : But till your Arguments (hall change my judge- 
ment, I remain confident that I can maintain moft of the iAnti- 
nomim Dotages againft any man that denyeth the principles of 
my Book : and that which is accounted novelty in it, is but a 
more explicate ,, diftind , necefTary delivery of common 

Richard Baxter 

tslpril 5. 


IAm forry that you are not in capacity for the motion I pro- 
fered .• I thought difcourfe would not fo much infeeble you, 
efpecially when it would have been in fo loving a way .* And I 
judged it the more feafable, becaufe I had been informed of 
a late folemn conference you had about Padobaptifm, which 
could not but much fpend you. I (hall prefs no more for it, al- 
though this very letter doth abundantly confirm me, that let- 
ters are but a lofs of time : for one word might have prevented 
many large digreffions. Is not that endeavour of yours in 
your feventh queftion to prove out of my book,that Repentance 
is a necefiary condition, or qualification in the Subject to be 
pardoned, &c. a mcer impertinency } You earneftly defire 
iatUfaftion of your confeience, therefore I cannot think you 



do wilfully miftake. For is that the ftate of the queftion wick 
us ? Is it not this, whether the Gofpel Righteoufnefs be made 
ours, otherwife then by believing ? You lay by believing, and 
Obedience, 1 fay only believing. I fay faith is only the 
condition juftifying , or inftrument receiving, you make a 
juftifying Repentance, a juftifying Patience: you make other 
ads of grace juftifying as well : fo that whereas heretofore, we 
only had juftifying faith, now there are as many other qualities, 
and all juftifying, as there are Graces. So that I do firmly 
hold ( and it needs no recantation ) that repentance and other 
exercifes of Grace are antecedent qualifications, and are me- 
dia ordinata y in the ufe whereof only pardon can be had. But 
what is this to you ? Who exprefly maintain the righteoufnefs 
of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours, upon our godly 
working , as well as believing. If therefore you had fpenc 
your felfto fhewthat faith had no peculiar Inftrumentality in 
our Juftification, but what other Graces have, then you had 
hit the mark. What is more obvious, then that there are trfo- 
ny conditions in juftificato, which are not in a&u jttffificationu ? 
The fattening of the head to the body is a neceflfary condition in 
famine vidente, but it is not in atla videntu. You grant in- 
deed fome precedency to faith, but you make Faith and Works 
aqne , though not &qn*liter, the conditions of Judication. I 
ftiould fay much more to the ftate of the queftion.but I forbear; 
In other things you feem to come off ; and though I do not fay 
you recede from your AfTertions, yet you much mollifiethem, 
that I need not therein contend with you. Bat here is the 
flick. Let it be dcmonftrated,tbat whereas the Scripture in the 
current of it attributes Juftification to believing only : ts 
through fa'th , and by Faith , and through faith in his 
bloody that you can as truly fay, its received by love, and its 
through love of his blood (bed for our fakes, &c. This is a 
little of that much which might be faid to the ftate of the quefti- 
on. This I judge new Doflrine, juftifying Repentance, jufti- 
fying Charity. And in my Letter I laid down an Argument, 
K°m. 4. Concerning *s4brah*ms Juftificatian, the Pattern of 
all others. To this you reckon up many Anfwers, but I fee noc 
the Argument (haken by it. Firft you fay, you exclude a co-oft- 

A a ratio* 


iaiUn effeftive, but why do we ftrive about words ? You do 
not exclude works jufttfying, as well as faith, let theexpreflions 
be what they will. Whereas Paul faith, he would be found .ha- 
ving the Right eoufnefs Vih'ch U by faith ^OW will add, and Which ii 
by love, by z,eal. 2 . You defire it to be proved^ that Paul excludes 
all rporkj under any mtion ; I think its very eafily done : Firft, 
becaufe of the immediate oppojit ion between Faith and Works j 
now you Will contradict Pauls Argument, and give a tertium, 
works that are of Grace. But the Apoftles oppofition is fo 
immediate here and in other places, between faith and any thing 
of ours , that he admits of no medium. 2. He inftances in 
Abrahams works, and excludes them; now were Abrahams 
works, wo* k? done by the meer ftrcngth of the Law ? Did noc 
Abrahams Obedience , and other works flow from Grace ? 
Were Abrahams works in oppofkion to Chrift ? Yet even thefe 
are excluded. 3. He excludes all works under any notion by the 
oppofition, juftifying, covering, all is wholly attributed unto 
God. 4. The Aflertion is univcrfal ; The Apoftle faith, with- 
out works in general, ver. 6. And he works not, ver. f. Laftly, 
By the teftimony he brings from the Pfatmift, that bleflednefs 
is where fin is not imputed, whrere it is forgiven ; Thefe rea- 
fons do evidence that he excludes works under all notions in the 
a& of Juftification, though not from the perfon juftified. 3. You 
fay, koW then faith James true > But I ask, if there be juftifying 
worbj how faith Paul true ? But again, James faith true ; for 
this faith which in refped of its ad ad intra, doth onlyjuftifie, 
^yet it works ad extra. The old Aflertion is fides qu& viva^ not 
qua ziva. You fpeak of a feeming Amilogie among the or- 
thodox in this reconciliation, but though all go not eademfemi* 
ta, yet they do eafom via againft works under any notion 
whatfoever in the ad of Juftification. 4. You argue that faith 
as an Inflrument is excluded. Thus Bellarmine alfo, apprehen- 
dere eft opus, therefore faith is excluded : But non fequitur : 
Faith ispaffive in its Inftrumentality • and although to believe, 
be & Grammatical <*#*W, ksverbum atlivnm, yet its phyficn^ or 
vm?®vj>y.n fajftve. A man by believing, doth not open.ri , but 
rtcipere :; As videre, audire&re Grammatical attions, but Phyfical 
or natural pajjions : now you cannot fay thus of the exercifes of 



Other Graces : this is thefeeming ftrcngth of your Exception?. 
For Repentance is not excluded as qualifying^ but as recipient, 
which is a fifth Exception. 

As for your difcourfe,whether TWdifputes what is our Righ- 
teoufnefs? or upon what terms it is made over to u=, itdoch 
not much matter ; for indeed Puul fpeaks to both thole only 
inclufively or collaterally^ yt)u fay .- but that which he chiefly 
intends, is to fhew in what manner we are juflified, whether by 
believing or working, and thefe he makes two immediate oppo- 
iites, not granting any tertium. You fpeak of Faith taken re- 
latively for Chriiis Rig'iteoufoefs ^ but how can you find out 
fuch a figure for faith in your fence^unlefsyou will acknowledge 
Love or Obedience relatively for Chrifts Righteoufnefs ? Indeed 
thofe that hold Fai h inftrumentally,receiving the whole rightc* 
oufnefs of Chrift, and no other Grace,they often fpeak of faith 
taken relatively,but fo cannot you,who hold that not only feeing 
this brazen Serpent, but any other actions of fence will as well 
heal the wounded Chriftian. You fay you acknowledge the 
Affemblies definition of refling or receiving, you cannot take in 
that fence, as they declare it, as the Scripture words which are 
Metaphorical , do imply : for its the retting of a burdened 
foul upon Chrift only for Righfeoufnefs, and by this Chrifts 
Righteoufnefs is made over to us • and its a receiving of Chrift, 
as the hand embraceth any ObjeS : now you make the Righte- 
oufnefs of Chrift made over to us in any other cxercife of Grace 
ts well as this. So that although you would willingly feem not to 
recede from others, yet you plainly do.-and although you think 
your Aflercions are but more diftinft explications, yet they 
are indeed deftru&ive Affertions to what our Divines do deli- 
yenneither may you, while you intend to difpute, exactly build 
upon fome homilctieai or popular exprefsion in any mans book. 
You reply toafecond part in my Letter: whether a godly 
man dying, may be affe&ed according to your pofition, and 
thereupon you inftance in Hezekjah ,P**/,and that no man cari 
dye with comfort without the evidence of thefe works. But is 
this the ftate of the queftion with us ? Do you think that I de- 
ny a godly life to be a comfortable teftimony, and a neceflary 
qualification of a man for pardon ? You cannot think that yoa 

A a 2 fpeak 


fpeak to the point in this. But here is the queftion, Gan a 
godly man dying, think the Righteoufnefs of Chrift is made his 
by working or believing ? Is ic repent, and Chrifts Righteoul- 
nefs is by chis made yours, and reft in Chrift } Certainly the 
dying Chrift ian is in agonies dircded to this refting on Chrift, 
to the eying of this brazen Serpent, not to be found in any 
thing but the Righceoufnefs by faith. Its an ad of Dependance, 
not of Obedience that interefts us in Chrifts Righteoufnefs. Us 
that puts on the robes of Chrift, that our nakednefs may not 
appear. And that is very harfh ftill, which you exprefs, to ex- 
pect the Righteoufnefs of the Covenant of Grace upon the 
conditions fulfilled by your felf, through Gods working?. lam 
unwilling to parallel this with fome paffages that might be quo- 
ted out of unfoand Authors ; but that I am confident, how- 
foever your Pen- writes, you have a tutijfimum eft to reft only 
upon Chrifts Righteoufnefs.and that by bare refting, and beleiv- 
ing you look for a Righteoufnefs. As Philofophers fay, we fee 
or hear intus recipiendo, not extra mittendo : otherwise r BeIUr- 
rnine argues confonantly enough, that Love would juftifie as 
well as faith ; but we fay that Faith doth pati, Love doth agere. 
Not but that faith is an aftive grace, only in thu aft it ia meer 

Sir y I have not time, nor paper to anfwer thofe many quefti- 
ons, the moft of which I conceive impertinent to this bufinefc : 
and your Explication of your felf, how imperfedions in our 
Graces.are done away,and yet the conditions of righteoufnefs ,is 
to me m r *.<PcZ;<T*TQv : but I cannot go any further. What I have 
written with much love and refped to you , I (hould account 
it a great mercy to be inftrumental to bring you to the right 
way again : If there be fo much Joy for reducing a wandring 
fheep,be not offended if I fay there will be much more for an er- 
ring fhepheard : though I hope at laft your error may prove in 
words rather then in fence : with heartfy brotherly love I have 
written this, and fo let it be received from your fellow-labou* 
rer, who honours Gods gifts in you, andisalfo fenfibleof his 
»wn infirmities, and pronenefs to err. 


( 181 ) 

Vear Sir, 

IF you doubt of the truth of my bodily infirmity, it is be- 
caufe you neither know my body nor mind. The difputc 
at BtwdUy,n% ic was almoft at home, fo I had the choice of the 
time, and fuchftrengthvouchfafed from God, which I cannot 
again expecfc, much lefs promife my felf. I told you I have fome 
lucid* wtervalla^ perhaps a few hours in a moneth : but if up- 
on fuch uncertainty I fliould draw you to a journey, and then 
ten to one fail you, I (houldbe injurious. But feeing you fo 
far and freely condifcend, if God wil (hew me fo much Merc/, 
as to enable this reftlefs unceflfanrly-pained Sceleton to fuctya 
work, I (hall heboid to fend you word, and claim the favour 
you offer. In the mean time it is my duty to let you know, I 
have received your Letter, and to return you hearty thanks for 
it, though it be not that which I hoped for, and fhall now ceafe 
to expect. I am convinced now as well as you that Letters arc 
but a lofsof time: but your Arguments or dired anfwers to 
my Qucftions, would have been for my advantage, a precious 
improvement of it : butfeeinglmay not be fo happy, I muft 
reft content. Itfhllfeemeth to my weak underftanding to be 
no impertinency to prove that your felf affirm Repentance, 
Confefsion, Turning, Forgiveing others, &c, to be more then 
figns, i.e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain 
forgivenefs ; and to tell you that I fay no more, and to tell you 
ftill, that you give more to faith ( and fo to man ) then I ; but I 
give no more to works for ought I defcern then you •, I am fure 
then our ordinary Divines do : And if I do miftake herein, you 
have little reafon to fufpect me of willfulnefs; though of weak- 
nefs as much as you pleafe. As for the ftate of the Queftion 
between us, which you fpeak of, I am a ftranger to it, and 
know not what you mean.I never came to the ftacing of a Que- 
ftion with you • nor did you ftite any to me in your letters, but 
mentioned your vehement difTcnt from feveral paflagesinray 
book} and therefore I had reafon to think that you fell upon the 
Queftiom as there they were ft a ted ; fo that it is titimt & me- 
dHliitH/, pertinent to my queftion,wbich is impertinent to yours . 

A a 3 You 


You fay the queftion is , \whe\ber the Goffel righteoufnefs be 
made our j otherwife then by believing ? ] and tell rae that I fay 
\_by believing and obedience ] when I never ftated fuch a quefti- 
on, nor ever gave fuch an anfwer. I fuppofe by £ G of pel Righte- 
oufnefs ]] you mean Chrifts Righteoufnefs given to Believers : 
Now I have affirmed that [ thofe only /ball have part in Cbrifts 
fttisfattion* andfo in him be legally righteous , who do believe and 
obey the Qofpel, andfo are in themfelves Evangelically righteous. ] 
But your phrafe [ made ours] doth intimate that our firft poflef- 
fion of Chrifts Righteoufnefs fhould be upon Obedience as 
well as Faith ; which I never affirmed : But Chrifts Righteouf- 
nefs is continued ours on condition of obeying him, though not 
made ours fo : and we (hall be juftifiedac j udgement alfo on 
that condition. As it is not marriage duty, but Contract which 
is the condition of a woraans firft J ntereft in her Husband and 
bis riches- but marriage duty and the performance of that Co- 
venant, is the condition of her Intereft as continued. And in- 
deed it is much of my care in that Book to fhun and avoid that 
queftion which you fay is ftated between us : for I knew how 
much ambiguity is in the Word [ By ~\ which I was loth to 
play with. I know we arejuftified By God the Father, By 
Chrifts fatisfa&ion, By Cbrifts abfolution, By the Gofpel Co- 
venant or Promife, By the Sacraments, By Faith, By Works j 
( for 1 will never be aftiamed to fpeak the words of the Holy 
Ghoft) By our words ( forfo faith Chrift ) Therefore if you 
will needs maintain in general, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs is 
made ours, no otherwife then by beleiving, nor otherwife conti- 
nued ours ; you fee how much you muft exclude. But to remove 
fuch Ambiguity, I diftinguifh between juftifying £ By 3 as an 
efficient inftrumental Caufc, and [ By ]as by a condition -. and I 
ftill affirm that Works or Obedience do never juftifieasany 
caufc, much lefs fuch a caufe ; but that by them as by a condition 
appointed by the free Lawgiver and Juftifier we are finally jufti- 
fied. And truly Sir, it is paft my reach at prefent to underftand 
what you fay lefs in this then I, except you differ only about the 
word [ By 3 , and not the fence ; and think that it is improper 
to fay that Pardon or Juftification is 'By that which is but a 
condition: You feem here to drive all at this, and yet me thinks 



you fhould not. i . Becaufe you affirm your felf, that condi- 
tions have a moral efficiency : and then it ieems when you fay 
Repentance, Confcffion, &c. are conditions, you mean they 
are morally efficient ; which is a giving more to works then ever 
1 did. a. Beciufe you know it is the phrafe of Chriftand his 
Spirit, that we are jul\ iRed Bj our words and works ; and ic 
is fafe fpeaking in Scripture phrafe. 3. Becaufe you fay after 
that my AfTertions arc ddlrudfcive of what Divines deliver ; but 
the word By, if we are agreed in the fence, cannot be deftru- 
dive ; and except the phrafe only 2ty, &c. be the difference, 
where is it? WhcnyoufayRepentar.ee, o-c. are condinons, 
and I fay they are no more : and I have nothing from you of 
any difagreement about the fence of the word condition. Ltft you 
ihould doubt of my meaning in that, lundcrftand it as in our 
ufual fpetch it is taken, and as Lawyers and Divines generally 
do, viz. Eft Lex addtta ntgotio, qua donee pr*f}etnr,evex;um fttf- 
findit. Vel eft modus , vel can] a qua [nfpendit id quod agitnr % 
quoad ex poftfatlo cor,fi r meiur % Ht Cujacius. And whereas Condi- 
tions are ufually diftingufht into [ottJ}ativas } cattJalef & nAxtAf, 
feu communes J mean conditions pcteft>tivar. Where you add 
that you fay only faith is the condition juftifying. etc. but I 
make a juftifying Repentance, tire. And whereas heretofore 
we had only Juftifying faith, now, &c. ] I anhver , 1. If by 
juftifying Repentance, &c. you mean that which is ( as you 
fay Faith is ) an inftrument or efficient Caufe, I never dreamed 
of any fucb : If as a Condition •, you confefs it your feif. 2. If 
you fpeak againft the fence, we are agreed in that for ought I 
knows If againft the phrafe, then jaltifying Faith or Repen- 
tance is no Scripture phrafe : but to be juftified By faith, and By 
works, and By words,are ail Scripture phrafes. You fay, jot* 
firmly hold that Repentance and other Exerctfesof Grace are an- 
tecedent qualifications •, and media ordinata,^; the ufe whereof only 
Pardon can be had : but What is thU to me ? &c. I anfwer. I . Add 
conditions as you do in your Book, and you fay as much as I. 
X If by the other exercifesof Grace you mean the particulars 
in your book enumerated, or the like ; and if by Pardon, you 
mean even cbe firft pardon ( as the word Only (hews you do ) 
then you go quite beyond me, and give far moK to thofe ex r- 



cifes of grace then I dare do. For I fay that Chrift and ail his im- 
puted Rtghteoufnefs, is made ours, and we pardoned and jufli- 
fied at firft without any works or obedience more then bare 
faith, ("and what is precedent in its place or concomitant) and 
that bona opera jeauuntur jufiificatum non pracedunt jufttfican- 
dum% in regard of our firft jufhfication. I dare not fay, they 
are Antecedents or media ordinata. Where you a&d t Vt>hat is that 
to you that make the righteoufnefs of the Covenant of grace to be 
mafo ours upon our godly wording, dec. I anfwer, i . I have (hewed 
it is as much as I fay , if not more J[*pon] intending but a condition 
or medium ordinatum. 2.1 never faid what you lay I maintain in 
phrafe or fenfef if the word [made] intend either efficiency or any 
caufality, or the firft poffeffion of R ghteoufnefs. 3. You 
much ufe the harfh phrafe of [Working] as here [God/j -working ] 
as mine ; which I doubt whether ever I uttered or ufed ; And 
the term £works~] I little ufe, but in the explication of fames* 
For I told you that I difciaim works in Pauls fenfe , Rom. 4. 4. 
which make the reward not ot grace, but of debt. You add 
[_lf therefore you had [pent your felf to [hew that faith hath no pt~ 
culiar \ instrumentality in our j unification but What ether graces 
have, the* you had hit the mar^] dnfft. I confefs Sir you 
now come to the point in difference- But do you not hereby 
confefs that I give no more to works then you, but only lefs to 
faith? Why then do you ftill harp upon the word [works'^ 
as if I did give more to them ? the task you now fet me is to prove 
chat faith doth no more, and not that works do fo much : Tbac 
faith is not an inft rument, and not that love or obedience are 
conditions. A nd to this I anfwer you : 1 . I have in my book 
faid fomewhat to prove faith no inftrument of juftifying, and 
you faid nothing againft it. Why then fhould I aim at this 
mark ? 2. I think I have proved there that faith juftifieth pri- 
marily and properly as the condition of the Covenant, and but 
remotely as A receiving jafHficttion, this which you call the in- 
ftrumentality, being but the very formal nature of the ad, and 
fa the quafi materia or \t% aptitude to the office of Juftifying. 
And becaufe I build much on this fuppofition, I put it in the 
4J»fn>j,which you judge impertinent. 3. Yet if you will un- 
derftard the word injlrtiwent laxely , I have not any where 
< , denyed 


dcnycd faith to have fuch an wftrumentality ('that is, receiving 
orapprchenfivenefs) above other graces: Only 1 deny and 
tnoft ctnfdmtlj deny that that is the formal, proper or ncereft 
caufe of faith's juftifying: But the formal reaion is, becaufc 
God hath made it the condition of the Covenant, promifiog 
juftificationto fuch receiving, which elfe would have no more 
luflifled then any other ad : And therefore fo far as others 
ire made conditions, and the promife to us on them, they muft 
reeds have forae fuch ufe as well as faith : And that they are 
conditions, youconfefs as much as I. 4. But what if I be 
miflaken in this point? what is the danger? If faith fliould 
deferve the name of an inftrument, when 1 think it is but a con- 
dition ? 1. Is it any danger to give lefs to faith then others , 
while I give no lefs to Chrift ? (For if you ftiould think I gave 
lefs to Chrift then others, I fhould provoke you again and 
acain to (hew wherein.) 2 . 1 deny nothing that Scripture faith : 
It faith not that faith is an inftrument : (perhaps you will tell 
me Vtronins argues thus „• But I mean it is neither in the letter 
nor plain fenfe j and then I care not who fpeaks it, if true.) 
3 . You make man an efficient caufe of juftifying himfelf. ( For 
the inftrument is an efficient caufe) : And what if I dire not 
give fo much to man ? is there any danger in it ? or fhould I 
befpoke againft for the Doctrine of obedience , as if I gave 
wore to man then you, when I give fo much lefs? 4. Thofe 
that diflent from me do make the very natural aft of faith ? which 
isrooft effentialtoit, and infcparable from it, as it from it felf, 
viz* Itsappnhenficnof Ckrfts Right eoufnefs, to be the proper 
primary reafonofits juftifying. What if I dare not dofo, but 
.give that glory to God, and not to the nature of our own aft ? 
and fay, that Fides qua rec'tpit juftificat, fed nonqua recipit 
primarily, but as it is the condition which tic free juftifier hath 
conferred this honour upon? isthereany danger in this? and 
will there be joy in heaven for reducing a man from fuch an 
opinion ? 
You i^yJ^fVbat more ebvious then that there art many conditions 
in juftificato, which are not in a&u juftificationis : The fanning 
the bead to the boar, &c ] Anfw. 1. You faid before that 
they are Antecedents &tjriediaerdinata y and then tbey are 

B b fare 


lure conditions injuftificando as w^ell as in\ufiificato. t. Your 
mention of the condition in hominevidintt is be fides our bufi- 
nefs, and is only of a natural condition , or qualification 
in genere nAtttr& ; When we are fpeaking only of an a&ive con- 
dition in genere moris : The former is improperly, the later 
properly called a condition. 3. If this be your meaning, I 
confefs there are many natural or paftive qualifications ne- 
ceflary, which are no adive or proper moral conditions in a 
Law-fenfe ; But this is nothing to the matter. 4. The phra- 
fes of [Conditions injuftificato, & in aSitt jufttficationii] are am- 
biguous, and in the Moral fenfe improper. Our queftion is 
whether they are conditions ad juftificationem recipiendam : 
Which yet in regard of time are in alln ju/fificdtionu y but notc<?«- 
ditiones vel qualifications ipfim aElus. And if you did not think 
that repentance is a condition adjuftifica f ionem recipiendam, and 
fo watiujttftificatkmsi how can you fay it is medium ordina- 
te** I A mediums fucb,eflentially hath fome tendency or con- 
duciblcnefstoitsend. ?. As obvious therefore as you think 
this is, it is paft the reach of my dull apprehenfion to conceive of 
your conditions in a judiciary fenfe, which are in jstfiificato for 
the obtaining of juftification,and not be both adatlnw &inattu 
jttftifieationis : for I fuppofe you are more accurate and ferious 
then by the word condition Co mean modum vel afeEiionem entU 
MetAptyficam , vel fabjeEli alien j fit ad}unttt*m vel qualifica*i~ 
onem infenfo Ph)fico t when we are fpeaking only Of conditions 
inftnfuforenfi. And there are many thoufand hdneft Chili- 
ans as dull as I,and therefore I do not think it can be any weigh- 
ty., point of faith which rauft be fupported by fuch fubtilties 
which are paft our reacry hough obvious to yours : God u r eth 
not to hang mens falvation on fuch School diftinftions which 
fewmencanunderftand. 6. And every fuch Tyro in Philofo- 
phy as I, cannot reach your Phylofophical fubtilty neither ; to 
E3n J erftand chat the faftning of the head to the body is not condi- 
tio in attu videntis ; (though it be nothing to our purpofe )• 
Indeed we may think it of more remote ufe then fome other, 
and but propur a Hud, & qua fi conditio cenditionis ; and if you 
lay fo of Repentance, &c we fliould not difagree 

You fay \Jn other things I come ^andfo mollifie mjf aftirti- 



onsjh*t you need not contend] Anfi?. I. I would you had told 
me wherein I To come off : For I know not of a word. If 
you mean in that I now fay .obedience isno condition of our firft 
attaining juftification, but only of the continuance of it, &c. 
I faid the fame over and over in my book, and left it (hould be 
over-lookc, I put it in the Index ofdiftinftions. If you mean 
not this, I know not what you mean., 2. But if explication of 
my felf will fo moll i fie and prevent contending, I (hall be glad 
to explain my felf yet further : Yea, and heartily to recant 
where I fee my error. For that which you defire , / demon- 
(Irate that its By love , andTkrough love % &c. I have an- 
fwered before by diftinguifhing cf the fenfe of By and 
Through : and in my fenfe I have brought you forty plain Texts 
in my book for proof of it , which (hew it is no new Do- 

To your argument from Rom. 4. Where you fay that Abra- 
hams juftification is the pattern of all others, I conceive that an 
uncouth -fpeech , fi range to Scripture for phrafe and proper 
fenfe, though in a large knk tolerable and true : Certain I 
am that Paul brings Abrahams example to prove that we arc 
juftifled by faith without the works of the Law4 but as certain 
that our faith muft differ from Abrahams, even in the cflenti- 
als of it : We muft believe that this fefus is he, or we fhall dye 
in our fins ^ which Abraham was not required to believe. Our 
faithisanexplicite Affentand Confent to the Mediators Of- 
fices, Wt, that he be our Lord and Saviour, and a Covenant- 
ing with him, and giving up our felves to him accordingly : But 
whether Abrahams ( and all recited in Heb. 11. J were fuch, is 
queftionable. Too much looking on Abraham as a pattern , 
feems to be it that occafioned Cpr otitis to give that wretched de- 
finition of fair h, ( dnnet. in /oc.)thzt Q it is bnt a high eflimation 
of Gods power and wifJom, and fait hfu/nefs in keeping his promt- 
ft*, &c. ~| (yet I know he came (hort alfo of defcribing that 
faith which he lookt on as the pattern.) 

My firft anfiver was that / exclude alfo anyeffeEHvi eo opera' 
tion ; to which you fay, JVhy do ive ft rive about words ,&c] I 
fee that mens concevinps are fo various, that there is no hopes 
that we thould be in all things of one mind. Bccaufe ; I was loth 

13 b 2 to 


to ftrive about words, therefore I diftinguidied between cauf*- 

lity, and condU%ohality y knowing rhar. the Word 'Bf wp .imbigu- 

ous(when we are faid to be juftified By faith &c. no v you take 

this diftinguifhing to be ftriving about words, co avoid' wbteb, 

you would bring we Jback co tht ambiguous term agun> 

Whereas I cannot but be moftcooficlent thaoasgmle ismoit in 

Generals , lb there would b: no nog elle between 'us but 

ftriving about word? if a/; difput« on. an unexplained 

tern, ani'wich^uf: d ft.i \& oh'. D » >u indeed think , than 

to bean efficient caufe of our Juft ;i ti m, and to be a bare 

condition, is all one > or do you chink the difference to;, be of 

no moment? You fiv, J tiinot tx Lids tiir^f jvftifyiyg at well 

a f faith, let the exprejji >it h wh it th-y mil* \ %y4nfw. I. You 

ihould have faid, [Let the fenfe^ or \\> ty of jtftifying bewhatk 

will, ] for fure the difference between an efficient caufe and a 

condition is more then in the expreflion, or clfe I have been long 

miftaken. 2. I do not exclude God jaftifjing, Chrift*jnftifyivg 9 

thetVjrdjuftifjmgi &t.*ad yet to diftmguifti between the way 

that thefe juftifie in, and the way in which faith juftifcs, I take 

to be no ftriving about words, but of as high concernment as 

jmy falvation is worth. 3. Either you mifl.ke my />&n*/f, or my 

fenfei tf the phrafe, then you miflike the word of Qod y which 

faith, a mm is jtiflifiedby work* and not by faith enly ; If the 

fen fa then you (hould not fall upon the phrafe: and then to 

diftinguifh and explain, is not to ftrive about words. 4. If 

I do bring faith and obedience neerer in juftirlcation then others, 

it is not by giving mvretoworkjtfren others, but by giving left 

to faith; And if in that I err, youfbould have fallen on that and 

ihewed it, and not fpeak ftill as if I gave more co works then 

you. I am fure I give left to mtn, and therefore no lefs thenym 

to Chrifb. I perceive not the le aft difad vantage herein that I 

lyeopento? butonl/the odmm of the phrafe of jtt ft t fit at h* by 

ype'kt, with men that are carried by prejudice and cuftome. 

5. I will not quarrel about fuchaword^ but I like not your 

phrafe of [Faith j*ftifying t and work* jxfiifjing,] for it is fitter 

10 introduce the conceit of an efficiency in them, then to fay, 

[}Ve arejuftifed by faith and by Vrorkf^ which are only the Scrip- 

mrc phrafe, and fignifie but a conditionally. 


- (iSj> > 

To that you fay out of Tki\ 3.9. I believe PauI dot& 
Bftoft appofitely oppofe the r ghteouihefs which is by faith to 
that wbichisby me Law. Buc then 1. He means r.oc [By 
faith as an mfl.um ncpf juftifkation] 2. Nor by faith which i« 
but a meer affiance on Chrift for juftirication, or only as fuch- 
3. Nor doth he exclude Knowledge, Repentance, Obedience* 
&c. 4. But to fay thatnghteoulnefs or juf.iflcation Iblj 'ove t 
or byobeeLu'nce, &c. Without adding any more, is nor a con- 
venient fpe-ech, as it is to fay that righteouihefs is b/ faith. 
1. B:caufeths fpeech feems to be of the rirft receiving of righ- 
teoufnefs, wherein obedience or works have no hand- 2. Be- 
caufe faith having tnoft clear dired relation to Chrift, doth moft 
plainly point out our rightecufnefs to be in him. 3. Becaufe faith 
&s it is taken in theGofpel,is amoftcomprehenfive grace con- 
taining many ads , and implying or including many others 
which relate to Chrift as the object alfo. Even obedience to 
Chrift is implyed as a neceflary fubfequent part of the conditi- 
on, feeing faith is an accepting of Chrift as Lord and King, and 
Head, and Husband, as well as a juftifler. 5. Yet Scripture faith 
as well as I, that Chrift (hall juftifie us By his k"orv/gdge^nd we 
(hall be jxftifiesi by our words , and by workj ; and me chinks it 
(hould be no fin to fpeak the words of God , except it be (hew- 
ed that I mifunderftand them. It is not fo fit a phrafe, to fay , 
that a poor ignoble woman, was made rich and honorable by 
her Love, or Obedience, or Marriage, faithfulnefs,and conju- 
gal a&ions ; as to fay, it was by marriage with fuch a Noble 
man, or confent to take him to be her husband : For the 
marriage confent and Covenant doth imply conjugal affe- 
dion,adionandfaithfulnefs. Yet are thefe laft as flat conditi- 
ons of her continuing her enjoyments as the marriage Covenant 
wasoffirft obtaining them. 

To my fecond Anfwer , you (hew that Paul excludes 
works under any notion. 1. From his oppofition between 
faith and works, where you fay~l contradict Paul, and give 
a tertium. To which I anfwer, to diitinguidi of Pauls terms, and 
explain his. meaning in his own words is not to give a tertium % 
or contradid ; but this is all that I do.I diftnguifti of the word 
Works ; fometime it is taken more largely for A8s or Attions, 

Bb 3 and 


and fo James takes it ; fometimes more ftri&Iy for only fuch 
Afoons as a Labourer perform eth for his Wages, or which m*k* 
the RsVvardtobe not of (jrace, but of debt. So Paul tells you that 
he underftandeth or ufeth the term, Rom. 4.4. ufually there- 
fore calling them Works of the Lift. Now he that excludes 
Works only under this notion, doth not therefore exclude them 
under every notion. Where you add that Pauls op-pofitlon is 
between FA h and any thing of curs : I anfwer. I . Is not Faith 
ours as much as? Love, &c ? 2. Are not Knowledge , Words, 
Works % ours i by all which God faith, we are juilified ? 3 . There 
is no fuch Scripture where Paul makes any fuch oppofuion; but 
only he renouncech h;s own Righteoafnefs which is of the Law, 
Phil, 3. 8,9. and any thing of ouroWn that may be called 
Works in the ftri&er fence. 

Your fecond is, becaufe Paul excludes Abrahams Works y &c. 
Anfwer. 1. You make my ten turn to be [ works that are of 
Grace ] and here again, -works that flow from Qr ace, and fay, 
Abrahams were not bj rneer flrength of the Law : But thefe are 
no words of mine 9 nor is it candid to feign them to be mine $ 
but that I impute it to your hafte : I believe ycu remetnbred fo 
well the words of An&radius, Bellarmine , and other Papifts, 
that they dropped from your pen in hafte in ftead of mine; not 
is my fence any whit like theirs ; for I fpeak not of the effi- 
cient caufe of works, ( Nature or Grace ) nor the meer com- 
mand requiring thcm,when I fpeak of Law and Gofpel: but 
the full entire Covenant or Law confifting of all its parts, and 
(o making our'A&s the conditions of the Punifhment or Re- 
ward : as 1 have opened over and over in my Book. 2. You 
ask, Wire Abrahams Works in epp fition to that, &c ? Anfwer. 
1 . °aul excludes alfo works in co-ordination with Chrift,and fo 
do I. i. Yea and works fuppofed to be fubordmate to Chrift, 
which arc not capable of a red mbordination, 3. but not fuch 
as are truly fubordinate, from being fuch conditions as is before 
laid. 4 You feem to me to miftake Paul mucosas if he took it for 
granted, that Abraham had fuch works which Paul difputeth 
againft, but could not be juftifted by them : Whereas I doubt 
not to fay, thatT^a/contrarily fuppofeth that Abraham had 
mo fuch Works, ( which make the reward to be of Debt, and 



not of Grace ) and thereforecould no: be juftifid by the 

Your third Argument is, ^htcaufc imputing. coverUg^ all id 
wholly attributed to God.} Anffrer, I doubt not but that God 
is the only Principal efficient Caufe, and his Promife or Cove- 
nant the Inftrumental ; therefore I cannot think as other?, that 
man is the efficient Inftrumental by believing, or that Faith is 
fuch; But what is all therefore attributed to God ? Even 
the performance of the Conditions on mans part? Or are 
there no fuch conditions which man muft perform himfelf or 
perifh? God only covereth fin, impureth Rigfreoufnefs, &c. 
but to none who have nor performed the Conditions. Is Belie- 
ving attributed to God, or is it an ad of man ? Or is it exclu- 
ded? When will you prove theConfequence of this Argument ? 
Your fifth Argument is, becaufe the ts4ffertiop is u»iverfdl 
rv'thout works in general } Anftter, I, Doth not the Apoftie 
contradict you by expounding himfelf in the very next verfe 
before thofe you cite ? Pom 4, 4, That by works he means not 
fimply^W ^clicns % as fames dotb, but fuch as make the re- 
ward to be of deb: and net of Grace ? Indeed fuch works are 
univerfally excluded. 2. Therefore he excludes the veryprefence 
of works, and faith, to him that Vvcrketh n9t y &c. ver. 5 . But the 
prefer.ee of good adions you fay is not excluded. 

Your Jaft Argument feem. to me the fame with the fourth, 
and itforceth me to admire that youjhould think theconfe- 
quence good. Bleffecinefs is Tfhenfin is forgiven • therefore no ^cr\ 
or good *El perfermed by man is the condition of fcrgtvenefs % either 
aa begun or continued ' f orcotfummate j If this be not your con- 
fequence, you fay nothing again ft me : if it be, I allure you i: 
is not in my Power to believe it,nor to difcern the leaft fhaddow 
of probability of truth in it, nor to free it from the charge of 
being the groffeft Arrinomianifm ( fi f*ce tui it a dicam. ) And 
here I muft needs tell roa alfo my utter difability to reconcile 
you with your felt ; foe 9 ^u before fay.they are media ordinary 
tnd here you fay, They are excluded under any notion : As if 
to be a med.xm were no notion ; or the medium did nothing in or 
to the very juftifying of the perfon, 

To my next t\ nfwer. If wcrkj be excluded under any notion \ 
then J^mes his Words cannot be true y that We*r* juftifed by works. 


C 19* ) 

You reply, // there be juflifying works, bow faith Vzul true? 
1 anfwer. Tbisisamoft evident Pttitio prwcipU. Itisunde- 
niabic that fames includeth works under fome notion ; and thac 
Paul excludeth them under fome other notion : now therefore 
I rfl'ghi well ask, Bow faith James true elfe ? Becsufe my fup- 
pofi: ion cannot be denyed : But you fuppofe that Paul exclu- 
ded works under any notion/ which is the very Queftion, and 
is denyr & ) When you ask how faith Paul true t Paul faith true 
tecaufc he fpeaks of works ftri&ly taken,as is by himfelf explain- 
ed •' James could not fay true, if works under every notion ( as 
you lay ) be excluded. 

Next you come to reconcile them by expounding James ; 
where you fay, Faitk Which in refpetl of its All ad intra, only 
jtt/lifies, yet it Works ad extra : fides au<e viva,non qua viva. I 
anfwer. Whats this to the Qoeftion? The Queftion is not 
whether Faith work? Nor whether Faith juftifie } Nor what 
Faith juftifieth ? But in what fence f mes faith, we are juftirled 
by works, and not by Faith only > You anfwer by a direcl con- 
tradiction to fame % ( if I can reach the fence of your Anfwer ) 
faying, J t is by Faith only* and that not as it liveth y &c. So 
dare not I dire&ly fay, it is not by works, when God faith it u : 
but think I am bound to diftinguifti, and (hew in what fence 
works juftifie, and in what not ; and not to fay flatly againft God, 
that we are not juftified by works under any notion', but only by 
the Faith which worketh. A denyal of Gods Aflertions is an ill 
expounding of them. 

To what you fay of the Judgement of the Orthodox, [ that 
they go eadtm via etfinon eademfemita~\ I anfwer, you may un- 
derftand your diftindion as you pleale, but I have (hewed the 
difference •* fome underftand it of juftificarion before God ^ 
others before men, &c. And if you pleafe to make the way 
wide enough, you may take me among the Orthodox, thac 
go eadem via: if net, I willftand out with James. 

When you fay \jhey exclude Works under any notion in the 
all ofjuftification.] I anfwer, i.Your felf include them as antece- 
dents and concomitants (though I do nor J 2. I have (hewed 
before that [_intheact 9 &c.y\s ambiguous. If you mean [4/ 
jigenu or 'C*ufes\ fo do I exclude them. If you mean [ at 



conditions required by the ner* Lf» to the continuing and confum- 
mating our ]tt\} * fie *ihri\ I have (hewed you that Divines do 
judge othet w»le. 

Mynexcanfwer was \lfVvorkj under any notion be excluded, 
then pith is excluded] You reply l,[_Tbus Bellarmine, &c.\ 
Anfw. I knew indeed that Bellarmine faith fo But Sir, you 
{peak to one that is very neer Gods tribunal and therefore is re- 
folved to.look after naked truth . and not to be affrighted from it 
by the name either oiTZcllarm-ne or Antichnjh^nd who is at Uft 
brought to wink at prejudice. I am fully refolved by Gods 
grace to go on in the way of God as he difcovereth it to me, 
and not to turn out of it whenTZellarmme ftandsin it. Though 
the Divels believe, I will (by Gods help) believe too: and 
not deny Chnft,becaiife the Divels confefs him. Ypu fay,iVtf» 
fequitur, Iprovetheconfequer.ee. If all works (or ads) be 
excluded under any notion whatfoever, and if fai h be a work 
or ad then faith is excluded. But, &c. Ergo y &c. By the reafon 
of your denyal I ur.derftand nothing that you deny , but [ that 
faith is a xvork^ or act \ which I never heard denyed before, and 
I hope never fhall do again. The common anfwer to Hellar- 
mi* e is t th&t f a? th ft hie h is a work, jufiifieth , but not as it is a 
Vtork^: Which anfwer I confefs to be found, and fubfenbe to it. 
But then according to that, faith which is a work juftifieth 
under fome notion (fuppofe it were under the notion of an in- 
ftrumentj though not under the notion of a work. But you 
go another way, and fay, i. Faith is pajfive in its inftrumen- 
tality, and though to believe, be a grammatical action, its ver- 
bum a&ivum , yet its phyfice , or huper phyfice pajfive. 
A m«n by believing doth not operari, £**recipere. As vidcre, 
audire,*ir* Grammatical attions, but phy peal or natural p/*Jfions t 
&c. Anfwer. i. Thefe are very fublime Affertions, quite 
paft the reach of my capacity, and of all theirs that I ufeto 
converfe with ; and I dare fay it is no Herefie to deny them, 
nor can that point be neer the foundation that ftands upon fuch 
props which few men can apprehend. 2. What if Fairhwere 
pajfive in its hflrumentality c Is it not at all an ^there- 
fore r If it be ; Then that which is an *sf& or ivork^, is not • 
excluded under the notion of a pajfive fnflrumtnt j and fo 

Cc not 


not under fW7 notion ( I fpeakon your ground?. But) 
becaufe you told me before that I fhould have fpent ray felf 
againft this Inftrumentality of Faith if I would hit the mark ; I 
will fpeak the more largely to it now : And i . Enquire whether 
videre, audi^e^ be only Grammatical Actions (as you call them,) 
and nuural padions ? 2. Whether Believing be fo, only ver- 
£/**rf57n/*^,butPiiyficallypaflive? And fo to Believe, is not 
agere^bwipatioi reapere? ;. Whether faith be paffive in its 
Jn^rumentality? 4 Whether the fame may not be faid as 
truly of other Graces? 5. Whether Faith be any proper 
Inftrument of our Judication? 6. If it were, Whether 
that be the primary , formal Reafon of its juftifying ver- 
tue ? 7. Whether your Opinion or mine be the plainer or 
fafer ? 

And for the firftj fhould not think it worth the looking afcer, 
but that I perceive you lay much upon it, and that Philolophers 
generally fuppofe that the Sence and Intellect in this are alike ; 
and for ought I difcern, it is fuch a Pafsivenefs of ttfe Intellect 
that you intend : and therefore we may put all together, 
and enquire whether vipers & intdligere be only Pafsions ? And 
here you know how ill Philofophers are agreed among them- 
felves, and therefore how ilppery a ground this is for a man to 
build his Faith upon in fo high point as this in hand: you know 
alfothat Hipp WAtes^G den, Plato, Tlotinm , with the genera- 
lity of the PUtonifts are dire&ly contrary to you : you know 
alfo that Albertnt Magnet, and his followers judge fenfation to 
be an aition, though they take the potentU to be paffive. You 
know alfo that Aqriia* with his followers judge the very poten* 
lia to be active as well as paffive • ptftive while it receivttb the 
[pedes yZndatfiyeiDitM per ipfamagit & fen fat lone m pro ducit, 
AnbTolzt faith, that this is Scotus bisfentence, 2, de Anim*. 
q* 12. & CapreeL & fere communis. I know Aminos 
faith , that intelligere eft qvoMam p*ti ; but he taketh pati 
in his third wide improper fenfe, Vsomnequ d exitdepotsntia in 
aftum, poteftdtciptti: i.q. 7 9 a. 2. C. An 1 no doubt every fe- 
cond caufe may be faid to fuffer even in its a&ing,as it receiveth 
tbe Influx from the firft, which caufeth it to afl ; but it will not 
thence follow that the^ videreyintefligere eft for maliter pati: 


* cannot think that you deny the inteketlum agent em : and yon 
know that generally Philofophers attribute Acl;on to the pnjfi. 
ble Intellect : and that fandun. ApolLnA, &c. do accordingly 
make an tsfgent and patient fence: and if the reception of the 
{pedes were for maliter vi'h & intdletlio ( which I believe not ) 
yet how hardly is it proved that the Organ and Intelleft are on- 
ly pafsive in that reception ? Yea how great a controveriie is 
it what the fenfible and intelligib!e^«7>j are ? Yea and whether 
there beany fuch thing ? Whether they be an image or fifrili- 
tude begotten or caufed by the Object, as Combaccloias and 
moft ? which yet Stare* , &c, denycth. And whether 
they ftick in the air, and have all their Being firft there, as CMa~ 
Zjrt*s % and other Peripatttickj e Or whether their Being is on- 
ly in the eye ? as fome later. Or whether it be Sir Ken. 1>ig- 
bjes Atonies or number of fmall bodies which are in perpetual 
motion ? I doubt not you know that0c^#» and Henricus quod- 
lib. 4-f. 4. rejed all [pedes as vaini and make the Intellect the 
only active proper caufe of intellection. And Bobs of late in his 
book of humane Nature faith , that viftble and intelligible 
fpecies, is the gr tat eft Paradox in the world, as being a plain Im~ 
pojftbility. Aud indeed it is fomewhat ftrange that every ftonc 
and clod fhould be in perpetual Action,fending forth that which 
we call its fpecies ; for doubtlefs it fendeth forth as much when 
we behold it not as when we do. And more ftrange that a 
Rock or Mountain fhould be fo active a creature, and fo forci- 
ble in.a&ion, as to fend forth its fpecies fo many miles I Yea, 
according to this Doctrine, many icoo miles: for if our Or- 
gan were capable, we fhould fee it fo far. Whether the Angels 
fee thefe things on earth reddendo pedes ,or not; fure according 
to this Doctrine, the /pedes muft reach as far as Heaven. And 
why do not ftones waft by fuch an unceffant emanation? And 
it is ftrange to conceive how the Air is bepainted with variety of 
fpecies, if this be true / that every Grafs, Flower, Tree, Bird, 
Stone, &c and other bodies, have their feveraldiftinct/pff/>* 
in the Air night and day? Ho wftrangely is it painted ? What 
room is therefor them all, without confufion,lf both color, 
quantity, odor, and all be there ? And its ftrange if we do not 
hear the found nor tafte thefweetnefs, &c. but only the fpe~ 

C c 2 c+tt 


cift of them I and beyond my Capacity how we (hould dif- 
cern c Difianceas well as tht Objitldijhnt according to the paf- 
five opinion / find more hard is it for me to believe this Doct- 
rine, when I confider how Cats and Owls fee in the night : and 
how a man in a deep ftudy, or that (leepeth with his eyes open, 
feeth not any thing dittindly ( though I know the frivolous an- 
fwers to thefe : ) And yet more hardly do 1 believe it when I feel 
qnanto labore & :onttu I muft fee to read a fmall print, or dif- 
ccrn a thing afar off : but above all when I feel the labor of my 
ftudies, I hardly believe that my underftanding is not active; 
though I eafily believe that lam alfo too paffive. Why do I 
not underftand with every dull thought? To believe alio that 
every ftone is ftill active, and that the eye and Intellect of the 
living Creature is but pa (five , is hard to me ; becaufe me 
thinks Action better sgreeth to the living, then the inanimate* 
And yet the lefs do I aflent when I obferve what ftrefs they lay 
upon the fimilitude of a looking-glafs receiving the [pedes, 
which I am very confident it did never receive, when I fee it 
moving as my eye moveth, and withdrawing when I withdraw, 
( though the Object be any ftone or other immovable thirg ) 
I judge that when I am gone, the glafs receiveth no more fteries 
from the wall,then the wall from the glafs^nor that the water re* 
ceivesany more [pedes of the Moon that there appears,thcn 
the earth doth; but that all is in mine eyes by the help of that rc- 
flection.I doubt not but you have read D'Orbellis arguments , 
(Dift. 3.** i.[ent.p*r.$.q.2.) againft both extreamsin point 
of intellection : Againft yours hisreafons feemto me ftrong : 
-Quia effect us aquivocus non pot eft excellere in psr[ectione cau- 
[am aquivecam totaUm fed deficit neceffario ab ea ; .[ei int el lectio 
effeteffectm acfuivocHsfpeciei intelligib'dis , fi ab ea[ola cau[are- 
tur, &itaeffet (implicit er imperfcctior fpecie inteltigibili, quod, 
non eft verum* Turn ctiim quia tunc non pojfet falvari image 
inmente, ut mens eft : quia nihil ipfius mentis loaberet rationem 
parentis, Itemquomodocaufarentur relationes rationis, five in- 
tentiones logics, quzfunt in aftu celUtivo ? cum ilia ir.tentio di- 
catur realU qua cau[atur imediatea re vtl [pecie repre[entante rem 
infe.Evcndes Cartes his Doctrine of vibration feemeth to make 
the fenfation and intellection to be formally Action, though 
the Organ muft firft be paffive to the producing it, before it be 


Active. Zabarel.CombacchitiSf&c. fay that in fenfation there 
is firft a receiving xhefftcftn 2. ft judging, ctrc. The firft by the 
Organ which is pailive, and the later r which is the very f< nia- 
tion by i he feafittve foul, which is active. Therefo;e Com- 
bacckixs faith, hteltetlfo eft operatio anim& twtianalis , c£r. 
but />*^ is not cpsratio. Schibler determined) it ( Top. 
/>. 23 2. that the object doth but I, Ex, it are potential Acti- 
ve ad actus. 2. Terminare actus .Vtguerim inf it-it. p. 261. 
befides the intellect Agent, aicribeth to the Pofiible three 
offices. 1. To draw and receive the [pedes. 2. Actually to 
underftand. 3. Toconfcrvethe/Pfc*>.f. The fame Vt^uerius, 
inftit.p. 17. & Aquin. \.q. 18 a. }. l. Sts^rc^T.m- 2. dlfp 48. 
$.6. Scalger Exercit.^oj. f. :. asalfo Br$dfltardwe , Scant , 
Cajetani ambo, Libert: D'Orbtt/is, Ruvio, /lifted us, Ktc- 
kermanStierius, Zancbius, Bttrgerfdidtif*, A. C. fafcic log. 
'Prideaux Hypomnem. with many more , have taught me to ac- 
count vifion, intcllecl*en,and volition for Immanent Ads. And 
tbougfothtre be a reception of ihc /pea es,ac\d fo fomewhat of 
paflionaswellasef adtion, yet that of paffion is but a prepa- 
ration or qnafi materiale* and the form^le is ina' ; »ion> as Kec~ 
ktrman, Sjft.log.p. I 10 Ph}ficinonnnll<,dijcerr.i$nt miteria/e 
&formale : fie materiale in viftt eft receptiofpeciertim vifibilium 
in oculo, quit eft pajjio : eft deinde dijuJicaii? ret zifibJis per :l~ 
Us (pedes cju<£ eft actio : bine eft quod Ariftot. fenj'nm motio ad 
actionem ^nodo ad paffionem refert. Zanckius faith, Vol.!. T.£. 
p. 581. Vim omnem fenfitivam e(fe partim pafsivum, partim 
activum, diver fit refptcttbus : < P**fsiva eft qttatenus, percipit 
cbjefld. Atlivaeft quattnus ipfa ab objetlo ajfiC~l\ pirit Jen- 
fttnt, & rem ttnam ab alio dtfeemit^ P.ittnti* enim vifiv* pofi- 
quam recepit coloris albi/peciem,d<fctrwt hanv a ngre, &c. ftc in 
rebiu Divinisvis noftr* mentis & voluntatis & p Jfiva & atli- 
va eft. Pajftva quatenus rec pit grati.m d Deo M r.obts optraxte : 
Atlivaveroquatenus afftftaDeigrattn, i t f Credit jpfa Am+tt • 
Atli enim Agimut. Res fua natura ineellg bil« vis hare ahima? 
Patiens inteilettus *pp£ IJata, efficic fuo lum ne , fuaque A3icne % 
nt res atltt intelliganturf Hoc lumen tntelL &us Agentis, hoc efi\ 
anima noftr*, non minima pars eft imaginis Da in cjua crtati fu- 
mm. Obfcptratafuit Ittx nobis communicataptr peccatnm Adt, 

Cc 3 fed 


fed illuftratur denuo per £hriftum : unde hac nova luce Deum 
Dtiqus myftcriaintelligimus , qua certe animalis homo percipere 
non potefi. Troiy.&e cum effemiu tenebra y denuo fatli Jumus & 
veca&sur lux in Domino. Ex hac nova lues donata per Chtifium , 
inieliigimus quid fit intelleclus. Agens. Zanch. ibid. p. 596. You 
fee how far Z^nchtm Phiiofophy and Divinity is from yours ; fo 
f ' 5°4» 8ft antem mwifefta in. nobis hie intelleclus z.Ailio^ 
.nemptt intelligere. £t pig. 638. He faith the intellect hath 
four operations, 1. Similtcium apprekenfio. 2. Horum Compo- 
fitio. 3. Comp'oftorum aftimatio,toque & verorum a falfis dipt- 
fio. 4. Ex his ratioanatio. And you know that T.olet,. having 
formerly thought, mih^Egih Paul, Ventt. & C*jet. that 
fenfath ( & it a inte !! ectio ) (ft formaliter pafsio , did change 
his judgement , and at laft conclude that Vifio vel fenfatio 
alia duos motut diciti unummtterialiter, & hie eft rece.pt io fpe- 
ciei'. alttrum formaliter, ejrkic eft Aftio : Prior ineft Or ga- 
no ratione materia: pofteriorrationefottf*ti4 y &a*itna: tamett 
ftterque eidem ineft Organo. Prior quidem non eft j ub ft ant ia liter 
& effentU liter Jenfatio, fed concomitans & velttt d'fpofitio v paftg- 
rior eft ejfentiaJiter fenfatio. " 

But I have been coo tedious on this. vid. ultra in L 2.de Am- 
m*,p. 76.77.4fc* &L%.q> 13. &c You fee my reafons in part 
why I may think my felf excufable , though I build not an 
Article of my faith on your Philofopbical aflertion ; \jhat vide- 
re s audire,(andfo to bileve) are Grammatical actions (only) (for 
you muft fay [only ] or you fay nothing)and but phyfical paffions. 

JQueft. 2 Whether to Believe be only verburn activum fbutphy- 
cally p*jfive, and a man by believing doth not operari,£#J recipere. 

This Queilion comes a little clofer. By operari I .know you 
meaner*: for if you ftiould mean fuch an ^frrffKw as Open- 
rim pro mercede ex debito performeth , then you fhould fay 
nothing, but difpute againft what I difavowed, even in the letter 
you anlwer ( which 1 dare not impute to you ) Now the rea- 
fons that force me to differ vehemently from you ( as ycu faid 
to me ) in this point, are partly Ptulofopbjcal, partly Theologi- 
cal. And 1. I would fain know what that is which you here 
call Favh&tid fay its f» five > Is it the Habit ? No ; For i.Thac 
cannot be paflive. 2. That isnot it that juftifietb. 3. Thatis 
not a paftion, as you fay this is. 4. That is not a Grammatical 



^Elion, as you fay this is ; What then ! Is it the AH of Faith } 
No : For i. Thatsitthatyou aredenymg,and fay its but ver- 
bum uftivum. 2. You fay, it up ijfive. But how an A&'tnl 
can bzp.ijjive, isfofar beyond the reach of my weak under-; 
ftanding. tnac I could not believe it/.hough it were judged He- 
rcfie Co deny it. Pafs:o intrinfecttm ordinem dicit ad fubjectum, 
C* rtpugnat dtri paffimem extra fit bj?ct'<tm y faith Su?rez. Tom.z. 
difp. 4p. p. 45 1. And that Action can be the fubjecfc of s P a f- 
fto»; is Pnilofoph) that I never learned, and I think never ftaJI 
do^ Efpecially if Ssbibter and moft Philofophers fay true 
that Acti.j & pafsionon dfftrunt realiter fed fecundnm inadaqua* 
tMcoftceptyj. For very many have taught me, that to the Pe- 
ripaceticksitis abfurd for the fame to be both the AAion 9 Taf» 

fion and Taffum ; yea to common reafonit is 

Moft certainly therefore it is neither Habit, nor *Ac t of faith 
which you callfaich. What is it then?Is it a Pafionfh you fay your 
felf, and therefore I rriuft take that to be your meaning: And 
I cannot imig.ne whatelfe youfhouldcaii faith. But here you 
leave me at as great a lofs as before. For, 1 . You fay it is Paf- 
five; But I never heard or read before of a Pafitve Paf 
fo» t any more then of a Paf sive Action: And if I (bould fee 
my underftanding on the wrack, it would not apprehend or ac- 
knowledge any fuch thing. I cannot imagine that it is the foul 
it felf which you fay \spafsive. i. Becaufeyou fay it is faith. • 
2.Becaufe dfe your Argument muft conclude that the foul only is 
the inftrument But »ve are not questioning the inftrumentality of 
the foul now, but of faith. More I might urge to (hew that 
this cannot be your meaning, but that 1 will no: fuppofe that it 
is the foul it felf which you call faith. It being therefore nei- 
ther the Soul, Habit , Act, nor Paftion which you here fay is 
Pafsive in its itftrumentalitj , I am forced to confefs I know 
not what you mean : Yet if you fhouldmean any Potentia Taf- 
[rva. i . Whether there be any fuch in the rational foul d;ftin£l 
from the foul it felf,is'a great doubt. 2. If there were,I know not 
how it can be called faith. 3. Nor is it fuch a Potentia that is 
the inftrument ofjuftification.Yet afterwards you fay, It is an 
act of dependance/vhich here you call a Pafjiw. 

2. Bat whether AH ot^Pafton % k muft belong either to the 



Vnder (landing, or fVilL or both: And I. Tfyou (hould place it 

only in the underftanding, you would ( befides Dr. Downam) 

have few but the Papiitswiih you. 2. If in the Wi!l only, then 

( as Scripture is moll plain againft ir, fo ) you would alfo go 

againft ch; generality of our Divines MtLnfth*n Jo. Crociw, 

Ame[t<u , Davenant, &c. make it the common Proteftant 

Tenet} that it is in both. Inatlufidei Juftificantis tot a an ma 

fe convertit ad cau[am juftificantem : Da vent nt,De term. Q^ $ 8. 

fag. 174 Fides ilia quam Script ur a juftificantem agnofcit ^habet 

in fe complicatum alium voluntatis & intelletttts. idem. ibid. 

4> . 3 7. pag. 1 66. And to them that think it abfurd to have it 

in both faculties, I anfwer with the fame Author. 1. fflnod 

pbilopfkantur voluntatem & intelleUum e(fe duos pitentitu re ipfa 

dftinttas, dogma philofopbicum eft ab omnibus baud receptum, 

(not of Scotnt and his followers, with many more J &Tbe- 

ologicis dcgmanbus firmandii ant infirm andU fundament*/ mini' 

we idcnsum. 2. Ntq-^nobu abfurdum y fed valde conftntaneum 

videtur pactum ilium quo tot a animapurificatur ef> \uftiftcatur y ad 

tot am animam pertinere : it a ut in nudo intellects habeat initiumjn 

voluntate complementum. Idem. ibid. 

3. If you fay it is In both ( as I doubt not but you will, it 

being the plain Truth ) then 1. It cannot poftibly beany one 

fingle Act or Tajfion which you call the pafflve Inftrumevt: 

and do you chink.to find out many fuch ? 2. For that which 

belongeth to the understanding, it muft be either a ftmple appre- 

henfion, a compoftticn ordivifion, or a ratiocination or Judgement. 

And 1. Afimple Apprehenfion it cannot be: 1. For fotheln- 

telled receiveth all Obje&s alike. It receiveth fin, death, un- 

righteoufnefs, Satan, hell in the fame kind as it receiveth Grace, 

Life,Righteoufnefs,Chrift\Heaven.For it underftandetb both iq 

the fame way, receiving them per modum objecti. 2. And thus it 

receiveth not the very thing k felf Eflentially, ( though it under- 

ft and the thing it felf) but only as is fa id, the fpscies or adlion of it, 

C^.fexccpt you will fay as Sir Ken.Digbj*md the Lord Brook^ 

that the thing underftood is really in the underftanding, and 

become one with it ) Now according to this ferfcc,you 

would not make fairh to receive Chrift or his Righteoufnefs 

atall,but only the fpecies or Idea of them.3. And how ofc 



hsth Bdlarmint been called Sophifter for fuppofing, we n 
fuch an apprehenfion ? Therefore I will not dare to think that 
you mean this. 4. And if you did, yet I have (hewed how 
uncertain it is, that ihxstKttHigtre \scnly or formally pati. 2. But 
if you mean not this fimpU apprekenficK { as fureyou do net ) 
then how isicpofsiblc to imagine the underftsndirg fhould be 
paffivein k ? Did ever man chat writ of Philofophy once thir.K 
that the foul did compesere, dhiJere, rati oar, nri, judicare, patt- 
tndo & r.on agendo } I think no man. When7V« difputcth 
utrum ixtdligere fit pari} he faith, Adzerterdum eft quodjtrwv 
eft dt apprehenfionc ^ ram de cotr.pofiticne & fud'cio r.on eft du* 
biumtpudomnes. Tol. deanima. p. 166. 1 will not therefore 
fuppofcyou to differ in your Philofophy from ail men. What 
Ad of the undemanding you will make to be part of Jufttfy- 
iug faith, I know not ? tor I find Divines are very little agreed 
in it ; But the moft make Affent to be the only Ad of the uri- 
dcrftanding ( though fome add notiira ) and of them forrie make 
it EJfential to juftifying Faith : and others but as a common 
prerequifite Ad. Now if it were Affehfus Noeticur, yet it is 
impofsibleit fhould be formally a Pafsion : but much more im- 
pofsiWe when it is Ajfenfus dianoeticus veldifcurfivus^ as is moft 
evident it is, and our judicious Rob. Baroniut truly teachetb, 
Fhihf. Theol. Ancil. Exerc.^, \Art. 16. 

Moft Divines place the chief Eflcnce of Faith in fidueia : but 
then they are as ill agreed what to mean by fidueia. Temblc 
would fain perfwadeus that to Believe the Truth of a particu- 
lar Promifc,is to truft on the performance of it to me; and that 
the Affent of Faith which is given to fuch a Promifc, is properly 
called fidueia or Truft. But this is grounded on his lingular opi- 
nion • that Truth and Goadnefs are all one, &c. Baror.ius, pag. 
232. telsusof a four-fold fidueia : The firft he makes to be 
but a confident Affent to the Truth of the Promife, and a firm 
fure Perfwafionof theRemiisionof my own fins and of try 
Salvation. The fecondis a Rcftingon GodsGoodnefs alone, 
&c. He pl?ceth the juftifying vertue only in the firft, which 
yet containetb but partly Affent ( which we plead againft the 
Papifts ufually not to be the juftifying Aft ) and partly a par- 
ticular Perfwafion or Belief of Pardon, which is properly no 

D d Faith. 

( 201) 

Rich, but that commonly called AfTurance. Now this kind of 
fiducia is but'the Affent we have fpokenof, and is beyond ail 
difpute no meer Paffion 9 but an Att of the Underftanding. 

2. But moft Divines make that fiJuch which is an ad: of the 
Will to have the chief hand in this work of juftfiying : though 
Btroniut is fo confident that k is not an act of Faith r but an Ef- 
fect and Confeqaent, that he takes it for a thing fo manifeft, 
that itneedeth no proof, p. 234. And Dr. Downam hath 
brought not a few, nor contemptible Arguments to the fame 
purpofe againft Pemble , Append, to Covennat of Gr. Yet 
though we have found it in the Will, yet it is hard to find what 
act of the Will they mean. If it be an Elicit Actjt muft firft 
cither refpect the End> and then it is either velle intendere vel 
frtti -, But fure fidtfcia is none of thefe : and if it were, it is 
more fure that at leaft the two firft are not Pajfions ^ and I 
think not the laft, though it be nothing to the prefent point : 
Or elfe 2. It muft refpect the Means • and then it muft be 
Eligere, C on ftntire vel Vti ( in which joined to AJfent t I take 
juftifying Faith to confift ) : But it is both evident that none of 
thefe hfiducia, and if they were , that none of thefe arc.p*/- 
(tons ovptjfive. So that hitherto we are to feek for this Pafsive 

Or elfe it is an Imparate Act - 3 and then we are in a wood to 
feek among fo many that there is little hope of finding it. The 
Truth feems to me to be beyond difpute,that pa'ueia is no one 
fingle Act ( though one word ) but a composition of many im- 
plying or containing the <>s4(fent of the underftanding, the 
Election of the Will, efpeciaily much of Hope and vfdvent*' 
roufxefs in thelrafcible of the Senfiiive, together with a fufpen- 
fionof fomeacts. And if we are juftified by this Recumbenc f 
or Fidncia % I fhali believe we are juftified as well by Hope as any 
thing ; for that takes up moft here, asT>r. Downam ubifopra 
proveth. And who everfaid that in all or any of thefe the 
Soul u Paflive and no£*Active ? Indeed Hope and Venturoufnefs 
are PaJJiom % but in another fenfe ( as Keckerm. and Tolet 
ubifupra have well opened • its in refpect of their quafi materi- 
ale, ) I am content to ftand or fall by the vote of Philofophers, 
giving you 1 00 to one, whether the Formality cf thefe motions 


•/ the Will lie inPafsion or Action} And if they MttActi , 
whether t bey can be the Subjects of Pafsion • and jo be pafsive 
Acts ? So that yet I cannot find out your pafsive Faith. 

3. But yet further, if Faith be pafsive Phyfically, let us 
find out full what is the Agent f z. What the Action ? 
J. What the Patient or Object I 4. What is the Terminus ad 
qntm ? 

1. I doubt not but it is agreed chat the Agent is God : 
for it is he that juftifieth. 2. 1 he terminus or res motufatca is 
two-fold. 1. J unification infenfulegu, commonly called con- 
ftitutive J aft 1 fie at ion ( pafsive. ) 2. 7-ubliqvef(tftification by 
plea and [entence at judgement (pafsive) 3. The Adion mult 
be therefore two-fold, or twoAdions according to the two- 
fold Terminus. Yea in the former we may ( if we accurately 
confider it ) find cut a two-fold Atlion and Terminus, though 
the difference be narrow : In which we are to confider, 1 . O f 
the Inftrument. 2. And the nature of the Adions. 1. The 
Inftrumcnt is the word of Promife or Grant in the Gofpel ( for 
if you know any other way of Gods juftifying,or any immedi- 
ate Ad of God herein which is TranfientJ would it were reveal- 
ed what Ad it is. ) Herein I have Mr. Rutherford faying as I, 
over and over agairift the Antinomians. 2. The Adion there- 
fore can be no other then a moral Action, as a Leafe or Bond, 
or written- Law may be faid to act. Now the Gofpel perform- 
ed] to our firft J unification a two-fold Action. 1. It, doth 
as a Deed of Gift beftow Chrift and his Merit? on men, fo it be 
they will Believe. This Action doch not immediately and di- 
rectly conftitute them Righteous : for Righteoufncfs being a 
Relation, muft have its Foundation firft laid ; This Act there- 
fore of Donation ( which fome call Imputation ) doth directly 
lay the Funaawentum, whence the Relation of Righteous doth 
immediately arife ( when the Condition is peformed ) pernu- 
dam refultantiam without any other Act to produce it. And 
this is moft properly called fuftificath conftitutiva aUiva. 
2. When the Gofpel hath by Gift conftituted us Righteous, 
then next in order it doth declare or pronounce us Righteous, 
and vcrtually acquit us from Condemnation. This is by the like 
filent moral interpretative Action only as the other. ( And per- 

Dd: haps 


haps fruy be moft fitly called the imputing of Righteoufnefs, or 
efteemingasRighteous,as Yifcator. ) Aid for the latter Juftt- 
fication at Judgement, the Action is Chrifts pablique pleading, 
and fencencing us Acquitc : wrrch is an Action both Phy- 
iical and Moral in feveral refpe&s. 4. Now if we enquire af- 
ter the Patienr, or rather theObjed of thefe feveral Ads, we 
(hall quckly find that the Man is that Object ; but that Faith is 
any Patient here, is paft my apprehenfion. For the fir ft Act 
of God by the Gofpel \_ giving Chrift and his Merit to us, ] it is 
only a moral Action ; ( Though the writting and fpeaking the 
Word atfirft was a Phyfical aftion, yet the Word or Pro- 
mife now doth moraiiter tantum agere : ) And therefore it is 
impofsible that Faith (hould be Poyfically pafsive from it. For 
Pafsion being an effect of Action, it muft be a Phyfical proper 
Action which produceth a phyfical Pafsion. I will not ftand Co 
make your Affertion odious here by enquiring what Phyfical ef- 
fective Influx, Contact, &c. here is, which (hould manifeft 
Faith to be phyfically Pafsive. I know in the Work of effec- 
tual vocation the Soul is firft pafsive : but that is nothing- to our 
Queftion, whether Faith be pafsive in Justification. Do 
but tell me plainly qmb pttitur fides t and you do the Bufi- 

But what if you had only faid that Faith is morally fajftve", 
and not ftyflcally ? I anfwer. It had been lefs harfli to me, 
chough not fit, nor to the point. For 1. Gods Juftification 
nor Donation of Chrift, is not properly of, or to Faith ; for 
then Faith {hould be made righteous and juftified hereby ; but 
to the perfon, if he Believe. 2. Befides if you (hould confefs 
only a moral Pafsivenefs ( which is fomewhat an odd phrafe and 
no:ion,and is but to be the Object of a moral Action) it would 
fpoil all the common arguments drawn from the phyfical nature 
of Faith, and itsfole excellency herein in apprehending, re- 
ceiving, &c. and thereby juftifying. And you would bring 
in all other Graces to which the fame Promife may as well be 
Caid to be made. 3 . The Truth I have and further (hall mani- 
feft to be this; that as it is not to faith or any other act that 
Righteoufnefs is given, but to the perfon on condition he Be- 
lieve 5 fo this condition is no pafsion but an action, or di- 


vers actions. This Will fully appear in the Theological Reafons 
following. In the mean time I need not (land on this, becaufe you 
exprefs your felf that Faith is phj/^cal/y pafive, Indeed you 
add [ or lojferphyftcalljf : ] but though I meet with fome 
Philofophers, that ufe in fuch cafes to give [kperphjice] as a 
tertum to overthrow the fufficiency of the distinction of pbyfi- 
c: & moraliter, yet I fuppofe that is none of your meaning, who 
know that even InttUettus Aum efficit intelUttfon<,m t & voluntas 
volttiontm, JMtcaufa, phjfica s ut Suarez, i. Tom. difp. 17.$. 
2. f>. 26(5. and fo SchibUr, and many more : yea and that our 
Divines conclude that Gods action on our fouls in converfi- 
on is firft Phyfical : which yet may be as truly and fully called 
hyperphyfical as our Faith. 

Now for the fecond action of the Gofpei , £ decla- 
ring or pronouncing thf Btlitver righteous s a*d fo de ju- 
re acquitting him ; ] Ic is much more beyond my reach 
to conceive how r,faith fan in refpect of it be pafsive : For 
i. Befides.tbat it is amoral action as the former, and fo 
cannot of it felf produce a phyfical pafsion. 2. It doth not 
therein fpeak of or to faith, pronouncing ic juft, and ac- 
quitting it, but of and to the Believer. So that if Faith 
were phyfically pafsive in the former, yet here it is impofsible. 
3. If you fey that it is phyfically (or morally)pafsive in regard 
of the latter full Juftirkation by fentence at Judgement, you 
would tranfeend my capacity moft of all. To fay faith is the 
Patient of Chnfts judiciary publiquc fentence.is a fentence that 
{hall never be an article of my Faith ; and is fo grof$,that I con- 
jecture you would take it ill if I fhould take it to be your mean- 
ing: therefore I will fay no moreagaiuft it. Now you know 
that this is ( as you fay in your Lett. ) the molx compten fufii- 
fication^ and which Imoft ftandupon: and therefore if your 
arguments fail in refpect of this, they yield me almcftall I 

Next I will tell you my Reafons Theological why I believe not 
that juftifying faith, as fuch, is pafsive. 1. All Divines and the 
Scripture it felf hath perfwaded me, that Chrift and the Pro- 
mises are the Ob ject of this Faith : but a Pafsion harh no Ob- 
ject, but a fubject, &c. Therefore according to you Chriii, &c 

Dd 3 i* 


is not the object of it ; which is contrary to all that I have heard 
or read. 

2 . I have read Divines long contending Which it the Act of 
juftifying-faith , qna talu. And fome fay one , and fome 
another ; but all fay one,or other,or many. Now you cut the 
knot, and contradict all, in making it (at leaft qmtenus fu- 
flificans) no Act at all y but a Pafsion : uniefs you will fay it is 
a pafsive act ^ which I dare not imagine. And doubtlefs thefe 
Divines (hew by their whole fpecch that by Actus Fidei, they 
mean Actus [ecundus vel Actio % and not Actus primus vel enti- 
tativus vel accidentals >five ut informant) five ut operatives, fed 
ipja operatic 

3 . 1 am truly afraid left by entertaining this opinion I fhould 
flrike in not only with the Anti^omians (who cannot en dure to 
bear of any conditions of life of our performing , but even with 
the Libertines ,who tell me to my face, that man is but Pafsive, 
and as the foul Ads the body, fo Chrift in them movech the 
foul to Good, and Satan to evil, while they are meerly-Paf- 
five, and therefore the Devil (hall be damned for fin who 
committeth it in them , sndnot they ; for who will bite the 
ftone or beat the ft afT,or be angry at the fword? &c m 

4.Elfe you muft deprefs the excellent grace of faith below all 
other, in making it meerly Pafsive while others are adive : 
For doubtlefs life and excellency is more in Action then Pat 

5. If believing be only fuflfering , then all Infidels are 
damned only for not fuffering,which is horrid. 

6. Scripture frequently condemneth wicked men for Adion, 
for Rebellion, Refufing, Re jeding Chrift, Luke ip. 27. They 
hate him and fay,we will not have this man reign over us, &c. 
and this is their unbelief. If they refitted the Holy Ghoft only 
PaJJive & non lAZtivh , then it would be only an ineptitude 
materiei 9 which is in all alike atfirft, and fo all fhould be alike 

7. If to believe be but P*//,then it is God and not man that 
fhould be perfwaded : For perfwafion is either to Action or 
forbearing Action ; and God is the Agent: But it is in vain 
to pcrfwade any to be Pafsive, except it be rot to ftrive 



againftit. This therefore would overthrow much of the ufe of 
trie Miniftry. 

8 ■ And then when Chrift fo ex?olle:h doing the will of God, 
and doing his Commandment /, &c. you will exclude juftifying 
faith, a> being no doing. 

9. Is it credible, chat when Chrift cals faith Obeying the 
Gofpel y and faith, This is the work ofGod^ tl^at ye beheve on him 
whom the father hath fent^ and calls it the wori^ of faith, 2 The/l 
1. ti. and faith, Godgivsth to will, (that -is- to believe) and to 
do^ &c. that all this is meant of meer Pafsion > I undertake 
to bring forty places of Scripture that (hew faith to be 

1 o. It feemeth to me fo great a debating of faith, as to make 
it to benovertue at all, nor to have any moral good in it. 
For though I have read of Pajjio perfeftiv* it genere tntis vet 
nature, andconducible to vertue •, Yet am I not convinced yen 
that any Pafsion as luch, hath any moral vertue in ir. Indeed 
Pafsion maybe the ejuafi mtterrale, but the vertue is in Acti- 
on. Yea, even in non-acting, fas (ilence) the venue lies 
formally in the actual exercife of the Authority of Reafon, 
andfo obeying God in caufing that filence. vSure if men (hall 
be all judged according to their works, and according to what 
they have done, &c. then it will not be becaufe they did ei- 
ther Pati velnonpati. And thu; you have fomeofmy reafons 
why I cannot believe that Relieving is pafsion, nor (hall be- 
lieve it I think, till Credere be Pati , and then I may whe- 
ther I will or no, becaufe pati vel mn pAti are not in my 

3 . The third Queftion is, whether faith bt pxfsive in Us inflrn- 
mentality f 

And I think that is out of doubt, if my former arguing have 
proved that faith is not paflive at alhor if I next prove that faith 
is no phyjicalwftrftment. But yet it I (hould grant both that 
faith is paftive, and that it is an Inflrument^ yet muft l have 
either more or lefs Logick before I can believe that it is pifsive 
in i ts inftrttmeataluj. - 

My reafons againft it are thefe. 1. Eyery Inftrumental 
caofc is an efficient caufe : bat all true efficiency is by a&ion ; 



therefore all inftrumentality is by a ftion.That £»**/*//* u effi.iw* 
tU eft Actio ; & h<zc eft forma per quxm denominatur efficiens\cjma 
age&s & efficient fun t idem, &c. I have been taught fo.ofc and (o 
confidently that I believe it , (¥otoportet difc en tern credere) : 
and chat by Philosophers of no mean efteemjas Snare*. Tom. i. 
difp. i&.§.io. Javel. CMttaph. 1. 9.0. 1 6. Conim. ^olleg. "Ployf. 
Lz.q. 6. art. 2. & 7. Scaliger. Exerit,2$4. Aquino* \Kjtv no, 
Porrece, MelanElh »Z 'anchius t Zabarelj Pererius>Schibler, Stierius y 
Qu. TempelL in Ram. with many more. And if there be no 
fuch thing in reruns natura as a Pafsive tuftrumtnt, then faith is 
none fuch. I know Keckjrm. Alfled. & Burger fdicius do talk 
of a PaiTtve inftrument ; but I think in proper fpeech it is a 
eontradidion,in adjecto^nd fay as SchiblerMetapJoyfl. 1 .c4p.11. 
Tit. J.p. 319. Nifi Actionem propriam habere* Infirumentum, ef- 
ficiens non e{fet^ & proinde pafsivum inftrumentumquod Kecktrm. 
vocat, revsrainftrumentum noneft. Et ut Idem ^Topic. cap. 2. 
num. 34. I nftrumentumtotnmhoc habet (jmd ad caufam efficient 
tern adjuvantem (adquam referimus caufam inftrumentalem) re- 
quiritur. Ratio enim communis Mar um eft ha?* 1) eferv ire ope- 
ration! principalis age ntis per ulterior em operationem. Et Uem y 
Topic. cap. 2. num. 6.f£uer. An efficients Caufalitat]Aclio f Refp. 
ha ponitur in Theor . 36. & [emit it a hdie ^Maxima pars Logi- 
cerum & 'JMet^hjftcsr urn Vide ultra pro confirmation ainu.g. 
Sic etiam cap. 3 . num. \\6. So that if moji Logicians judge that 
there is no paflive inftrument, and confequently that fakh is no 
pafsive inftrument, then who is more lingular, you or I ? For 
f\iTQ y Nihil eft falfum in Tbeologia, quad vcrum eft in Philofophia. 
I deny not but the foul in believing is both Pafsive and inftru- 
mental, but in feveral refpects : as if Camera^ way (hould hold 
of infufing grace into the will Mediante attioneintelle£tus % then 
the intellect would be Pafsive or receiving grace into it felf, and 
an in(lrument of conveying it to the will : but then it would be 
no Paffive but an Active inftrument : and the action of God on 
the Pafsive intellect^and of the intellect on the will,are two Acti- 
ons with diftinct effects. 

2. Though there were fuch a thing in the world as & Pafsive 
inftrument, yet thatpi^fbouldbefuch, and that phyfical, I 
dare fay is either an unfit aflertion, orelfelamofa llupid ap- 


( 2.09 ) 

prcbenfion. For there mutt be found in it ( if it were fuch) 
thefe four requifites. i.Theremuft be a pryfical pa lienor re- 
ception. . 2. A phyfaal efficiency. 5. This efficiency muft be 
paiierdo, nonagtndo, 4. And it rr.uft be fuch an efficiency as is 
proper to inftruments. I may nor (tend to enquire exactly in- 
to ?Ilthcfc. 1. Thefirft I have confuted already, sr.d fball 
add this much more. 1. What doth faith thus receive ? 2. How 
doth it receive it ? 3. Whence ? Or from what Agent and Act ? 

1. Is it Chrift himfelf that is phyfically received by faith ? 
it Who dare fay (o t but the VbiquitariArs ■ end Trar.fubftar- 
tiationmen? and perhaps not they. Christ is in Heaven, and 
we on earth. A multitude of blafpbemerv. L\bertines ; and Farm- 
lifts,! latdy meet with that dream of this but no iober rran. 

2. And indeed if Chrifts perfon were thus received, it wou!d 
not make a man righteous, or juftifie him. As all our Di- 
vines fay, his being in the body of CMtry would not have jufti- 
fiedher: Nor did the kitting of his lips juftifie fudas; nor 
eating and drinking in his prefence juftifie thofe that rntfft de- 
part from him for working iniquity, LMattheft 7. If we 
bad fo known Chrift, we fhould know him no more : It was 
neceffary to his Difciplcs chat he fhould go from them ; we 
muft not have the Cdptrnaites conceit of eating his flcfti. Yea, 
to talk of a pfafical receiving by faith, is far goffer : For the 
mouth was capable of that phyficalfcontact, which faith is not. 
3? And then this will not ftand with their Judgement,that blame 
me for making Chrift himfelfthe object of juftifying faith, and 
not the promife directly. 2. If you fay that the thing received 
is Chrifts rightcoufnefs , ( as moft do that I read ) I anfwer, 
1 . Righteoufnefs is but a relation : And therefore a thing which 
is naturally uncapable of being of it felf phyfically apprehend- 
ed. This is paft doubt. 2. I fit be phyfically received, then 
either as a principle and quality, or as an object. Not the for- 
mer: For fo we receive our flrft, (and after } grace in fancti- 
hcation; but none ever faid foin {unification : Nor indeed 
canthat righteoufnefs which is formally but a relation , dwel 
in us as a principle or quality. If we receive it as an objed , 
then by an Ad : Or if the foul were granted to be pafsivc 
in reception of an object, I have (hewed that, 1. It is but *» 47- 

£ e prthtH* 


frchenfionefimplici : None pleadech for more : But faith is nor 
fuch.2. And io ic would receive Chrift nootherways then it rc- 
cesveth any object whatfoeveric thus apprehendech. . 3. And 
this is not to receive Chrift or bis righteoufnefs, but the meer 
fpecies of it according to your own Philofophers, ( and if righ- 
teoufnefs be but a relation ;• and a relation, as Durandus , Dr. 
Twlfs^vA many another think be but Em Rationis, then the 
fpecies of a n Em Ration^ is a very curious Web J Knowledge 
(te'D'Orbellis faith in 2,fint.l>if.$.f.$.) is twofold,*. #./«*- 
fitive and intellective -, and each of thefe twofold, Intuitive and 
sllftraftive. Intuitive knowledge is indeed de objetlo itt in fe 
prafem ; quandofcilicet res inprcpriaexiftentid eft per fe motiva : 
Exemplum dejenfitiva eft^ut vijus videtcolorem : (yet this is but 
Recepiendo fpeciem, nonrem) and this is not it inqueftionj .* 
Exemplum de intellebliv a eft , ut vifio Divint ejfentiad beatis 1 
This is utterly denyed to be at all by Doctor Stougbton, 
Cawer, and other folid Divines, againft the School- mens judge- 
ment : And if itbe,yetdoubtlefsasweknov7 not how, fd k 
isnotfuch as faiths apprehenfion, which we enquire after, 
Cognitio Abftracliva eft quando fpecies rei movet adeognvfeen- 
dum remipfam, & hoc five res fit in fe prafem , five abfenf, 
Jive ex ft at five non : Exemplum infenfitiva eft , ut phantafia 
imaginatur colorem : Exemplum in intellecliva eft ut intelle- 
titti cognofcit (fmdditatem coloris me die ante ejus fpe.u. So that 
if it be either of thefe, ic were at the utmoft but a paffive rea- 
ception of the fpecies, and not of Chrift or his righte- 

2. By what phyfical contact faith doth receive this? m<yht 
be enquired : and?. By what phyfical ad of the Agent? to 
neither of which queftions can J imagine what tolerable anfwer 
can be given, in defence of this ciuk. 

2. And if faith be a paffive phyftcalinflmment, it mud have 
a Tbyfictl Efficiency ? and what is that ? to juftifie ? why, 
even God himfelf in this life doth that but by a Moral 
A& (by his word J and not by a phyfical, (as to parti- 
culars. ) 

3. But that which driveth me to the greateft admiration is, 
How faith fhould Efficcre pntiendo 1 If I fhould rip up this , 



r>r require a demonftration of it in relped to the juftification at 
judgement, yea, or in this life, yoaorofany efTcdv 1 fhould 
lay fuch an odium on it from its abfurdittes, that in dealing with 
you. modefty doth forbid me to infilt on it. 4. The fourth re- 
quisite will be enquired after in the next Queftion fave 

The fourth Queftion is , Whether other graces may not be 
as properly called phyfical pMJfive InftrHments as Faith, in y >ur 

And I doubt not but they may, ( though its true of nei- 
ther) For 1. If there be no phyfical reception of Chrifts 
righteoufnefs imaginable but that which is per modum ob- 
jctti , and if other gratious acls have Chrifts righteouf- 
nefs for their object, as well as that which you call faith;, 
then other A &s do receive Chrifts righceoufnels as well as faith : 
but both branches of the Antecedent are true, therefore the 
confequence, the bare knowledge or fimple apprehenfion of 
Chrifts righteoufnefs per modum objech may better pretend to 
this, then recombency or affiance : Yea, and love it felf 
more fitly then affiance may be faid to receive or embrace its 
object (which is not therefore falfe neither becaufe Bellarmint 
hath it : and you know he brings Auftines plain words, affirm- 
ing love to be the hand by which they received him, 
&c.) I confefs if I firft renounce not the concurrent 
Judgement of Philofophers, I cannot approve of the common 
Anfwer which our Divines give to t Bellarmine in this^it [That 
F.-r:h receivrth Chrifts Righteoufnefs firft tomans it our*, but 
Love only to retain it , and embrace and enjoy it Vvhen firft we k*ow 
it to be ours : ~ For though this fay as much as I need to plead 
for, acknowledging Love to be as properly a phyfical Recepti- 
on for retention, as Faith is for firft Poffefsion,yetif affiance be 
taken4n any proper ordinary fence, it cannot thus h I J good 
neither: for to affiance muft fignifle fomea&of the will ifk 
order of nature after love, or at leaft not before ir. I acknow- 
ledge that fo much of Faith aslyetbinthe underftanding is be- 
fore Love in order of nature ; ficut ipfe inttlletlus eftfimplrcker 
prior voluntate.ttt motivum mobiliffr attlvum pnffivo, ut Aquin. ' 
i.q ;# 2.a. i,z.*nd\2. q 1 3. a. i.C For as he; Intelh&useft 

E e 2 primum 

prim am mot iv urn omraum potentiarinm anima qucai determi**at : '- 
tnem atfus, voluntas verb q wad exercitium aEius, A quin,i 2. cj. 
\ 7. a. i.C. But for the acts of the will toward Cbritt, I could 
give you ( but to avoid tedioufnefs I muft forbear ) at large tbe 
Teftimony of tAfuinas t Tolet, (}er[on, Camero, AmefiHs.ZuH' 
cWiusyKob. Baronius^ Bradwardine-, Ravio^ Viguerius y &c, Iliac 
Love is not only the firft af all the Pafiions,buteven the firft mo- 
tion of the Will towards its Ob;cct,and little or not at all diffe- 
rent from Volition, diligere being but inttvftve veils, I have 
much more to fay to this, which here I muft pretermit. But ftill 
I fpeak not of Love as a Pafsion, but a true clofurc, as it were 
of the will with its Object as Good r and expect love to be pro- 
per to the fenfitive, and ftrangeto the intellective foul; we 
# mu(t make it the fame with Velle : For Amor & gwdiumin 
quantum fignifcant ASlus appetitus fenfuivi^f^f nones funt ; non 
autem jecundum quod figmiicant Aftus appetttns tntelletlivi, in' 
quit Aquinas. 1 .q.i.a. 1 . 1 . 

The rifch Qaeftion is, whether Faith be ar,j Instrument of our 
J unification ? 

Anfwer, Scot us gives many fences of the word Jnflrument, 
and fo doth Aquinas, Schibler , and moft Philofophers that 
meddle with it : and they give Tome fo large, as contain all 
caufes in the world under God the firft caufe; In fo large a fence, 
if any will call faithanlnftrumentof Juftification , I will not 
contend with him \ though yet I will not fay fo my felf , as 
judging faith to be no kind of caufe of it at alljbut in the proper 
ordinary fence, as an Inftrument, fignifieth (^aufam qua inflnit 
iaejfectum per virtutem inferioris rationis^ as Suarez, Sticrius, 
Arnifaeus, &c. Vel Inftrumentttm eft quod ex diretliane altertui 
principalis agentis inflttft ad produceidam tffectum je noblliorem> 
ut Schibler, &c. So I utterly deny Faith to be an Inftrument. 
But I will firft queftion whether it be a phyfical Inftrument 
2. Whether a moral ? 1. And for the fir ft, I have done it 
already : for feeing Our acute Divines have ceafid to lay any 
claim to it as an aSiive Inftrument ,but only as a Pafsive ^ there- 
fore having difproved what they claim, I have done enough 
to that. 2, Yet I will add fome more : And 1. If it be a phy- 
fical active Inftrument, k muft have a phyfical aftive Influx to 



the producing of the Effed ; but io hath not Faith to the pro 
ducmgof our JuftiHcanon. Ergo &c. The Major is apparent 
from the common definition of ftjch Inftruments .* The Minor 
will be as evident, if weconfidcr but what Gods AcTin Jufti- 
fication is, and then it would appear impoflible that any ad of 
ours {hould be fuch an Ir.ftrumenr. i . At the great Justification 
at Judgement Chrifts adis tofentencc us acquit and difchar- 
ged.- and doth our Faith aflive, fine ir. fiver e ad ku»c effect um ? 
Doth it intervene between Chrift and the effect ? and fo active- 
ly juftific us? Who w»ll fay fo ? 2. And the act by which God 
juftifieth us here,is by a Deed of Gift in his Gofpelf as 1 Judge) 
Now i . 1 hat doth immediately produce the etfecl ( only fup- 
pofing Faith as a condition. ) 2. And it is but a moral Inftru* 
mental caufc it felf, and how faith can be a Phjkal, J know 
not. 3. Nay the aft is but a moral act , fuch as a Statute 
or Bond acteth, and what need Faith to be aphyficallnftru- 

2. My fecond Reafon is this : It is^generally concluded, that 
TotainftrumetiticAufalitas eft inufu & app/tcat;oxe; It ceafeth 
to be anlnftruinent, when it ceafeth co be ufed or acted by the 
principal caufe .• But faith doth mod frequently ceafe its action, 
and is not ufed ( phy(kal ! y)when we fleep or wholly mind other 
things : Thetefore according to this Doctrine, faith fhould 
then ceafe its Inftrumentality;and confc quently either we (hould 
all that while be unjuftified and unpardoned, or elfe be juftified 
and pardoned fome other way, and not by faith. All which is 
abfurd -, and eafily avoided by difcerning faith to be but a 
Condition of our Justification, or a Caufa fir e qv* non. 

3. If Faith be a phyftctl Inftrument, then it (hould juftifie 
from a reafon intrir.fecal y natural and efftnual to it, and not" 
from Gods meer ordination or* it to this office by his Word of 
fromife ; but that were at leaft dangerous Doctrine ; and 
(hould not be entertained by them who (truly) acknowledge 
that itjuttifies not as a work ^ much lefs then as a fhfical re- 
ception which they call its Inftrumentality. The ccniequence 
of the Major is evident,inthat nothing can be more intnnfecal 
and eflentialto faith ( this faith) then to be what it is, vtz, a 
Reception or acceptance of Chrift or his ftighteoufnefs : therc- 

Ee 1 fore 


fote if it juftifie directly as fuch, then it juftifieth of its own 

4. It is to me a bard faying, that God and Faith do the fame 
thing, that is, Pardon and jaftifie : and yet fo they do if it be 
an Inftrument of Juilificacion : For eadem efl Actio Inflrumenti 
& principals cam fa, VsZ. quoad determinationem ad httnc ef- 
fetlum, ut Aquinas, Schibler, &c. I dare not fay or think, 
that Faith doth fo properly , effectively juftifie and pardon 

5. Icfeems to me ncedlefs to feign this Inftrumentality, be- 
CbU&fruftra fit per plura quod fieri not efl pe*" paucisra. 

6. Yea it derogateth from the work • for as Scotus faith, ( in 
4. dift. 4). q. 1. pa^g. ( mHot ) 239. D. ) Actio fine inftrumento 
efl perfect ior qukm actio cum inftrumento. 

7. And this Doctrine makes mm tobe the cauf a proxima, of 
his own Pardon and J unification. For it is man that believes and 
not God: God is the can/a prima % bm man the caufaproxima ere- 
dendh and fo of juftifying,if Faith be an Inftrument. Or at leaft 
man is a emfe of his own Pardon and Juftification. Yea faith be- 
ing by Divines acknowledged our own I nftrumenr,it muft needs 
follow that we juftifie and forgive ourfelves. Dr. Amefius faith, 
{fBelUr. 6nervat.T0.4M 6.p.(m\h'\)$i).)Plurimumrefert:qma 
fictit facramentit quamvis al quo fnfupofsiht diet Inftrument a no- 
ftra^ dec. priprie tamenfnnt fnftrumenta Dei: fie etiam fides qttam~ 
viipofstt vocmri Inflrumentum Dei, quia Deus juftifie at not ex fi- 
de & per fidem, prtprietamsn efl Inftrumentumnoftrum. Deus 
nosbxptizat & pa/city ncn nofmet ipfi : Nos crehimm in Ch*iftum % 
non Dens. Whether faith may be a moral Inftrument, I (hall 
enquire, when I have anfwered the next queftion ; which is,QjS. 
If faith were fuch a Vhjfical Pafsive(or Active) Inftrument Whe- 
ther tb»t be the formal direct reafon of its juftifying ? and whether 

(a* it t6 ) it do juftifie directly and primarily > quatenus eft apprc- 
henfio Chrifti, juftitiae, vel Juftificationis. And this is it that! 
moft confidently deny.and had rather you would ftick to in de- 
bate then ail the reft: for I ground many other things on it.I af- 
firm therefore, 1 . That faith juftifieth primarily and directly, as 
the condition on which the free Donor hath beftowed Chrift, 
with all his benefits in the GofpeFconveyance. 2. And that if ic 


were a meer Phyfical apprehcnfion ic would not juftifiej no nor 
do us any good. 3. And thac the apprehenfion called the recep- 
tivity .whicti is truly its nature,is yet but its aptitude to its juftify- 
ing office,andfo a remote, & not the dired proper formal caufe. 
Thefe three I will prove in order. 1. And for the rirft it is 
proved. 1. From the Tenor of the juftifynig Promife, which 
(till aiRireth Juftification on the condition of Believing. Q He 
that btlieveth ] and £ whoever believeth ] and £ if thou be- 
lieve~\ do plainly and unqueftionablyexprefsfuch a condition, 
upon which we (hall be juftified, and without which we (hall 
not. The Antinomiam moft unreafombly deny this. 2. And 
the nature of Juftification mikes it uriqueitioinable .- for whe- 
ther yon make it a Law- act, or an ad of Gods own Judge- 
ment and Will determining of our ftate, yet nitherwill admit 
pf any intervening caufe, ( efpecially any ad of ours, ) but 
only a condition. 3. Befides, Conditions depend on the will 
of him thac beftowcth the Gift, and according to his Will 
they fucceed .* but Inftruments more according to their own 
fitnefs : Now it is known well, that Juftification is an ad of 
Gods meer free Grace and Will, and therefore nothing can 
further conduce to Gods free act as on our part, but by way of 
Condition. 4. And I need not fay more to this.ic being acknow- 
ledged generally by all our Divines, no: one thitl remember 
excepted, befides Mr. Waiter, that [fuith juftifietb as the condi- 
tion of the Covenant^ Mr. Wot ton de Reconcil. pir. 1 . /. 2. cap. 1 8. 
brings you the full Teftimony of the Enilifh Homilies, Fox, 
TerTyns-i Partus, Trelcatius y r Z>r. G. l^j^cr.am^ Scharpns, 
Th. ^Matthcrrs , Calvin , Aret'vus, Sadeel , O/evian , tJMe- 
Lncth. Bez»* : To which I could add mmy more : and I 
never fpoke with any folid Divine that denyedk, 

2. Now chat a phyfical apprehenfion would notjuftifie, as 
fuch, is evident. 1. Elfe Mary (hould be juftiheJ for having 
Chriftinhcr womb, asl faid before. 2. Elfe juftification 1 
aslfaid, (hould be afcribed to the nature of the act of 'faith ic 
felf. 3. You may fee what is the primary, forrr.al reafon why 
faith Juftifies, fry its infeparablility from the effect or event •, 
and which is the improper remote caufe by its frpirability. 
Now fuch a phyfical apprehenfion may be fas fuch) feparated 



from the efTecr, and would dill be if it had not the farther na- 
ture of a condition. We fee it plainly in all worldly things.Eve- 
ry man chat cakes in his hand a conveyance of land, (hall not 
poffefs the land. If you forcibly feize upon all a mans eviden- 
ces and writing?, you (ball not therefore poftefs his eftate. If 
a tray cor fnatch a pardon by violence out of anothers hand, he 
is not therefore pardoned. (But more of this under the next\ 
4. And for your paffivefakh, I cannot conceive how it (houid 
fas paffive) have any Moral good in it fas is faid, ) much lefs 
juftifieus. And'fo when God faith that without faith it is 
irflpoflible to pleafe God. we fhall feign that to be juftifying 
faith, which hath nothing in it felf, that can pleafe God : and 
how it can juftific thac doth not pleafe, I know not. . I know 
in genere entis the Divels p'eafe God : They are his 
creatures ; and naturally Good , as Ens &bonum convert un; 
tur : but in genere mori^ I know not yet how pati quatenus 
vati can pleafe him. For it doth not require fo much as libera 
ty of the will : The reafon of Pafiion is from the Agent : As 
Juarez dif. 17. $'; 2. Secundttm pr<ccifas rationts formates lo- 
qutndo, Paffio ffl ab AUione : efrnone converfo: Ideotjue ve- 
ra eft- & propria hac caufatis locutio t Qui* agent agit , materia 
recipit. Now fure all Divines as well as the free-will- men , 
do acknowledge, that there can be no pleafing worth or ver- 
tue, where there is not liberty. And Snare*, faith truly in that 
(T. i.Mfp. 19 p*g.(mihi) 34°.) tAddimus verohancfaculta- 
tem qnatenus libera eft ^ non pojfe ejfe nifi ASlivam'- fen e converfo y 
faeultatem non pofe ejfe liber am ■ nifi fit atiiva*& qnatenus afti- 
va eft. Probatttrfic . N*m Taijfo tit Paffio nonpoteft effe Libe- 
ra patitnti: fedfolnm qatatenus ABio dqua talis Paffio provenit^ 
itli eft libera: Ergo Libert as form aliter ac pr act [ft non efl in po- 
tentia patient e , ut fic y fed in potentU Agente. {Vide ultra pro- 

5, Yea I much fear left this Paffive Doctrine do lay all the 
blame of all mens infidelity upon God, ormoftat leaft: For 
it maketh the unbeliever no otherwife faulty then a hard block 
for refitting the wedge, which is but by an indifpofition of the 
matter; andfo Originall indifpofition is all the fin. For as 
Aquino* faith , Malum in Patient e eft vtl ab impirftthiont % 



vel deftttti agtwtu t vel indifpofuime Ulhteri*. I. a. <f .\ 
4.1. C. 

3 . My third proposition i?,that the Recept-v tj or apprehenfon 
which it truly of the nature of fjttki isjtt Oat its aptitude to iff 
? fS ft'[)i' i £°lfi ce 9 and fo a remote and Kot the direct proper formal 
reafon : And this is the main point that I infift on : And it is 
evident, in all that is laid -lready : and further thus, If 
faich had been of that apprehending nature as it is, and yet had 
not been made the condition in the gift or promife of <Jod, ic 
would not have juftified : but if it had been made the conditi- 
on , though it had been no apprehending (but as any other 
duty,) yet it would have juftified : therefore it is evident that 
the neareft, proper reafon of its power to juftifie is Gods ma- 
king it the condition of his gift, and its receptive nature is but 
a remote reafon : i . If faith would have juftified , though it 
had nor been a condition- then ic mud have juftified againft 
Gods will, which is impofiible: Ic isGod that juftifieth , and 
therefore we cannot be a caufeofhis A&ion. 2. It is evident 
alfo from the nature of this moral reception, which being but 
a willingnefs and confent , cannot of its own nature make 
the, thing our own, but as icisby the meer will of the donor 
made the condition of his offer or gift. If I am willing to be 
Lord of any Lands or Countreys, it will not make me fo ; but if 
the true owner fay, I will give them thee if thou wilt accept 
them, then ic Will be fo : therefore it is not fir ft and dire&ly 
from the nacure of the reception,but firft becaufe that reception 
is made the condition of the gift. If a condemned man be wil- 
ling to be pardoned, he (hall not therefore be pardoned ; but 
if a pardon be given on condition he be willing or acceptit, 
then he (hall have ic. If a poor woman confent to have a 
Prince for her husband, andfoto have his pofleflions, itfhall 
not therefore be done, except he give himfelfto her on condi- 
tion of her confent. If it were a meer phyfical reception, and 
wefpokeofa pofleflion^r/^ro offomewhat that is fo appre- 
benfible,thenit would be otherwife : as he that getteth gold 
or a pearl in hirhand, he hath fuch a poflefsion : But when it is 
bat a moral improper reception f though per actum phyftcum 
volendi vel conjentiend.) , and when we fpeak of a poflefsion 

Ff in 


in right of Law, and of a relarion and Title, then it mud need? 
ftand asaforcfa d. Donation, (or imputation, 1 beirg the di- 
red caufe ofour R ft conft.tueive ju [ lifica'ion,therefore conditi- 
onal ty and not the naturalreceptivity ot faith,muft needs be the 
proper reafon of its juftifying.This is acknowledged by Divines : 
Ameftus faith, (HelUrm. Enervat. T- 4-/>. (m lot) 3 14. /Ifprc- 
herifio ]*iftifiGationis per veram fHnciam^ non eft fimpliciter per 
rnoxttm object?) fed permodumobjecti nobis donati: £lnod emm 
c Deti$ doKaverit fidelibus fchriftum & omxi . cum eo y Scriptnrd 
Aifertisvtrbi*teftati4r 1> Ror>L < &.i2. 2. And that if any other 
f/rtoradof faith, as well as this, or any other grace would 
have juftifledjif God had made it equally the condition of his 
gift, is alfo paft all doubt. 1. Becaufe the whole work of Ju- 
itifyingdependeth meerly on Gods free Grace and will, and 
thence it is that faith is deputed to its office. 2. Who do-btetfr 
but God could have beftow. d pardon and judication on other 
terms or conditions, if he would ? 3. Yea who doubreth 
but he might have given them without any condition, even that 
of acceptance > Yea though we had never known that there 
had been a Redeemer ? yct God might have juitified us for his 
fake. I fpeak not what he may now doafcer he refolved of a 
courfe in his Covenant: But doubtlefshe might have made 
the Covenant to be. an abfolute prornife without any conditi- 
on on our part if he would, even fuch as the Antinomians 
dream it to be. And me thinks thofe great Divines, that fay 
with Tm$e,Cbam'er , WaU f As i ef-c, /hat God might have 
pardoned us without a Redeemer, (hould not deny this efpeci- 
ally. 4. And doubtlefs that faith which rhe Ifraelites in the 
fuftageswete jbftified by , did much differ from ours now. 
whatever that doth which is requ ; red of poor Indians now - 9 
that never heard of Chriit. 5 And God pardoneth and ju- 
ftifieth Infant?, .without any a&ual reception of pardon by their 

2. And me thinks they that ftand for the inftrumentality 
of faith above all fhould not deny this ; for (according to my 
Logick) rhe fornjality of an Inftrnment is in its adual fub- 
ftrviency to the principal caufe ; and therefore it is no lon- 
ger caufa inflrHmtntftlu then is is ufed : and.therefore whaLfoc- 



ver is the materia of the iuftrumenr, or whatfoever is natural 
to it, cannot be its form : Nowro be a reception or appre- 
henfion of Chafi is moii dfrntully natural to this ad of faith, 
and therefore cannot be the form of its inftrumentality. For as 
Scotus faith {in 4. fint . difl .1 7.5. Fol. (miki) 1 ?. H.) njtrpt- 
nnmitdoneit.iS p actdit r.atttraliter ufum ejus ut faftrumentum. 
And what is the Jdonci'as or Ap'.Uudt of faith bat this? And 
as Scotus ibi-L faith, Nullum mftrHmentum formatter eft ideo ap • 
turn ad ufum^ quia aidants utitur eo uiinftrwnento' but it is an 
Inftrument quia thquis mtii*f $ &c. 

3. And if the reception were the rnoft direct, proper csu r e, 
(efpccialiy if the phyfical reception) then it would follow, 
that juftifying faith ' as fuch) is:he receiving of juftification, 
or of Chrifts nghtcoufnefs, but no: the receiving of Chrift him r 
felf, or that the receiving of Chriltwould.be but a preparato- 
ry ad,wh ch is I dare fay foul and falfe Dodr ne, and contrary 
to thefcope of Scripture which makesChri* himfelfthe objed 
of this faith; and the receiving of hrn foh* I. n, 12.) and 
believing in k*m to be the condition of juftification ; and the 
receiving of righteoufnefs, but fecondanly or remotely. Amt- 
Jtus (uih (ubi fupra ) hie tamtn obfervanlum e : t accurate h- 
quendo^ apprehenftonem Chrifii & jujlitU ejus ejfe fidem jufti* 
ficantem t quia j">ftificatio noflra exurgit ex apprehenfione Chri- 
fti, & apprehen 10 jttflificationis ut pojfejfionu noflra prafenti* % 
f rutins eft & fffeElumapprehenfteniiprurif. So in his Medulla 
he makes Chrilt himfelf the objed of juftifying faith. 

4. AJo;f the faid reception were the immediate proper rea- 
fonwhy faith juftfyech ; thenit would follow that it is one ad 
of faith whereby we are pardoned ( viz the reception of par- 
don ) and another whereby we are jnftified ( viz,, the Recep- 
tion either of nghreoufnefs or judication : ) and there muft 
be another act of fai'h for Adoption,and another for every other 
ufe according to the variety of the Objects. But this is a vain 
fiction , it being the fame believing in Chrift, to which the Pro- 
mifeof Remifsion, Juftification, Adoption, Glorification, and 
all is made. 

Alfoit would contradid th? Doctrine of our beft Divines, 
who fay,as A ftedms y Diftintt. Theol. C. 17 p.73. chat Chrift is 

F f 2 gar 

C 120 ) 

oar Righteoufnefs mfiaf* csrnfiA , fea i vfit f ormolu I 

; with the plain Tel: 
Ptrkjm\o\- t. rag 66:. In the true G : Andtieftsxy 

jbtMld tmag <? very . \ 

juflif.s'h : we are to undi Ink not apprehena bj 

P&wcr from it f. Ant. If a man 

believe tbt Kingdom c e/# be his , it is not therefor eh 

jet if he btUie Chit and the K n bj Cbrifl to ic 

Iris it is his ir.it- a : not'fimph becaufe he believes-, but bee - 
he believes upm Commandme, u ( tha' is not pro- 

perly as an Inftrument, bu on) For ; :r of the 

Cover.ar.: Q:.t jromifeth to tmpstte the Obedience of Chrift to *s 
for omr Rig*: if we believe. Is not this as plain as may 

be? So Bullinger Deead. I. Serm. 6. p. (mibi)±<\. iVe fay 
frith juftifietbfor it Jelf ', not as it is a quality in our mind, or our 
oven w*r^ : but as faith is a gift of gods grace the pro- 

mife of right eoul nefs and l*fe-8cc. Therefore faith jajiifieth for 
Cbrtft, ana from the grace and Covenant of Cjod. 

This being therefore fully provedjtbat faich jaftifrtth properly 
and dirc&ly as the condition on which God hath made over 
Chrift and all his benefits in the Go f pel, the two great points 
oppofed in ray Do&r;ne do hence anfe unavoidably, i .That this 
fanrh juftifieth as truly and dirt&iy as it is the receiving of 
Chrift for Lord, ard King, and Head, and Husband, as for a 
juftifier, for both are equally the conditions in theGofpel. But 
if the pbyfical Inftrumental way were found, then it would jufti- 
fieoniyasit is a receiving of JunSficatton or Juftice. This is 
themainconclufionlconttftfor. Yieldmethis, and I will not 
fo much fticfc ac any of the reft. 2. And hence it follows, that 
Repentance, forgiving others lovetoChrift, Obedience Evan- 
gelical, do fofar juftifie as the promife makes them con- 
ditions ; and no further do I plead for them. 

7. My laft Queftion was, Whether row yenr Doctrine or mine 
be the more obfeure^ doubtful I and dargerouj ? AndVckicb ts the 
more clear , cert. fei 

And here I (hall firft (hew you yet more what my Judge- 
ment is, and therein whether Faith be a moral Inftrumer.t. 
I think that conditio fine qua non^ ■ - effe efficient, quia 


4mjms walls : nee id si arms frt vatum mlimmm emiigit 

* UiJts4c:i**tmi *cc ntseensis* dtfpvj&us tjt Iwjjhrmmv*mm^ 
at Sck*kUr % Ttf.c* j.fogiioz. Even the tSofpcl Pro~ 
fntk r which bfrr more properly called Gods moral Inttnimenc 
; or pardock^ is vet bat fom?whatto themaibng 
chat fm9d*m*w§mm, from whence the relation of jjmj/s 
coch reiak- And toe /s «i«wr*;» iscalM a cacfe of (ft 
:n which anleth from ir without any act, but wftat west to 
e the foundation, even by ameer relaltancy, as D*Gwix 
lolly in i.feti. &ft. 17. m m 1 . Bat to call a coodidoa in Lzm am 
lm]frmm**t % is yet izz m^re improper. The Law er Pro 
therefore i will cat! a moral Inurnment .- the comdkton wheh 
we mod perform, 1 willnot call a moral Icdrocn : 
the Ad ^vhsdi Go: perfbvwtfdi, or yetof shcef .^ .. :. ;.i 
fiowetb from that ad immediately. Yet if any wt£2 lay 
properly and principally a condition, and that k lb folbfieih ; 
andyctthat ic any be called ah In&rnsene moral m an ms- 
proper fence, as it is a condition firft, or ctfc in regard of 
ks receiving ale, wl?1 ftrerch the word h$\ mmmrnsr lb wide, 
asroapptyk to it; 1 will not contend i or a word , woenwe 
agree in fence. And tons Mr. trmtm yicldcth as with an ifl 
wifltoollitanfonrameir, proving kfirn to jafiie as a condi- 
tion. Bat lam loth to give k any proper caolanry in jot 

And now let as fee whole fence h. 1. More obibire. I 
avoid and abhor all vain oncer es in fo fopdizaentsJ a point as 
JvlLrkattoo is - therefore I fay plainly bnt £ Thr fmah is the 
cm&i— mm wkUk qmik*tk htjfafd C*»ft mmlsU * J fi- 
ts* G*ff*i~] What woman cannot anderjhnd dri* at a word ? 
Bat yoar Doctrine. wbat(?e.:/mitsabie:o&afolvi^ for nsyparrj 
KHcjntre paftmyreach; and moll ibat I converie wkh_. areas 
fi% as my fcif. Can every poor man or wemaareach to kiwm 
what a jugffcrr ABU* % or a psffimm'Psfsum, or a ?* m- 

wt*mt is ? and how we receive (Thrift, as a man ta&es a r f: ii 
hishand?--oVto Ice through all the dunlaslcaes ± 1: 1 ;o- 

vercu here n yowrDocrrme? Evan they that ra Ic ■nfliowr, 
Ww*f*€*a*ffmhkdtKk )*$*$* % wlm**r if th* *U tir 
mWiUi Wmt*BtrA*r*tmA$*x£t y &t. Do feem vainly and 



hurtfully curious tome : much more thofc that reduce ail to 
an unconceivable pati\ 1 plainly therefore affirm, that faith is 
not any phyfical receiving, ( as the hand doth receive money, 
as you would afterward make me believe the AiTembiy means ) 
but a Metaphorical moral receiving : and thae it is not by any 
one ad of the foul (much lefs a Paffion ) but by the whole foul, 
Under ftanding and Will : the former beginning, die later con- 
fummating it, ( as Dwenant foundly, ) And let us trye by 
common fpeecb, which of thefe is the more plain and probable 
fence. Suppofe a Prince w^ll redeem a Turkijh condemed flave, 
and fend him word Q I hive bought thte , and if thox Vcilt 
receive ( or take ) me for th) Redeemer^ Deliverer and Lord, and 
for the future wilt ferve me and be thankfu.ll , / will actually fet 
thee free. Here it would fure be a filly thing to fall a queftio- 
ning, what the Prince means by the word £ Receive or take j 
Whether it be an ad of this faculty,or that? Whether this or that 
ad ?Or whether it is meerly Patti F hough we are too wife to un- 
derftand this now , I warrant you the fooliftieft (lave would 
foon underftand it ; and know that to receive or take the Prince 
for his Redeemer, is to believe him, and confent, and thankful- 
ly accept of him as he requires, and of deliverance by him; 
And he that fhould ask him, Whether it were the bare ad of 
affiance,or whether gratitude or love were included in the term? 
would feem but fimple to him. If a Prince will deliver a con- 
demned woman from death, and offer with ail to marry her.and 
give her himfelf, and all he hath, on condition fhe will receive 
or take him for her husband, ( and accordingly be a faithfull wife 
to him till death) He that fhould here ftep in, and raife pro- 
found Scruples, and enter difficult difputes, whether this recei- 
ving were an ad of the Uadeiftanding or Will? Whether Af- 
fiance, Recombency, AlTurance, &c or whether a Paf ion ? 
would be well judged rid culous ; when every man knows at the 
firft word what it is for the woman to receive or take a man for 
her Husband, even gladly and lovingly to confent and accept 
the offer, and with all her heart deliver up her felf to him ac- 
cordingly'. So if a King of another Nation, that hath right 
alio to this, but not polTefsion, fhould fend to us,to charge us to 
receive him for our King; what a hard word is this to under- 
Hand ? 

( 2 H) 

(land? or doth it iignifie any one ad? or the ad of any one 

fingle faculty chat the people of the land muft perform? Oh 
how too learned Divines ( or too unlearned,) have puzzled 
ana amazed poor fouls, and muddyed the clear ftreams of the 
Doctrine of Chrilt, in this fo weighty and plain a point of jufti- 
fication? Jna word, Sir, I know there is never a one of my 
Hearers can underiiand your Do&rine of inftrumenrality Adive 
. or Pa i live, nor havetheythe Logick nectifary thereto, snd 
therefore I will not fpeak to them in fuch a language. Even 
while 1 unrye your knots, I am thought a B**b*'i*n^ and not 
underftood ; how much more if I fpoke what I underftand 
not my felf nor am able, though I fet my wits on the tenter ? 

2. And then let us fee which is the truer akdeertainer^ your 
Doctrine or mine. And i. I have faid fomewhat already to 
weaken the credit of yours. 2. And more from what is laft 
faid it is unlikely tome to be true becaufe of the obfeurity ; 
for I believe God hath fpoke plainer in fundamentals, and not 
laid folk- falvation upon that which none but Scholars of a bet- 
ter or worfe judgement then 1 can underftand. I know there 
is that kind of difficulty in Divine things which requireth the 
Spiritual illumination of the underftanding : but not fuch in foun- 
dation points that nccefTarily requireth fo much humane learn- 
ing. 3. Your way hath not one word of Scr pturefor it .- Where 
doth Scripture fay (in phrafe or fenfej that faith } uftifieth as an 
inftrument ; or that it is fuch } A Hive or Peffive f Or that it is 
this or that only AH ? 

But now for the Dodrinel teach. 1. Neither your felf 
nor any folidman denyeth it fthat faith is a condition and fo 
jfffiifieth: ) and that it is a Moral receiving, and by the whole 
foul % efepcially the hearty confem, and acceptance of the will , 
mott Divines teach , as I could (hew but for wafting time. 2. I 
prove it further, that it is but this plain Moral receprion, thus. 
As Chriftis offered, fo he is received (therefore the AiTcmbly 
fay [as he is offered in t he Gofp /J : But Chrift is offered Mo- 
rally in the Gofpel, and not Phyfically ; therefore he muft be 
fo received. 3. Rejicere eft rolle ; Ergo,recher* eft velle. To 
rejed Chriftis the condemning fin of infidelity : but that lies 
in an unwillingncfs to have him to be their Redeemer, Saviour, 



and efpecially Lord : therefore receiving Chrift is a willingnefs, 
confent or acceptance of him for Redeemer and Lord, Joh.i.io. 
Bis own received him not ; What is chat but they refilled him ? 
and not that they wree not Pajfive pbyjical receivers of Jttftice, 
Lake 19. 27. Thefe mine enemies that 'Would not £ (hould reign 
over them ^ bring hither and deftroy, &c. Then willingnefs of 
his re gn is part of that faith which juftifies : Even willingnefs 
of his fteign, as well as to be pardoned, juftified and faved from 
Hell by him; (or elfe few among us would perifli; For I 
never met with the man that was unwilling of thefe.) 

3. And then it will cafily appear, Whether jour Doclrine cr 
wine be the more fafe. 1. Yours hath the many inconvenien- 
ces already mentioned. It maketh man his ownjuftifier, or 
thecaufa proxima of his own Judication, and by his own Ad 
to help God to juftifie us : for fo all inftruments do help the prin- 
cipalcaufe. And yet by a felkcontradi&ion it maketh faith to 
be of no Moral worth , and fo no vertue or grace. Yea , ( I 
think) it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God ; Many 
fuch wayes it feemeth to wrong the Father and the Medi* 
ator. 2. And it feemeth alfo to wrong mens fouls in point 
of'f fety, both by drawing them fo to wrong God, and alfo by 
laying grounds to encourage them in preemption ; For when 
they are taught that the receiving of Chrifts righteoufnefs, or 
of Chrift for juftification, or the confident expectation ofpar- 
don, orreftingonChriftforit, or a particular pcrfwalion of 
it, &c. h juftifying faith, and when they find thefe in them* 
vfelves fas undoubtedly they may w 11 this much, or elfe they 
canrotprefumej, Is it not eafie then to think they arefafewben 
they are not? Aslfaid, I never yet met with the man that 
Was fcot willing to be fuftififd and fared from Hell by Chrift : 
and 1 .dare fay, Really willing ; and but with few that did not 
expel! k from Chrift, andtruft himfor it. Now to pkee Ju- 
ftjfying faith only in that which is fo common, and to tell the 
men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is 
made effential to faith, as Juftifying, is ftrange. For knowing 
that the godly themfelves have fowly finned, and that no man 
can perifli that hath Juftifying faith, how can they choofe but 
prefume when they find that which is called Juftifying faith 



undoubtedly in themfelves ? And to tell them it is not fincere 
or true, becaufe they receive not Chrift alfoas Kirg and Pro- 
phet, and yet that fuch receiving is no part Of juftifying faith. 
This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without 
itfelf (a ftrange Truth J in a fignal ccncomitart : and who 
will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant fign, when he 
certainly feeleth the thing it felf ? Will not fuch think they may 
fin felva fide ? When as if they were rightly taught, that 
juftifying faving faith ( as fuch) is the receivirg of Chrift 
for Saviour ,and Lord, and fo a giving up themfelves both to 
be laved and guided by him, then tbey would find that faith in 
Chrift and fincere obedience to Chrift have a little neerer relati- 
on j and then a man might fay to fuch a prefumer, as I remem- 
ber Teriulluw excellently doth , Dt peewit ent. Operum pig. 
{mihij 1 19 Ca'erum non levtter m Dcminum peccat qui quum 
amulo (jus DUbelo pcsnitemil renuncia(\et % & hec nomine ilium 
Dominofubjecijfet t rurfus (undemrtgreffu (ho erigit, & exultati- 
one ijw ftip!um fecit, ut denuo main* recuperata prada jua , 
adverfus Dominnm gaudeat. Nortne quod dictre quoque peri- 
culofum eft, fed ad adificationem proferendum eft, dabolum Do- 
mino praponit i* Comparationtm er.im videtur egiffe qui utrumq^ 
cognovcrtt, & judicatopronunc'iajfe eum meliorem en jus fe rur- 
ftu effe malnertt, &c. Sed aiunt quidam, fatu Deum habere^ 
ficcrbe & animo fufpiciatur^ licet atlu minus fiat ; itaque fe 
falvo metu & Tide peccare : Hoc eft falva caftittte Mdlrimonia 
violareifalv* pieute parenti vener.um temper Are ; fie trgo & ipfi 
falva veniain Gekennam detrudentur jdum falvo metu peccant. 

.Again, your Do&rine feemeth to me to overthrow the 
comfort of Believers exceedingly. For how can they have any 
comfort that know not whether they are juftified and Qiall be 
fived ? and how can they know that, who know not whether 
they have faith ? and how can they know that , when they 
know not what juftifying faith is > and how can they know what 
it is, when it is by Divines involved in fuch a cloud and maze 
of difficulties ? feme placing it in this, act and fome in that, and 
fome in a Paflive inftrumenrahty, which few underfland, ( If 
any man in the world do.) For the Habit of faith , that 
cannot hi felt or known of ic felf immediately, but by 

Gg its 


its ads ( for To it is concluded of all Habits, Suarez, 
Mctap. T. i. dtfp. 44 §. i . pag 3 3 2.) and inftead of the acl 
we are now fee to enquire after the pafiion > and fo in the 
work of examination the bufinefs is to enquire, hsVc and when 
TVS did p iffifrelj receive righteoufnefs^ or juftification , or Chrift 
for tbeje /which let him anfwer for himfeif that candor I cannot. 
But now, on the other fide, what inconvenience is therein 
the Dodrine of faith and juftification as I deliver it ? As it is 
plain, and certain (faying no more then .is generally granted) 
fo I think it is fafe. Do I afcribeanyof chrifts honour in 
the work to man ? No man yet hath dared to charge me with 
that, to my knowledge : and no confiderate man I believe w.li 
do it. I conclude that neither faith nor works is the ieair part of 
our legal righteoufnefs : or of that righteoufnefs which we 
muft plead againft the accufer for our juftification i which is 
commonly called by Divines, the matter of our juftification. 
The Law which we have broken cannot be fatisfied Y nor 
God for the breach of it) intheleaft meafure by our faith or 
obedience,nor do they concur as the leaft degree of that fatfsfa- 
dfcion : But we muft turn the Law over wholly to our Surety. On- 
ly whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the 
conditions on our part of the faid juftification and falvation, 
I fay, thefe conditions muft needs be performed, and that by our 
felves ; and who dare deny this ? and 1 fay that the perfor- 
mance of thefe conditions is our Evangelical righteeufnefs ("in 
reference to that Covenant, ) as Chrifts fatisfa&ion is 
our legal Righteoufnefs (in reference to that firft Covenant^, 
or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteouf- 
nefs. if we bad fo obeyed. And tor them that fpeak of inhe- 
rent Righteoufnefs in any other fenfe, viz. as it is an imperfect 
conformity to the Law of works, rather then as a true confor- 
mity to the Law or Covenant of gpace, I renounce their Do- 
clrinc,both as contradictory to it felf, and to the truth, and 
as that which would make the fame Law to curfe and blefs the 
fame man, and which would fctup the defperate Doctrine of 
Juftification by the works of the Law : For if men are righteous 
in reference to that Law, then they may be fo far juftified by ir. 
Nor do I afcribe to works any part of the office or honour of 



faith ( Though that were nor fo dangerous as to derogate 
fromChriftJ Fori acknowledge faith the only condition of 
our fii ft Re million and juftification : and the principal part of 
the condition of our juftification as continued and confummate. 
And if faith bean inltrumenral C2ufe, I do not give that honor 
from it to works, for they are not fo : Nay , I boldly again 
aver, that! give no more to < bechr.ce tofknft, then Divines 
ordinarily do, that is,to be the fecondary part of the conditi- 
on of continued and confummate juftification. Only I give 
notfo much as others to faith, bccauie 1 dare not afcribe fo 
much to man. And yet men make fuch a noife with the terri- 
ble name of Juftificaticn by \*orkj (the Lords own phrafe ), as 
if I gave more then themfelvesto man, when I give fo much 


And thus Sir, I have according to your advice, fpent my felf 
( as youfpeak ) in aiming at that ma- k which you were plea- 
fed tofetme. And now 1 (hall proceed to the reft of your ex- 

My next anfwer to you was, that [// vrorkj under every no- 
tion are excluded (as you fay they Are) then repentance is exclu- 
ded under the notion of a condition or preparative : Bht repentance 
under that notion is not excluded : Therefore not Ifrorlej under 
every notion.To this you reply,that [Repentance is net excluded as 
qualifying, but as recipient^ which what is it but a plain yield- 
ing my Minor, and fothecaufe: For this is as much as I fay. 
If repentance be a work or ad of ours, and not excluded un- 
der the notion of a qualification, (or as you el fc where yield ) 
a CMedwm orciiatum, and a condition , then works are not 
under every notion excluded. And that repentance is not reci- 
pient, how eafily do I yeild to you ? But do you indeed think 
that when /^/excludeth the works of the Law, that he ex- 
cluded* them only as Recipient ? and not as qualifying? If 
fo, (as this anfwer feems to import, feeing you will not have me 
here diftinguifh between works of Law, andofGofpeljorNew 
Covenant) then you give abundance more to works of the Law 
then I ilo or dare : For I aver that Taut excludeth them even 
as qualifications, yea and the very prcfence of them: and 
that the jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient. 

Gg 2 To 


To my next you fay, [jvhether Paaldtfpute what is our rlgh- 
teoufnefs, or uym vehxt terms it is m ide ours i' dothn-t much m^.t- 
ter\ But I chink it of very great moment ;they being Queftiors 
fo very much difTerent,both in their fenfe,and importance. And 
whereas you think fW fpeaks chiefly of the manner, I think he 
fpcaks of both,but primarily of the (qu*fi) materia ; and of the 
manner or means thereto^but fecondarily in reference to that. 
So that I think the chief Queftion which TauI doth debate, was, 
whether We a r e Jufttfitd by our oVen works or merits^ or by Ano- 
ther s y vizx\\z fatisfa:uon of a furety ? which yet becaufe it is no 
way made ours but by believing,therefore he fo puts the Quefti- 
on, whether by works of the Law,or by faith ? and fo that he 
makes them two immediate oppofues, not granting znytertium, 
I eafily yield. ( Bat of that before.) 

To the next you fay, that [V cannot find fuck a figure for faith 
Relatively in my fenfe.] Anfw. And I conceive that faith in 
my fenfe may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours. 
Doubtlefs acceptance of an offered Redeemer and ail his bene- 
fits doth relate as properly to what is accepted ( viz,, by the 
affentof the underftanding initially, and by the ele&ion and 
confent of the will confummately) as a Phyfical Paffive recep- 
tion or in flru mentality can do. And alfo as it is a condition 
I make little doubt, but it relateth to the thing given on that 
condition i and that the very name of a condition is relative. 
So that in my fenfe faith relateth to Ghrift two ways .• Where- 
of the former is but its very nature, and foits aptitude to its 
office : The later is that proper refpect in which it immediately 
ordire&ly juftifieth. Yet do I not mean as you feem todo, 
as I gather byyourphrafe of [tutting Love and Obedience for 
Chrifls Right eoufnefs~2 : For 1 conceive it may be put relatively, 
and yet not ftri&ly ( loco correlati ) for the thing related to : 
when I fay my hands or teeth feed me , I do not put them in- 
fteadofmy Meat; and yet I ufe the words relatively, mean- 
ingmyMeat principally, and my teeth fecondarily: Nei- 
ther do I mean that it relateth to Chrifts right eonfmfs only or 
principally ; but firft to him/elf. And I doubt not but Love 
to Chrift and Obedience to him as Redeemer, do relate to him ; 
but not fo fully, clearly and dire&ly exprefs him as related to , 
as Faith i Faith being alfo fo comprehenfive a grace as to in- 

( 119 ) 

ch'deforr.e others. It is a truefaying.thata poor woman that 
isrrrrryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love , and rw- 
tir.ued fobj dmy to her husband : But it is more obfcure and 
improper then to fay, (he is made honourable by 'JAtar- 
W*g*,or raking fuch a man to her husband,which includes Jove, 
and implycth duty and faichfulnefs, as necc (Tartly fubfcquent. 
1 conceive with Judicious Dottcr Treflon, that faith is truly 
and properly fuch a confcnt, contractor marriage with Chrilt. 
Next to your fimilitude: you fay [that 1 hold that not only 
fating thu IriKtn Serpent ^but any other AUions of fenfe, rvi/l cu 
Well he&l the Wounded Chrtfiian.~] To which I anfwcr. Simi- 
litudes run not on all four. Thus far I believe trut this holds. 
i. Chrift was life up on the Crofsasthe brazen Serpent was lift 
up. 2. He was lift up for a cure to fin-flung foui^ss tie brazen 
Serpent for the flung bodies. 5. That as every one that look- 
ed on the Serpent was cured fan cade condition,) fo every 
one that believeth Chrift to be the appointed Redeemer, and 
heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered , and fo 
trufleth in him, (hall not perifh, but have everlafting life. 
4. That as the cure of thur bodies came not from any natural 
reafon drawn from thee\e, or from any natural excellency or 
efficacy of feeing, above hearing or feeling, but meerly from 
the freewill and pleafure of God, who ordained that looking 
fhould be the condition of their cure ; So all thofe Adb(ufn- 
ally comprized or implyed in the word believing) which jufti- 
fle, do it not from any natural excellency, efficacy or inflru- 
mentality , but meerly from the good pleafure of the Law- 
giver : And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith 
( that is its very formal eflence ) muft not be given as 
the proper direct caufe of its Juftifying : But that is , its 
conditionality from tbe free appointment of God. 

But on the otht r fide,i .It was only one Act of one fenfc which 
was the condition of their cure -.but you will not fay I believe that 
•it is only oneactofone faculty which juftineth ; however I will 
not. 2.1t was the Aft off.eing which cured then^without touch- 
ing, laying hold on, apprehending, reiiing on, &c. But you 
will not fay fo of juftifying fajth, 5. The fight.wbich was the 
condition of cheir cure, was no aftuall reception of the bra- 
Gg 5 zen 

zcn Serpent, but the fptcies of that Serpent by the eye* and 
fo the eye did no otherwife receive the Serpent, then it received 
every Object it beheld, even the Serpent that flung them. But 
if you fay, that our receiving Chrift is but pcrfimplicem apprc 
k'enfionemibjstti > and that it is a receiving or his fpicies, a,nd fo 
that we receive ( hnftno otherwife then we receive Satan, or 
any Object of Knowledge,! will not be of that opinion.4. Their 
cure was fimal & femeii but our Juftiflcation is a continued 
Act; as really in doing all our lives, as at fir ft. 5 Therefore 
though one ad! finished their cure, and there was no condition 
perfcribedas requifite fcr the confurnmation or continuance r 
yet when our J unification is begun, and we truly juftified.there 
is further conditions prefenbed for its continuance and con- 
furnmation. To conclude, l am fo far from laying, that any 
other Act will as well heal the wounded Chriftian, befides what 
God hath made the exprefs condition cf his cure, that I flatly 
aver no other will doit. But whether he hath made anyone 
fingle act (or Pafsion)to be the whole of that condition, 1 have 
elfewhere out of Scripture (hewed you, and you do not deny 
what I fay. 

My two laft Anfv, ers to ) our expofition of Pauls words, you 
are pleafed to overpafs; the laft of which ( the ninth ) being 
the main that I made ufeof : ziz*. that Paul taketh the word 
Workj more ftrictly, for fuch working as maketh the Reward to 
fee not of Grace but of debt : and in this fence I difclaim all 
works, not only ( as you do ) from being receptive,or inftruraen- 
tal,or effective, but from being concomitant : why you faid no- 
thing to this my chief Anfwer, I do not know. 

You next tell me that [ / cannot take the isfffemblies definiti- 
on in that fence as they declare it y or the Scripture words, which are 
Metaphorical imply : for its the refling of a burdened foul upon 
Chrift only for Rtghteoufnefs -^ ancl by this fchrifts Right eopfafs 
is made ever to us ; and its a receiving of Chrift as the hand em- 
braceth any Oljecl, &c. Anfwer. That the word Receiving 
and Retting are Metaphorical, I eafily graatyou ; and.wonder 
the more chat you llillinfift on them, and inftead of reducing 
them to more proper exprefsions, do here add Metaphor ro 
Metsphor, till all your definition be a meer Allegory, when you 



kno v how much Metaphors do feduce. "But for the AfTemblies 
Ddinition, I embrace it unfeignedly in that fence as the words 
feem to me molt evidently to impoif, without ufing violence 
wich them. But I perceive by this,thacyou w.ll rottliink it enough 
in a man tofubferibe to national Confefsions and Catechifms 
in the obvious fence, or that which he jujgeth tru- plain proper 
fence, except he alio agree with you in the expHcmon. Some 
think icnoc enough that we fubferibe to the Scripture, bc- 
caufe we may mifunderftand it, and therefore we mufr. fubferi be 
to national ConflfTions, as more explicate : ( which I like well, 
fo we add nothing to Gods word, nor thruft ourowa Commen- 
taries into the Tefcc, or obtrude our own Doctrines upon men 
as Articles of their faith, or ac leaf}, as the Bifhops d\d the Ce- 
remonies, whk:h they rmde indifferent in word, butnecefTary 
indeed: ) Bat now I perceive the matter co.ne. all to one in 
thelffue- when you cannot make a definition of Faith in fuch 
Language as isanyeafier to i>e underilcnd then the Scrip- 
ture : when you and I cannot both underhand it : and I find 
that many are of Bt'lzrminni judgement ( dpol, c, 7. cited by 
Mr. Vine tin his Sermon againft H&cf. pig. 50. ) That a man 
may be an H&etkk^ though he believe the Scriptures, the three 
Creeds, and the four great general Council;. Iftuc to r the fence 
of the AfTemblies definition; 1 I know not what you mean 
by the words l as they declare it: ] If any private declaration, 
1 am not to take notice of it, nor do I know what it meaneth, 
and could wi(h they would do, or rwght have done as Mr. Vines 
deftred in his Sermon, Jan. 28. 1645. that is, [Tofecond their 
conditions with the Reafonj andQrounis of them ; which ^ ill 
do much to make them pafs for currant : feeing ( faith he ) the 
Gorgons he adfthich ftrucl^all dumb in former t me^Thc Church, 
The Church,^ not like I j to have the fume operation > t>w in this 
feeing And fear ching age ; for though men be willing to be fubjetl 
to ^Authority , jet as they are men ih y Vri 7 be fives . to Reafun.~] 
So that if there were any private expofrion, I would we had ir. 
But if you mean only what is declared in the words of the De- 
finition, lam moft confident,thoughIncverwasinthc AfTem- 
bly, that I have hit on their fence far neerer then you teem to 
have done: and I dare not think otherwife, left I be bainoufly 



cenforious of To reverend an AiTembly, which I am refolved not 
to be. i. Their very words are a receiving of Chrift, an d 
noc immediately and primarily his Right eonfnefs, buthimfelf; 
and in the confeiTion chey fay as I do, that i: is an accepting, re- 
ceiving and retting on Chrilt. 2. And as-£hriftthe anointed, 
which Name iignifiech the Offices which he is anointed to, viz,. 
KmjS, Pricft, &c. $. It maketh it to confiftin no one aft, 
hut feveral , expreffrdin two phrafes : 1. Receiving Chrift. 
2. Refting on him alone far filvation. 4. It exprefly fiith, 
that it is a rtceititg of him i as he U offered in the Gofpel, and 
that i? , not as a juttifier only, but as a Lord and Prophet, and 
that as immediately as the other, and conjunct with it: for he 
is no where offered as a juftifkr alone ^ if he be, (hew where ic 
is. 5. And hence it is plain that they mean no Reception but 
moral, by Willing, Confentin^ Accepting ( as they exprefly 
fay in the confeffion of Faith ) For he is no other wife offered to 
us in the Go 'pel : He is not offered to our Phyfjcal Reception. 
It is n n his perfon in fubftance that- is offered to the Contact of 
our Spirits, muchlefsof our flefby but hts.perfon asclo3thed 
with his Relations, of Mediator /Redeemer, Lord, Saviour, 
&c. And can you receive a King, as King, ( who is perfonal- 
ly diftaat or invifible Jby any other Reception then I have faid ? 
If we do receive a King into EngUnd y the only Ads cf the 
foul are hea ty conferring* and what is therein and thereto im- 
plied : though bodily A&ions may follow • (which as to Chrift 
we cannot perform. ) I think verily this is the plain found 
fence of the Affcmbly, and (hall believe fo, till the fame Au- 
thority, tha,t thus dehned,do otherwife interpret their own defi- 

And for your phrafc of [ Refting a burdened foul on Chrift for 
Righteoufnefs | I doubt not as it intendeth Affiance, but it is as 
Perkins , Dr. r D)wn^im % Rob.'Baroniv.r, &c. fay, a fruit of 
faith ftn&ly taken, rather then faith it felf ; but if you take 
faith in a larger fence ( as the Gofpel not feldom doth, and 
againft which I am no adverfary ) fo Affiance is part of faith 
it felf. But that it is the whole of that faith, I (hall never be- 
lieve without ftronger Arguments ■ ■ where £0u fay, [ Us the re- 
ceiving Chrift as 1 he hand embracctb anj Q(?fe8.~\ I an Aver. 

1. I 

1. lam ghd you here grant Chnft hirofelf to be the Obi 

2. If you mean, £ as verity as the b*nd % &:. So 1 grant it, i 
moral receiving may be properly fatd to be as true as a phylua'. 
But if you mean f B) a Phyfical Contact and Reception as the band 
co^h, &c. then •! am rar from believing tiiatevcr Chriii or 
our Aflembly fo meant,or ever had fo grols a thought. Where 
\ OU fay, I t*kt it not the inftr.ee as the Scripture Words tmfy- 1 an- 
fwer. When I ice thatmanifefted I (hill believe it. Wnen it is 
faid fohn I. tie cime to bisorvn^ ar.dhu oftn received kirn not : 
i. Is it meant they took him not in their hands^or received not his 
Pcrfon in;o their houfes? the later is true i But i. Only in a 
iecond place ^ but their hearts were the ffrft Receptacle 2. Elfe 
thofe wtrrno Unbelievers where Chnft never came in perfon •, 
And chat had n > houfes ^ 3. And tha: receiving cannot belong 
to us that never faw him, nor to any fince his Afccnfion. 2. Or 
k it the Intellective Reception of h\s fptcics? I trow not: I 
have faid enough of that before, g. Or is it a moral Recepti- 
on of him as thus and thus related, volendo, eUgendojonfentien- 
do, dligendo ( pardon this lift, it is but the qualification of the 
reft ) & confejuenterfidendo ? I think this is it. W you can find 
a fourth way, you will do that which was never done ( to 
my knowledge ) and then you will be a Novellift as well 

as I. 

Foryour.next expreflions, I anfwer to them, that you do 
truly apprehend that I am loth to feem to recede from others, 
(and as loth to do it, but magi* arnica vent as : Aid I can- 
not believe what my lift, nor like thofe that can. ) By which 
you ma; tsuly know, that I do it not out of affectation of An- 
gularity (asheknowcth that knoweth my heart,), nor intend 
to be any inftrumentofdivifionin the Church. And if my af- 
fertions are deftructive of what others deliver, it is but what fome 
men, and not what all deliver; Not agaijft the Aflembly , 
nor many learned Divines who from feveral parts of the Land 
have fignified to me their Afl'ent : befides all thofe great names 
that appear for me in p int. 

But you tell me chat [*/ 0*4; not build on feme Homiletcal 
popular expreffions in any mam bookj.] An/tire', Let me again 
name to you but the menl laft named, and try whether yoa 

H fa will 


will again fo entitle their writings. The firft and chief is Dr. 
?rejlo,u who was known t> be a man of molt choice notions , 
and fo Judged by thofe that put out his book«,and his credit To 
great in England^ that he cracks his own that feeks to crack it. 
And his Sermons were preached before as judicious an Audito- 
ry ( ac leaft ) as your Lectures, and yet you defend your own 
cxpreflions. Yea it is not once nor twice, nor five times only, 
but almoft through all his Books, that Dr. Pre/ion harpeth upon 
this firing, as if it were the choifeft notion that he intended to 
difclofe. Yea it is in his very Definition of faith as juftifying ; 
and Dr. Prefton was no homiletical Denner. I can produce 
the like Teftimony of Dr. Stoughton: ( two as great Divines 
in my efteem as moft ever England 'or the world bred. ) Another 
is Mr. fVallis i Doubtlefs , Sir, no homiletical popular man in 
Writing : nor could you have quickly bethought you of an 
Bngltjb Book that lefs defcrves thofe attributes : His words are 
thefe. / affent not to place the faving Acl of faith , either 
with Mr, Cotton ( as his Lor a/hip cites k'm) in the laying hold ofy 
or affenting to that T^ramife, &C. nor jet in a particular ap- 
plication of Chrifl to my f elf in ajjurance^or a believing that Chrifl 
is mine, &c. But 1 choofer ether to place it in an aft of the Willy 
then in ether ofihefe for tnamed aft s of the V nderft anding. It us an 
Accepting ofCbrijt offered, rather then an A Renting to a proportion 
affirmed. To as man) as received him 9 &cjhat it t to them that believe 
in his name John I. (jod makes a» Offer of Chrifl to all (elf e 
fhouldnot Rtpsobatesbe condemned f or not accepting ofhim f as nei- 
ther the Devils are^becaafe he Vvas not offered to them. )rVhofoever 
mil, let him come and take of the water of life freely i Kc\.zi.i f J. 
Whereupon the believing foul replies, I will : and fo takes him* 
When a Gift is offered tome, thrt which makethit to be mine is 
my Acceptation^ &c/ // youcal this taking of Chrifl ( or con' 
fenring that Chrifl fhaR be my Saviwr)a 'Depending^ Refling or 
relying on Chrifl for falvatien (ifjoufpeal^ofan all of the Will ) 
it is all one^for Taking of Chrifl to be my Saviour, and committing 
mjfelf to thrift to befaved^ is the fame : Both of them being but 
aconfenting to thU Covenant,! will be your Cjod y and youfhallbe 
my Teoplei &C. And if you make this the fwixg All of faith > 
then Will Repentance (fo far at it is diflinU from Faith )iea con- 


( 2 3T) 

f quint of it : Confidence alfo, &c. Thus Mr. Walts is cieac^ 
chat the Nature of Faich is the fame that I have affirmed, an^ 
in no popular Sermorv but in his Tnrh trjeJ. psg 54,95. And 
on thefe grounds he well anfwers BelLrrrints Dilemma, which 
eife will be but fhifcingly anfwered. The next is Mr. Nor 
of New England, a man judged one of their bed Difputancs, 
orelfethey would not have chofe him to encounter ssfpoUoni- 
su : And will you call his very Definition of Faich in an accu- 
rate Catechifm, an homiletical popular expreflion ? What then 
in the whole world (hall efcape that cenfure ? His Words are ; 
y Que ft. What.is juft'tfjing Faith ? Anfw. It is* faring grace 
of the Spirit, flowing from Election, vherebj the foul rtceweth 
Jeftii Chrift, as its Head and Savieu*^ according as he ii revealed 
in tbtGbfpel. J I fubfenbe to this Definition from my heart. 
The next cited was Mr. Ctilvervet'l, not in any popular Sermon, 
but in a folid well approved Tfeatifc of Faith, and not in com- 
mon paffageSj but his very deflation of faith, pig. t 3.17. and 
after all concludes./?*^. \9 [Thus rve fee that the very nature of 
faith conftfteth in the true Acceptation of Chrift proclaimed in the 
G fpel ] The next I cited ( about the Definit on of faith ) was 
Mr. Throgmorton, who in his accurate Treatife of Faith (and 
not in any popular Sermons) and that many times over, doth 
mal>e Faith to be the receiving Chrift for Prophet ', and only Kzh- 
b'lytoh hi* 'Vi/ciples, and as toe onlj Way and Truth, and alfo 
as King, Head, Husband, Frieft, &c. and bj this ws are made 
Partakers of him and all his benefits, pag. 6,29.3 l ■ 82. &c And 
for the great point that you flick at of Juftification,I will repeat 
the words of two of thofe Authors which I have named : 
And 1. Of learned Conr. Bergirss , in whom you (hall 
have the TeiHmony of the Angtiftane ConferHon , Luther, 
MeutK.er % &:. included, both about the nature and extent of 
Faith; about works Legal and Evangelical ; about Juftifica- 
tion as begun, and as continued, and the diftind conditions, and 
about the concurrence of Obedience, &c. Traxis Cathol. 
d'ffert.y. pjg.973. &C.§.4I. Nee tamen negat cjmfquxm (idem 
,e(fe Obedienaam in Una fenfu % ex Rom.1.5. & 6.1 7. & I O. l6 t 
& 16 76. zTheff.i 8. A&.5.32.HCD.5.9. iPet. 1.2,14, 2. 
1 • Fides efi cbedientia qnatenus e]us alius proprius rejfond'i pra. 

Hh 2 cepto 


ctfto Evatttellif (frede indominum Jefum^Scc. Iceo crim^ ut Caf- 
vmus at ad Rom. 1.5. nomine cbe tienttt infignitttr^ quod r Do- 
mintis per Evangelium nos vocat^ no$ vocanli per fliem refpondt- 
mm. Et fie fides, ( ut loquitur ApoL A uguft. Conf. in refp. ad 
Arg. psg.i 25 . ) eft Obed entia e ga EvAnfeiium : qu& cum Obe- 
dient t *m anda 'tor urn legurninime con fundi debet: Nam ut retle 
M.utzerus (intxeg Auguft Conf.rft.4 cent. Phot. in. 15. ) 
Jjhtantftm ab Evangels 'i Lex dxft-M, tuntttm ka; obedientU ab il- 
ia Mfterminattir. 42. 2. Eft etiam fi lei obed entia, quatenus per 
Sjfnecdocben tJMeionjm;cam fign feat totum cultum k fidelbus 
-pr<t[Httim\rad.cem ma cumfrullibus, &c. Not* enfm eft co'i- 
fuetudofermonU (ut ixquit Apol. Conf - ufljfi.de iirft. leg*p3C. 
87. ) quod interdum eodem verbo caufam & efeclus complefii- 
mur txTci fvititdioxiiv. Ita accipi po f eft fides, Heb. 13.7. and 
12. 1, 2- Rom. 1.8. 1 ThefT. i.8.!er.7.28. ^.Necdu- 

bium eft cumefrcitur^ hoc eft mandatum ut credamus & Dili^a- 
mus\ 1 John 3.2}. ficut in pracepto 'Diligendi & habitus citart- 
tatU ejrfrutlus a'tjue Opera, a I qu<t hab tusordinatur, mznd<ta 
funt : itactiam in prtcepto cnder.di & hibvutn fidei & f ru- 
tins ejus nobis mandatos effe. XJnde cum ipfa etiam chro it as in- 
terfrutlus fit fi Jet, fit ut tot a doEl< i*a Chrifiima taltquando ver- 
bum vef 'pradiettiofiJei, tota'Kjl'gh Chifttara, toti cecoKcmia- 
novi Teftamenti fiies praipue appelletur G*l. I. 22,. I Tim. 
4.6. Gal. 5. 6. and 3. 23. So he proceeds and Pledges Lu- 
ther taking faith in that large fenfe, including charity and obe. 
dience ; and by Works, meaning atHenes facias cum opinions 
meriti^ & cum cxpefhtioxe jiftifiationis &vi'& ar erne tan- 
quam mercidU dibi ■.* Strm. ds mi r . & li.de I bert. Chriftiana. 
Tom. 2. ##,/'. 4. $.&Tom. ^.com.in Zich.2.8.^* ad Gfl.c.2. 
f. 3c O. Et ultra p. 977. Cum dlc'itur [fine operibus legis J 

txcluduntur y \. Opera fjitla m verittte cbedttxtU legalise meriti 
fninde pir inr.ee en tiamjui detur Amerces t itra rem ffiorem peccsti 
&impktationem fcundumgratiam. Rom. 4. 3. C f ^WCom- 
f at us eft Apoftolus toto capite 1 & 2. & f. Ta'em Obedentiam a 
nemhebaberi, fedomnes fub peccato ejje, &c. 2. Excluduntur 
etiam opera facia cum opioniont vera cbedier.tU. le gaits ac meriti 
per innccentiam 1 quia hac ipfa funt eti«m p-eccat* & mendacia 
mtrtntia gosnam y PhiL] .7 

2 > jc X- 


3. Excluduntur etlam opera facta cum op'nione merit i fine obc* 
dier.tia jfr in-ocentia legali ant ex quo/icunque imperfect a aut pw 
ticttU'iobcdientia cut alqualiter detur lM trees citra impura- 
xioYitm ftcHticum gratiam^ &c.So tlutrhisis all the rxclufionof 
Worksthat he acknowledged : ard (hews chat T ell.rmh.e is 
driven to this, which he approveth. $.44. Ex dlciis hifce tr ; - 
b'Ai mod's , primo modo txcluduntur veraoper.4 /cgi r , it a ut non 
adfint , licet diberenx adejfe pnmo creaiio~4t pre ; pof c-'ior.bus 
anttm due-bus mod s (xclttduniur praftsmpta >ptra itautnon dtbe- 
ant adejfe fedcaviri potius ; 8t omnibus ki.ee rntdis cppor.it ur 
inter fe Lex opertsm, per qutm relinquitHr glorintio homir,i % & 
Lex Fidei, per quam txcluditur Glo< i itio^Rvm. 3 . 27. 

Afterwards, one fenfe in which he faith Fides foU ytfiificxt, is 
lh\s,fo/a eft files qua*, en us epp nitur Ugis cperum vb:d eni 1 * ;C • yts 
Veritas in r.ttllo eft h\V.in'hn^ epir.ii autem in nulla debet ejfe ^ & 
fignific at contra obedient iam legis Eidti^ feu prac p'i, ncn de cpe- 
rando & expellando vitam ut mercedem debitaw cur a imjutaio- 
nemfecundum gratiam ; fed ds credendo in Chrifium fr acc>p>e»- 
do & Ustinendovitam grali* y & (Xpt&.wdo vit>ir>3 glo>i*, ut do- 
fittm mere gratuitum per imputationem fcundttm graiiAm in Chri- 
ftojfuem\r4.pofhit c Dem p< ! a: Amentum in ^anguine ipfitss. 

And afterward, £at di&ufaciUintelUiitur n'.lii his repugntre 
Auguftinum^ (qui pr<t: pue nobis opponitnr ) cum docet, exdudi 
tantum ab ^poftolo opera faSiafi'.e fide & fpiritu Chifti : ( hoc 
eft y fine v>va file promt Jfiows, & tbr.egatioxe m'eriti frofrii, ficut 
cfrlSellarm. fupradocebit 9 rxcludi Optra quibvs d quost reddi^ 
ttir efl mercesnon gratia) opera vero fatla cum fide & Spiritu 
Chrifti ad Mam movente non exclud'. N-zmntque kos ea ex- 
cludimus y ne fint.aut debtant effe ; fed dtftmgtat titan* Luthe>ut 
opera legis & opera Ch<iftiin nobis per fidem operan:i> &" ziven- 
tu per omnia, ddditque hxc non pojfe magis om'tti^ qnzm ipfimr- 
fiiem^ nee tffe minus necejfaria quzmfidet^ in li. devot.mon. T. 2. 

But the chwfthingl intend is in the next words. At quem- 
admodum cetera, ailiones fign fi:at<e per [idem quafi matenaUttr 
& Synecdochice per fe & dwell c non §rdinantur ad <m ; citidm Dti 
& falutemproprie Efficiendam ("as he miftakingly thinks faith \s) 
fedvel adfidem cm que quo modo profunt y vel ad amicitiam 'Vfi 

Hh 3 &' 


& fahtem faltem non amittendam : ita ntqut Juftificabunt & 
jalvabunt froprie & diretle. Proper unt tamen ad Htrumqne 
quatenusfunt, i. vel dtfpofitiones ad fidem.ut^ artftt.l, Effeftus, 
&c. 3. Q*at exits per ilia excludimus & cavemus peccata & in- 
gratt^dwtm ^qua omr.ino vera caufa tmitienda fufiitia & faltt- 
tisfuttira effent : qutlemcauftm removentem prokihevs appelhre^ 
& adcaujas per accidens referre Jolent. 0mni6enim arbor qv.a 
ncn, &p. fHere he fpeaksonly of the natural conducibility of 
work*, and omitteth the moral conditionally ; and fo gives a 
caufality per accident to them,which is more then I do. ) $.54. 
& in htcfrulluum compuratwne^fub notione proprit caufa finalis 
fit was not then conlldcred that justification is a continued 
Aci)pertinenti6 ad non amittendum/^retinendum gratuito datj y 
ordo & refpetlus optrum adfalutem ftmpltcijfime i & commodijfime 
ad Scti t tura fJum txplicavi potefl. 2 Pet. 1.1O. 2 po^.8. 

Accordingly before in this Type he makes the conditions to 
be 1. Acceptation: fchatsfaith) 2. and retention ; (thishe 
fheweth is alfo by Gofpelwork<)amongdiVers allegations of his 
out of the sslpol. Vrfin. T>avenant, &c. I will add one out 
oiGualther in 1 Cor. horn. 28. Vt fil.us etfi hares tiatus fit , 
abdicatur tamen, e^r r<b 'bareditate excidit , fife inobedientem & 
contumacioremprabeat : ttanos qucqueregnicalorum beretita- 
tem^ (judex adoptions gratia nobis debeturjninime quidem no- 
flris operibns msremur tandem vtro noflra contumacia amittimus t 
&noftro magno mcrito abdicamur, fi tanta gratia iniqui fimus 

And he reconciled Paul and fames thus, /. 56. 'Deinqut no- 
tandum efl : alium cjfe loquendi & docendi modnm contra Judawf- 
mum & contempium gratia: ahum contra fecuritat em & abufum 
gratia, cum difputaturpraciput comrr. fudaifmum five fufiitiam 
optrum, uti Paulus in tp. ad Rom. & al.bifacit^ tunc docemur 
folafidejufiiflcan^ hoc efl \*ikit in nob U placer e 'Dto nifi per ab' 
mgationem meriti gr accept Ationem contra doni Evangeltci. At 
cum difptttatur contra fecur it atew, & docetur quM re/peclu ami" 
citia Dnina nobis agendum (it (p> out Jacobus m Spifi fua feat y 
&hodie t velmjximemcffjeejft ( we may truly fay fo) ut Dr. 
Toftaniu in fua Cont. P/endevangelicos difputaticne et alii pie 
acprudenter 'ym[ridem monutrunt) tunc negatnr folam fidem 



fafficere, & prtc\piuntur omnia qu& quoqno modo profunt : five 
dipw>t«t aJfiicm, five imis coxfummetur fidts, ( ficut qutvu 
res fine & tff.tl.biu fun confum^'atur : arbor fruftifau^ ft:ntU 
arsinr.a mot'ibus corpora, non quod ad effent'<am fed quod ad ufum ) 
five p'ifexs j*m amicttia per ilia firmetur ne diffilia^ icleiiam 
augtatttr quod etd effe^iu- aliqttos , Cr hoc modo qujfe implex 

And he concludes thus. $. 5^. Vw> ve-bo : foil fide jmfli- 
ficamur j hoc ejl : Nullo noftro mei ito, five ipfiwfide^five al- 
tetias aSlionis prater fidem. Probetur evident er & caboliceme- 
ritum quale d nsftm mgatur^ tunc eti <m tilud prxcer folam fidera 
admiftwi (umw. 

Lud. Crocius faith, ( Syr.tsg. 1. 4. pag i\ll.)Fidesetiamfoh 
jvftificat quatenus >utit obediential quandam expeilaitem p~c- 
mlfftonemui donum gratuitum ; quomodo formaliier quidemcon- 
fiftit in ap'licattone prowijfionis, quam tamen & prtcedunt dif- 
pofitiones aliqua adhunc'tpfum fidet allum, & (equur.tur frutlus : 
undeplures virtutes vel aftustum antecedents turn corf equentet 
connotat; & opponitur illi obedentid qu<t no~ expettat promfjftonem 
tanquam donum omniio graft i'um, fed utmercedem p-tpofitam 
fub conditione opiris alicujusprtter acceptationem & gratitudi- 
nem debitam qua fua natura in omni donatione quamvu gratuita 
rcqairifolet. Et bujufmodi cbedimii peculiar iter Opus ab isf- 
poftolo, & Latinu propr emeti'-um dicitur. Et q'U ha: conditi- 
one obediunt operantes vocantur , Rom. 4.4. and 1 1 6. tsftque 
fi itthdc propofitio exponatur i ea quidem opera q>tz cum fide con- 
frere nequeant^ id eft, qu 1 fiunt cum fiiuci 1 & of intone meriti, 
prorfus excludumur , itaut r.onfolumnegentn-- juf;ifi:a'e f fed & 
adejfe tarn in juftificato, quam in juftificaxdo. 

Joh. Crocius de jvflifi. difp. 1 ?. pag. 67$ . (fredem faila eft 
promijjio^ fide accept urum remiffioiem peccatontm : mendico 
& agro non tft fntla promijfit, fi tile manum extendat , datum 
iri eleemofynam ; fi ifte pharr/tacum manu capiat convalitu- 
rum y &c. 

Mr. Gataker^4/»/? Saltmarfhfhadoftf, &c. pag.. 16. 40 41, 
43,44,45,46 47,48,49,53,64. doth fully give as much to Faith, 
Repcntance.Obedience as I do. Nor know I any reafon why, 
( Johns ) IZaptifmfor thefnbftance of itjjouldnot be an exam fit 



U m alfo in fhefe times, being the Baptifm of Repentance Mto fx- 
mijfnn of fins, thit u, if I m-'fiaks ntt,Baptijm ob figging remiffi- 
on of fins ufm condition of Repentance* pag, 40. j and pig. 4 1 . 
He faith, [that pirdon f fin and falvat'oz are propounded and 
preached up >n condition of Faith, Repentance, and ?{jV?nefs of life y 
which are the conditions of the Gofpeh: a*dyamay thy -alfo be 
fo termed a6 conditions of peace upon agreement unto> and perfor- 
mance thereof peace mty be had, which otherWife cannot be ob- 
tained. ] And be evinceth this by an Argument drawn from the 
definition or nature of a condition, thus, f That wkichis fo pro- 
pounded^as that be ng performed^ltfe and falvation may undoubte '- 
// be attained, and without whish it cannot be had* may Well be 
termed a cond tion : but fuch are the thing* before mentioned -, 
therefore the) may j'ftly be termed conditions] vid. ult. and p. 4^ . 
Suppose a King be content at the fuit either of the parties them- 
felves, or any friend, to grant hk gracious pardon to a company of 
notorious Rebels that hadrfen up againft him, &c. upon condition 
thtt they acknowledge their offence, aud their forrowfor it , With 
purpfe andprjmifc of living loyally for time to come ; whether 
Would you deem this to be free grace or no ? &C Were he not a 
moft ungracious wrttch,tha f hazing his pardon onfuch terms grant- 
ed and fignedhi n, ftouid in regard of th>fe conditions deny %t to be 
of free Grace ? and whether they do not blafpheme Qodsfree Grace y 
tie -it d ny it to be free Qrace, if it be propounded on terms of Be- 
lief \ Repentance and Amendment of If e. Sir, PVhatfoever you 
fay to us , ta\e heed hoW you tellChnfl, that he doth not freely 
fave jou, if he will not fave you unlefs you believe, &c. ] In ma- 
ry more places, and more fully Mr. Gat deer (hews that Faith, 
Repentance, Obedience,ane jointly conditions of Pardon, &c. 
Onlyhegves Faith a peculiar Rtceptivity , which 1 never de- 
nyed : nr.d he yields to call it an Inftrument, which fo largely 
taken, Iwilln t contend againft. But (till I fay that this Re- 
ceptivity is tut the aptitude of Faith in a fpecial manner to this 
work of juflifying \ and the reft are apt to be conditions in their 
phce, or ejfeGod would not have made them conditions. 
Even in regard of its natural aptitude and ufe [Humiliation, 
( asMr. fW/ filth, berm. on f^mesq.2. p3g. 12. ) though it 
dQnot pro-erly cleanfe the hands jet it pluckj eff thj (jlover, and 

m *kt$ 

O41 ) 

,emb.ireforwafiing : and Go dh falron vs-tb its {even 
^Daughters, 2 Cor. 7. 1 1 . are clenfing things. 

Dr. Scoughton ^Righteous mans plea for H^pp. Serm. tf.pag. 3 ;.' 
Fa'th comprehends not only the All of the ZJn ierflar.ding^ but ib: 
Aft of the Will too, fo as the Will doth embrace and adhere , and 
cleave to thofe Truths fthich the under {landing conceives ; and not 
onh embracing meerly bl Affent to the Truth of it , but bj clofl- g 
with the Good of it : ( What is that bu: loving ? ) tafting and 
relifbng it. As faith in Chn/l is not only the Affenting of a mans 
mind that Cbriji is th? Savt$ur y but arr{ultanc) of the Will on 
Ch'ifl as a Savir.iry embracing of him, Ana lot i g, efteeming an I 
honouring him as a Saviour. The Scrip we comprehends both 
thefe together, and there is a rule for it , which the Rabbins givs 
for the opening of the Scripture ,y'\l.Verba fenfus etiam den >t ant af- 
fetlus^s Jo. 1 7. 3. r hu « eternal life to k^now thee y 8cc. it if not bare 
Knowledge the Scripture means, but Knowledge joined veith ajfe- 
Elions. ~] You fee Dr. Stouqhton took Love to be full as near 
Kin to Faith as I do. Many the like snd more full in him I pafs. 
1 cited in my Append. Alfledius, Junius, Parous , Scharpius, 
AretiuSiH all ,&c. making Faith,& Obedience ,& Gratitude Condi- 
tions of the next Covenant (& who faith not the fame ? ) If all thefe 
be homxletical and popular \ much miftake them; which yet I cite 
not as if no words might be found in any of thefe Authors that 
feem tofpeakothcrwtfe^ but to (hew that I am not wholly 
fingular>( Though if I were,! cannot help it when I will. ) 

On the next Q.Whether a dying man ma) bck^ on his Faith and 
Obedience>& Duty as the condit on of the N.fov. by him perf rm- 
ed c You would perfwadc me that I cannot think that I fpeak 
to the poincinthis:butyouaremiftakeninme:forlcan miftakc 
more then that comes to; and indeed I yet think I fp oke a> di- 
rectly to the queftion in your terms laid down, as was pofsible ; 
for I changed not one of your terms, but mentioned the Affir- 
mative as your felfexprcffed it : If you did mean otberwife then 
you fpoke, I knew not tbar, nor can yet any better undcrftand 
you. Only I can feel that all the difference between you and 
me mud be decided by diftinguifhing of £ Conditions : 3 b Qt 
you never yet go about it fo as I can underftand you. You here 
ask m?, [whether 1 thh\jon deny 4 godly life to be a comforta* 

li Vie 


bteTeftiMoriy,or necejfary qualification of a man for pardon? "] 
Anfwer. i .But the Queftion is not of the fignificancy or Teftimo- 
ny.y nor yet of all kind of qualification ^ that is an ambiguous 
term, and was not in the Queftion, but of the conditionally. 
2. You yield to the term Condition your felf elfewhere , and 
therefore need not (hun it. 3. Qualifications and Conditions 
are either phyfical and remote, of which I raife no queftion : 
fo the EfTence of the foul is a condition , and fo hearing the 
Gofpel is a natural Condition of him that will underftand ic ; 
and underftanding is a natural Qualification of him that will be- 
lieve it: Y^otignoti nulla fides. But it is another fort of condi- 
tions you know tharwe are in fpeech of, which I have defined, 
and Mr. Qataker before cited .• -viz. Moral legal conditions fo 
called infenfuforenfi vellegaliiwhen the Law of Chrift hangs our 
a&uai J unification and faWation on the doing or not doing fuch 
a thing. »Yet do I very much diftinguifh between the Nature and 
Ufes of the feveral Graces or Duties contained in the conditions^ 
for though they are all conditions) yet they were not all for the 
fame reafon.or to the fame ufe ordained to be conditions -..but re- 
pentance in one fence as preparatory to faith ; and Faith. 1 .Be- 
caufe it honoureth Chrift, and debafeth our felves. 2. Becaufe 
it being in the full an Acceptation of the thing offered, is the 
moll convenient means to make us Pofieffors without any con- 
tempt of the Gift * with other reafons that might be found .• 
So I might aflign the reafons ( as they appear to us ) why God 
hath affigned Love td Chrift, and fincere Obebience, and for- 
giving others, their feveral parts and places in this conditionali- 
ty . :-( but I have done it in my Aphorifms ^ ) but then all thefe 
are drawn from the diftin£l nature and ufe of thefe duties Effen- 
eially in therafelves confidered, which is but their Aptitude for 
the place or conditionality which they are appointed to, and 
would of themfelves have done nothing without fuch appoint* 
ment. So that it is one queftion to &sk a fVby doth Faith or Workt 
of Obedience to Chrift fuftifie ? ( To which I anfwer ^ Becaufe it 
was the pleafureof God to make them the conditions of the 
Govenant,and not becaufe of their own nature directly .• ) and 
its another Queftion, Why did God choofe Faith to the Prece- 
dency in thi* work} To which I anfwer. 1. Properly there 
is no caufe of God* actions without himfelf. z* But fpeak- 

( H3 ) 

ing of him after the manner of men, as we muftdo , it is be- 
caufe Faith is fitter then any other Grace for thisHonorand 
Office, as being both a high honouring of God, by believing 
bim(thats as for AfTent)and in its own Eflential nature,a hearty 
thankfull Acceptance of his Son, both to be our Lord (which 
is both for the Honor of God and our own good jand our Savi- 
our to deliver and glorifie us ; and fo is the moft rational way 
that man can imagine to make us partakers of the procured hap- 
pinefs, without either our own danger ( if a heavier condition 
had been laid upon us ) or the difhonour of the Mediator ; ei- 
ther by diminifhing the eftimationof the favour (if we had 
done any more to the procuring it our felves ) or by con- 
tempt of the Gift > ( if we had not been required and 
conditioned with fo much as thankfully and lovingly to accept 
ir. ) And then if the Queftion be, why God hitb ajfigned fin* 
cere Obedience and Per/ever s.nce therein to thit pb.ee of fee cn- 
dary Conditior.ality fr the continuance and con fumm at ion of Ju* 
flification, and for tise attaining of falvation f I anfwer. Not 
becaufe they have any fuch Receptive nature as faith,but becaufe 
Faith being an Acceptance of Chrift as Lord al(o,and (Jelivering 
andre(i£n;ngup the foul to him accordingly in Covenant, this 
Duty is therefore necefTanly implyed, as the thing promifed by 
us in that Covenant , and fo in fome fence greater then the co- 
venanting it felf, or the end of it: and Chrift never intended 
to turn man out of his fervice, anddifcharge him from Obe- 
dience; but to lay on him an eafier and lighter yoak and burden, 
to learn of him.e^.and therefore well may he make this thecon- 
dition of their finding Eafe and Reft to their fouls, Mat. 11.28, 
29. For,for this end he dyed, that he might be Lord, Rom. 14.9. 
And therefore when we are freely pardoned,& bought from hell, 
i- isequal that Chnft fhould rule us, who bought us,and that his 
Covenant hang till the continuance of our Legal title to pardon 
judication, and glory, and fo the full pofTefiion of them 
upon this perfeverance in fincere loving grateful fubjection 
tohimthatboughtus.andbyhim to the Father.And thus Sir, I 
have digreffed and u($d many words on this, ("which to ycu L 
think needlefs ) not' only becaufe I perceive that you acknow- 
ledge the condicionality of obedience in fome fenfe, but cell me 

Ii 2 not 


not in what fenfe,but left you (hould not difcern my fenfe, who 
defire to fpeak as plain as lean, that you may truly fee where- 
in we differ; And that I alfo may lee it when you have as 
clearly opened your meaning of your term,[_J2ualific<iticns.~] 

And for your Queftion [whether a godly man can think the 
Righteoufntfs of Cbijl made Icis by working, or only beliezing.^ 
I anfwer, caufally and efficiently by neither, I think, ( chough 
you think otherwife ) ; I dare not fo advance faith , and fo 
advance man. I remember good, old , learned , felid Gata- 
kjrs words to Sa'tmarfb(pag.5$,) It is y our J "elf rather then any of 
us that trip at tbu ft one ^ when you Vcould have faith fo much pref- 
fed in the 'Doctrine of falvation, in regard of the glorioufnejs and 
tminency of the grace it (elf ; which to fif[ert,u not found' ( Jic in 
Animadv in Lucrum fart, i. $.9.^.7. ) The righteoufnefs of 
Chnft is made ours by Gods free gift ; but faith and true fub- 
jection are conditions of our participation ; and what intereft 
each hath in the conditionally, and on what grounds, I have 
{hewed. 1 fear you§ive too much to faith and man. 

You ask [7j it repent t and Chriflf righteoufnefs by this is made 
yours ?] Anffter, It is oftimes,/?fp*»f and be forgiven ; and re- 
pent and be baptized ; and repent and believe^ and be forgiven : 
but not efficiently by repenting nor believing : but on condition 
of both : though in ordaining them conditions God might 
intend one b*t as preparative or fubfervient to the other j 
and not on equal terms, or to equal ufe immediately. 

And when you fay, [that the dying Chrijiianis directed to the 
Refting on Chrift, and eying the brazen Serpent^ not to be found 
in any tking but a righteoufnefs by faith t] I never durft entertain 
any doubt of this ; it is no queftion between us : only in what 
fenfe it is called a Righteoufnefs by faith , I have fhewed , 
even in oppofition to Works in Pauls fenfe, which make the re- 
ward to be of debt and not of Grace, Rom. 4. 4. where you fay 
[It is an ASlof Dependence not of Obedience that intereft s us in 
(thrifts Righteoufnefs ~\ I anfwer, It is no one Ad but many •, 
It is an act of /Jjfent firft ( and thence the whole hath 
the name of faith , ic being fo hard a thing to believe 
fupernatural things , as it would have been to us to be- 
lieve Chrift to have been God when we had fecn him in the 



ftiapeofman, had we lived in thofetlme?, when the Dodrine 

of frith came noc with thofc advantages as now it doth J And 

then it is an ad of willing, confenting, eleding, affeding 

(which three are but a vtlle Rejpectivum, and fo in the aft alt 

onej : and this in order of nature goes before any ad which 

you can in any reafonable proprieiy call Dependance: and 1 

doubt noc are far more eflential to juftifjing faith : yet I am 

heartily willing to take your acts of dependance (for thofe al- 

fo are more then onej in the next place. But it confound- 

ethand abufeth us and the Church in this controverfie, that 

many learned Divines will needs fhun the ftrict Philofophical 

names of the feveral Acts of the foul, and overlook alio the 

natural order of the fouls motions , and they will ufe, and ftil 

ufe the Metaphorical expreflions, as apprehenfion ( improper^ 

dependance , relying, refti>-g % recombency^ adherence^ embracing^ 

with more the like. 1 know Scripture ufeth Come of thefe : bur 

then it is not in ftrict deputing, as foh. Crociuj tels Bel/arm, 

we may ufe apprehend figuratively, becaufe Scripture faith, 

apprehendite difci-Hnam, and lay hold on eternal life : But this 

would quickly end difputation , or elfe make it endlcfs. Yec 

in the places cited, who knows not the fame word hath d.ffcrent 

tenfes ? in the former being ufed for to accept and ftoop to ; in 

the later for anearneft prelTIng on, and endeavouring after as 

a runner to catch the prize. And they will be loth to fay , 

thefe are all and each of them the juftifying acts. 

And where you add that its not an art of obedience. Ianfwer, 
i . I wouftryou had firft anfwered the many Scriptures to the 
contrary produced in my Aphor. 2. -Its trueoftherlrft inte" 
reft in Chrift, (further then faith is called obedience) but not 
of the further continued and confummate in'ereft. 3. Dothnoc 
Chrift (iy, Take my yoaJ^learn of we to be meek^and loVcly , that 
they may have eafe and refl ? Tiafe and Reft ? From what ? Why 
from what they came burdened with ? and that was fure gu.lt 
and cttrfe^nd whatever is oppofed to pardon andjtiflifi:ation 9 
<JW.at % 1 1 . And Blejfed are they that do h<4 commandment sjhat 
the) may have right to the tree of life , and may enter in , &c. 
Rev.2Z. 14. And he is the Author of eternal falvation to all 
them that obey h'm % Hcb. 5. 9. And CMst. 25. is wholly 

Ii 3 and 


and convincingly againft you. And fo is the fecond Pfalm whol- 
ly,which makes fubjection to Chrift as King, the great part 
of the Gofpel condition. [Kifs thefon^ conteineth more then 
Recombeftcy^n my judgement : and yet no more then that true 
faith which is the condition of juftification. 

But no word in your paper brings me to fuch a {land as your 
next, where you fay, And that is very harjhftill which yon ex- 
prefs^toexptSbthe Right eon fnefs of the Covenant of grace up- 
on the conditions fulfilled by your felf through Gods workings. ^ 
Anfw. Truly iris quite beyond my (hallow capacity to reach 
what you here mean to be fo harlh : , what (hould I imagine ? 
That there are conditions upon which the Tenor of the Gofpel 
gives Cbrift Righteoufnefs, you acknowldge : And that he 
that perfovmeth them not, the Gofpel giveth him none of it : I 
know you conrefs thefe; And that we muft needs perform them 
our felves, through Gods workings ( i.e. both enablement and 
excitation, and co-operation : ) I know you doubt of none of 
thefe ; for you have wrote againft the cAntinomians : and Mr. 
G*taker hath evinced the fottifh ignorance 6\ impudency of 
Saltmarfhy in denying Faith, Repentance and Obedience to 
be the conditions on which, performed by us, we muft enjoy 
the things promifed, Pardon, &c. or elfenot. Yea in this 
paper you yield to this conditionally. What then is the mat- 
ter ? Is it harlh when yet you never once (hew the fault of the 
Speech? It muft be either the falfhood, or the unfltnefs • 
but you have yet accufed it of neither ; and yet fay it is harfh. 

But the reafon you intimate, becaufe *BeIUrmint hath fome 
fuch phrafe : which I never remembred or obferved in him : and 
little do I care whether he have or no : If the Papifls be nearer 
to us then I take them to be, it is caufe of joy and not forrow : 
But fure I am that Proteftant Writers generally ufe the word 
Condition ; and Wendeline faith, The Pafifis abufe us in feigning 
us to fay the Gofpel is abfolute ; and faith,the Gofpel ih each fence 
i* conditional. In one fence Faith is the Condition ; in another \ 
Faith and Obedience, &c. 

Bur here you come again to the Labyrinth and tranfcendent 
Myfterie of pajfive Faith : nay you enlarge the Myfterieyec 
more: i. You fay again, £ Faith dothp&ti. 2. And jet Love 



doth agere. 3 . Elfeyou would yield that Beliarmine argues cox- 
fonantly enough , /£«* Zw* would juftifie as well as faith. 4. Tee 
j on acknowledge Faith an Atlive grace : but only in this AH in 

ssfnfwer. I confefs ray reafon utterly at a lofs in this ; but 
yet if it were in my Bible ( to me Intelligible) I would believe 
ic as I do the Doctrine of the Trinicy,and ceafe enquiring. But I 
cannot fo do by any Creature, to make him the Lord of my 
faith and Reafon. 1 . Whether Faith doth Pati, I have enquired 
already. 2. That Love doth Agere, I verily believe ; and 
yet I have ofter heard Love called a Paflion, then Faith : And 
as Keeker am faith, the A ff eel ions are more Paflive then the im- 
manent Elicit Alls of the htellecl and Will. And though as ic 
is in the Rational foul, Love, ( faith Aquin. ) is no Pafston, but 
a Willing ( which caufeth me to judge it fo near Kin to Faith ) 
yet as it is in the fenfitive, it is a Pafiion. So that I am quite 
beyond doubt that phyiically love is more properly called a 
Pafllonthcn Faith, 3. Therefore for ought I know, it is no 
wonder if Beliarmine bear the Bell,and Papifts be unconvinced, 
if you have no better Arguments then this- efpecially if no 
body elfehad better, 4. But yet the Myfterieis far moreun- 
fearchable to mejhzt faith Jhouldbe Active in all other, fave only 
this ^c7.What is this thing called Fa : tb,whkh you make fuch a 
Proteus , to be Atlive andT^/jw as to feveral Obje&s? Yea 
when it is acknowledged the fame Faith, which receiveth Chrift 
and Righteoufncfs, and the feveral promifts, and refteth on 
Chrift for the Pardon of each fin, for hearing each Prayer, for 
AfTurance,Peace,Comfort, Deliverance from temptations, and 
dangers and -fin, and is thusufefull through all our lives, for 
the fetching of help from Chrift in every ltreight , yet that this 
fame Faith fhould be Atlive in all the Reft, and Tafsive only 
in One juftifying Ad. Oh , For the face of an Argument to 
prove this ! Sure its natural Reception of one Object and ano- 
ther is in point of Pafsivenefs alike : and its affigned Conditio- 
nally in Scripture, is of like nature as to each branch of the 
good on that condition promifed. 5. Andherealfol perceive 
by your fpeech you make it confift in fome fingle ad. And yec 
you never tell what that is- and how then can it be in feveral fa- 


cuities, as Davenant^ Amcfiw, foh. Cnc'ius, MtUncih. with 
rnoft do affirm? 6. But yet the depth of the myftericto me 
lies in undcrftanding and reconciling your words [ Onlj in thi* 
Ati its meerlj Recip ent, ] Is this an AH :oo } and yet meerlf 
Recipient? ( which you make a meer Pa(<sve reception. ) A 
meerlj Pafnve AB is fuch a comradi&ion in aVjetlo to my un- 
derftanding, that I cannot welcome the notion thither ; yea if 
you had faid lefs,that it is an Act in any Part or Degree Pafsive* I 
never knew that an Ad could Pa,ti\ yet am I more confeious 
of mine own infufficiency, then to contend with one of your 
knowledge in matter of Philofophy ; but I muft needs fay that 
your notions are yet fofar beyond my reach>that pofsibly I 
might take the words as true upon the credit of one whom I fo 
highly value,yet am I not able to apprehend the fence. 

The fo) in Heave* which you mention for a Vrandr>ng fhe*p t 
I think is meant of thefirft,or fome eminent recovery to Chrifr, 
and not of every Philofophical notion : fure, Sir, if falvation 
hang on this Doftrincas thus by you explained, I am out of 
hope that either I or ever a one in all this coumrey fhould 
ever come to heaven ; except by believing as that part of the 
Church believes which is of your opinion : When I am yen 
apt to think , that fiding with any party in fuch opinions 
will not conduce to any mans falvation : For I am of Bergiut 
his mind, that as it is not the Jew, the Pagan, or the Maho- 
metan , or any Infidel, (privative, ) that (hall be faved , 
but the Chriftian; fo it is not the Tapifl, the Lutheran , the 
Calvimfl, the *s4rm\nian % that fiullbe Javed ( qua talis ) but 
the C atholkk. However I aminftrong hopes that a man may 
be faved, though he cannot underftandhow an Act can be a 
pafftve instrument ; nor do I think that my fubferibing Co that 
notion , would make any great rejoycing in Heaven. 

I am forry you had not leifure to anfwer the Queftions , 
which were very pertinent to the bufinefs of ray fuisfaftion, 
though not to your bufinefs. 

That my explication of that plain, weighty, neceffary point, 
hefto imperfetl graces or duties can jet be the conditions of the New 
Covenant, fliould feem a Paradox toyou^ I fay, to you, makes 
me yet more poffeft with admiration ; When you know rhac 



fuch conditions there arc (fuppofeit were bur faich alone-.) 
and you know your felf that this faith is imptmft. But I 
perceive we know but in part, and therefore mu ft differ in 
part. He (hall fee whom God will enlighten. I had far ra- 
ther you had fallen upon that point then on the term of f'fli- 
ficatien by veoikj. Ifycu would but grant me, that J^ftfy 
itfff faitb 9 as fuch t is an Accepting of Cbrifi for Kixg ■ and 
Prophet as well <u for a J nft ifier , atct.ccnftqutnti) that it u arc- 
figning our (elves to be ruled by bim , as Veell as to beftved by 
him, I (hall then be content for peace fake to lay by ttephra.'e 
of J unification by workj , though it be Gods pwn phrafe, if 
the Church were offended with it, and required this at my 
hands.- (So they will be fatisfied with my iiiencing it, with- 
out a renouncing ir. ) I have written thus largely, that I might 
not be obfeure , and to lee you fee, that though I have fcarce 
time to eate or (leeep , yet I have time and paper for 
this work , and that I make net light of your diflent. 
The. Love and Refpeft which ycu mention to me I do 
as little doubt of, as I do whether I have a heart in my 
breaft: and your defires of my reducing I know do proceed from 
your zeal and fincere affections. That which I take worfti?, 
that you fhould fo defire me not to take it ill to be called an 
erring (hephcrd : As if I did not know my Pronenefsto err, 
and were not confeious of the weaknefs of my understanding: or 
as if the expreflions of fofincere love did need excufe ; or as 
if I were fo tender and brittle as not to endure fo gentle a 
couch : as if my confidence of your love were Plumea, non 
Ftiditbeayind would be blown away with fuch a friendly breath! 
Certainly Sir,your (harper fmiting would be precious BaIm,fo it 
light not on the Truth, but me ! lam not fo unduous,nitrous, 
or fulfureous, as to be kindled with fuch a gratefull warmth. 
My Jntelled were too much a&ive, and my afFedions too paf- 
fwe, if by the reception of the beams of fuch favourable ex- 
prefiions, my foul as by a Burning-GIafs (hould be fct on fire. 
I amoftaftiamed and amazed to think of the horrid intolera- 
ble Pride of many learned Pious Divines,who though they have 
no worfe Titles then Viridotti y reverendi^celebtrrimi: yet think 
themfelves abufed and unfufferably vilified, if any word do but 
acriiis pungere , or any Argument do faucibus prr«w*( witnefs 
Rivet and SpanhemiHi late angry cenfure of Amyr Aldus ) Can 

Kk we 


:WC be Tit Preachers and Patterns of meeknefs and humility to 
our people, who are fo nocorioufly proud, that we can fcarce 
be fpoke to ? My knowledge of your eminent humility and 
gentelnefs hath made me alfo the freer in my fpeeches here to 
you: which therefore do need more excufe then yonrs: And I 
accordingly intreat you, if any thing have pafled that is unman- 
nerly , according to the natural eagernefs and vehemency 
of my temper, that you will be pleafed to excufe what may be 
excufed, and the reft to remit and cover with love, alluring 
your felf it proceeds not from any diminution of his high efteero 
of yon,and love to you, who acknowledged hirafelf unfeigned- 
? y fo v»*ry much below you, as to be unworthy tabe called 

Tour ftltoty-fervant 

Richard Baxter. 

June 2$> 165c. 


Foft(crip t 



Ear Sir, while I was waiting foi 
meffengerto fend this, by, Made: 
Brooksby acquaints me, that you 
wiflit him to tell me, that I muft 
expeft no more in writing from you, 
My requeft is , that whereas yovt 
intimated in your firft, apurpofe 
of vvti^ng fomewhacagainft me on this fubjeft here- 
after, you would be pleafed to do it in my life time,* 
that I may have the benefit of it, if you do it fatisfa- 
ftonly • and if not, may have opportunity to acquaint 
you with the reafons ofmydiflfent. Scnbunt Aftmum 
Pollioncm dixijfe aliquando [e parafje orationes contra 
Plancum, quas non mfi pojl mortem ejjet cditurus $ & 
Plan cum re/pondijje % cum mortuis non nifi lar- 
vas luclari : nt Lud. Fives ex Plinio , & Dr. Hum- 
fred. ex illo fefuit. 2. p. 640. 

Alfo I requeft that if poffible you would proceed on 
fuch terms as your Divinity may not wholly depend 
upon meer niceties of Philofophy : For I cannot think 
fuch points to be neer the foundation : Or at leaft that 
you will clearly and fully confirm your Philofophical 
grounds: For as I find that your Doftrine of a Paffive 
Instrumentality of the Aft of faith (and that in a Mo- 

Kka rai 

( *?o 

raP reception of righteoufnefs which is but a relation f 
yet calling it Phy fical) is the very bottom of the great 
diftance between usin the point of juftification : So I 
am of opinion that! may more freely difTentfrom a 
brother in fuch tricis philofophicis then in an Article 
of faith : Especially having the greateft Philofophers 
on my fide •, and alio feeing how little accord there 
is among themfelves.that they are almpft fo many men, 
fo many minds: and when I find them profefling as 
Combacchiut in pr<ef, ad Phy >f. that they write againft their 
own fenfetopleafe pthers, ifaquodmaximam opinionum 
in lib. content arum partem nonjam probaret) & Ariftote- 
Um non effe normam veritates^nd wifhing ut tandem alt- 
quando txurgat aliquis qui perfcttiora nobis principia mon- 
JI ret: and to conclude as he, falfttatem opinionum & fen - 
tenti*rum& [cientiamm imperfeffionem jam pridcm vi- 
deo , (ed in veritxte docenda dcficio. Et Nulli aut 
paucis certe minus me fatisfa&urum ac mihi ipfi fat 
fcio. And how many new Methods and Doctrines 
of Philofophy this one age hath produced < And I am 
fo far fceptical my felf herein, as to think with Scali- 
ger {ibid cit. ) Nos injlar vulpis d Ciccnia deluf/e vitreum 
v.xslambere, pnltem haudattwpere. But I believe not 
'that in any Matter point in Divinity , God hath left 
his Church ac fuch ah utter lofs , nor hanged the 
faith and falvation of every hone ft ordinary Chriftian , 
upon meer uncertain Philofophical fpeenlations. I do 
not think that Paul knew what a Pafsivt h(lrument 
was 5 much lefs \_an act that was phy fi cat If passive in its 
injtrumenraliiji/i a msral cauf.dion.~\ You muft give 
me leave to remain confident that Paul built not his Do- 
ctrine of juftification on fuch a philofophical founda- 

« tioaj 

[<', vv*« 

tion, till you have brought one Scripture to prove that 
faith is an inftrument, and fuch an inftrument - which 
canneitherbe done. Efpecially when the fame Paul 
profeffeth that he came not to declare the Teftimony of 
God, Kffr v*?fL%n-> >iyu n citfe*: and that he determined 
not to know any thing among them fave Iefus Chrift 
and him crucified- and that his fpeech and preaching 
was not hnei'fiic&Aftei'wvftiiM f.o^t;) that fo their faith 
might not (land u troth Jfyfaari &tfcu he fpoke the my- 
ftenes of theGofpel j* &j\tfuit6licti'fy€*r'mK <rop*f *#&*#**» 

i Cor. 2. I am paft doubt therefore that to thruft fuch 
Philofophical di<5htes into our Crerd or Confetfion , 
and make them the very touchftoneof Orthodoxr.efs 
in others, is a dangerous prefumptuous adding to the 
Doftrineofthe Gofpel, and a making of a new Do- 
ftrineof juftification and falvation, to the great wrong 
of the Prophet and Lawgiver of the Church. 

I was even now reading learned Zanchius proof that 
believers before Chrift did by their faith receive Chrifts 
flefh,or humane nature (as promiled and fature) as well 
as the Divine, and his heavy cenfure of the con- 
trary Doctrine, as vile andunfufferable-, which occafio- 
nethme to add this Quere, Whether that believing 
was a phyfical reception, when the object had no re.il 
being or did not exift t Or whether meer morral 
reception ( by Accepting , Choofing, Confenting) 
as a people receiving the Kings Heires for their 
future Governours before they are born •, or as we 
receive a man for our King, whodwels far out of our 
fight •, Or as Princes wives do ufe to takfc them 
both for their Husbands and Soveraien Lords, even 

K£ 3 in 

in their own Native Countrey , before they come 
to fight of the man $ the match being both driven 
on and made, and the marriage or contract performed 
and imperfectly folemnized at thatdiftance by an Em- 
baffador or Delegate { juft.fo do we receive Chrift, 
(whofe humane. nature is far off, and his Divine out of 
our fight) to be our Saviour, Soveraign (by redempti- 
on) and Husband^even here.inour native Country 5 
the match being moved to us by his Emhafladors , 
and imperfe&ly folemnized upon our cordial confent, 
and giving up our felves to him by our Covenant : 
(but it fliali be perfectly folemnized at the great Mar- 
riage of the Lamb. ) This is my faith of the nature of 
true j uftify in g faith 5 and the manner of its receiving 



|§ HE c Rgadermufl underflandtbat 
after tbisjhad aperjonal con- 
ference with thisT>ear and ^e~ 
<verend c Brother wberein be fiill owned and 
infixed on the pafsivenefs of fuflifying 
faith ^is^. That it is but a (grammatical 
aliion, {or nominatyand a phyfcal, orby. 
perpjbfcalpafsion- which alfo hegiveth us 
again in the T'reatife of Imputation of 
right eon fnefs. 



Proving the Necefsityof a two- fold 
Righteoufnefs to f unification and 
Arid defending this and many other Truths 
about Iuftifying Faith, its Objeft and Of- 
fice, againft the confident,but dark Aflaults 
of Mr. John Warner. 

By ^cbardTSaxter* 

Ads $. 31. 

Him bath Cad axalted with his right hand , a Prince and 
a Saviour ^ to give Repentance unto Ifrael, and for- 
giveness of fins. 

Rom. 4. 22,23,24,35. 

And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteoufnefs : 
Novo it was not written for his fake alone that it was 
Imputed to him % hut for us aljo, to whom it fiall he 
Imputed, if we Believe on him that raif d up Jefus our 
Lord from the dead ; who was delivered for our offen- 
ces, and was rat fed again for our Jnfttfication. 


Printed by R. w. for Nevil Simmons, Book feller in Ke- 

ditmirtftiTyZnd are Co be fold by him there , and by Nathar 

mil Ekins^t the Gun in "Pauls Church-yard. itfj8. 


Queftion. Whether *Be fides the %igh^ 
teoufnefs ofchrijl Imputed, there be a 
Terfonal Evangelical ^ghteoufnefs 
necejjary to fu/lification and Salva- 
tion ? Affirm. 

Hough it hath pleafed a late Opponent (Mr. 
Warntr ) to make the Defence of this Propo- 
fition neceflary to me ; yet I (hall fuppofc that 
I may be allowed to be brief, both becaufe of 
what I have formerly faid of it, and becaufe 
the Queftion is fo eafily decided , and Chrt- 
frians are fo commonly agreed on ir. 
For the right underftanding of what we here maintain, its 
neceflary that I explain the Terms, and remove confufion by 
fome ntceflary diftin&tons, and lay down my fenfc in fome Pro- 
positions that make to the opening of this. 

To trouble you with the Etymologies of the words in fcveral 
Languages that fignifie Rightcoufnefs or ?*flifi cation would be a 
needlefs lofs of time, it being done to our hands by fo mmy,and 
we being fo far agreed on it, that here lyeth no part of our pre- 

L 1 z The 

5* The Form of Righteoufnefs,fignified by the name is Relative^ 
M/lra'.t or brooked is. (For it is not the H ibic of Jufticcby which 
we give every nun his own, that is the Subje& of our Questi- 
on , buc Righteoufnefs in a Judicial or Legal fenfe ) i. Righ- 
teoufnefs is either of the caufe, or of the ptrfon. Not that thefe 
are fubjeccs actually fepjtrattd but difiintl, the one being fubor- 
dinate to the other, rhe ^«/<r is the neareft fubje&, and fo far 
as it is juft and jn/Hfi *ble, fo far the per fan is juft and jxftifiible. 
Yet the perfon may otherftife be juft and juft ified, when one or 
many caufes are unjuftifyable. 

a. Righteoufnefs is denominated either from a Relation to the 
^Precept of the Law , or to the Santlion. To be tight eons in Re- 
lation to the Precept, is to be conform to that Trecept • An Alli- 
en os Di/pofitioi conform to the Precept, if called a Righteous 
A&ion or Difpofition.- and from thence the ptrfon being fo far 
conform, is called a Righteous perfon : And fo this Right eoufnefs,, 
as to the pofitive precept, is his obeying it ; and as to the prohibi- 
tion, it is his Innocency, contrary to that guilt, which we call Rea* 
tm culpa . 

Righteoufnefi as a Relation tothe-iW?' ; *v , is either a Rela- 
tion to the C ommiYlitlQn an d penal A& of the Law,or to the pro- 
mijfory or Premi int A % As to the former, Righteoufnefs is no- 
thing, but the Not-duenefs. of the pwifbmnt , contrary to the 
Heatx/pana, ask refpe&s the execution ; and fo A not being ly- 
able to condemnation , as it refpe&s the fentenct. This is fome- 
time founded in the perfons Innocency laft mentioned ; fome- 
time on a freepardoi or acquittance : fomerirne on fat iifaBion 
made by hrmfeff; An j fometime on fitisfjtlhn by another^on- 
jun& with free pardon ( which is our cafe.) 

Righteoufnefs as a Relation to the 'Promife, or Premiant part 
of the Sanction, is nothing but our Right to the Reward, Gift, 
or Benefit, as pleadable and juftifyable inforo. Which fometime 
is founded in merit of our own -, fometime in a free Gift : fome- 
time in the merit of another, conjvntt'rvith. free Gift, which is our 
c&fe, (other cafes concern us not,) This laft mentioned, is Righ- 
teoufnefs as a Relation to the fubftance of the Tromife or Gift t 
Buj when the Promife^ or G</>, or Teftamnty or Premiant Law 
h conditional, asinourcafeitis, then there is another fort of' 


(i6i 3 

Righteoufnefs riecefliry , which is Related to the Molut pro- 
miffionu, and that is, Tht performance of the condition : which if 
it be not properly called Rightcoutnefs Etbicaty, yet civilly in 
a Judiciary fenfeic is, when it comes to be the caufe to be tryed 
and Judged, whether the perfon have performed the condition, 
then his caufe is juft or unjuft, and he juft or unjuft in that 
i j. Righteoufnefs xstkhtT Vniverfal, as toalicaufcs that the 
perfon can be concerned in : or it is only particular, as to fome 
caufe* only, and iobwifecundumquidto the perfon. 

4. A particular Righteoufnefs may either be fuch as the total 
welfare of a man depends on ; or it may be of lefs and inconfi- 
derable moment. 

5. When a caufe fubor dinate to the main caufe \% Righteous, 
tbis may be called a. fubor din ate Righteoufnefs* But if it be 
part of the main caufe y it is a partial righteoufnefs co-ordinate. 

I will not trouble you with fo exad a difquifkion of the Na- 
ture of Righteoufnefs and Juftification as I jadge fit in ic felf, 
both becaufe I have a little heretofore attempted it,and becaufe 
I find it blamed as puzling curiofity or needlcfs diftinguifhing : 
Though I am not of that mind, yet I have no minde to be trou * 

As for the term *} unification, t. It either may lignite the A ft of 
the Latioor Promife : or the ftnttneecfthe judge ; or the Exe- 
cution of 'that fentenee ; For to one of thefe three fences the word 
may dill be reduced, as we (hall have to do with ic • that is, to 
conftitutive,or fententiai, or Executive Ju^ifcatio^ ; though the 
fentence is moft properly fo called. To thefe, Juft'ftcatios by 
Plea, Witnefsficz. are (ubferittnt. 

z. Juftification is either oppofed to a ■ faffe Accufation, ortO' 
a true. 

3. In our cafe, Juftification is either according ro the Lift of 
vrorkj , or to the Laft of Grace . 

I chink we fhall at this time have no g r e*t need toufe any 
more diftmftions then thefe few, and therefore I will add no 
more about this Term. 

Astotbeternr [ Evangelical^ Righteoufnefs- may be fo caN 
kd in a:four-fold fenfe. 1. Eitncr becaufe it is chat righteouf- 

Ll 3 ntfm 

*ufs which the Covenant or Law of Gr4r* requireth as its CWs- 
*/<w* •, Or 2. Becaufe its a Right coufnefs revealedhy the GojJ*/; 
Or 3. Becaufe it is 5iv« by ihc Ge^f/ ; 4. Or becaufe it is a 
perfeft fulfilling of the Precepts of the Qosjel, 

L'y \j. per/end] Righteoufnefs,wemcan here, not that wh ch 
is ou r s by meet Imputation, but that which is founded in fome- 
what Inherent in us,or performed by us. 

[ Neceffity ] is 1. of a meet Antecedent. 2. Or of a Means: 
We mean the laft. Means are either caufes, or conditions. 

I (hall now by the help of thefe few diftinctions give you the 
plain truth in forae Propofitions, both Negatively and Affirma- 
tively, as followeth. 

Propofition T . It is confejfed by all that know themfelves % or man 
andthe Law % that none of us have a Perfonal univerfal Righte- 
oufnefc For then there were no Jin, nor pi ace for confejfion % or par' 
don, or Chrift. 

Prop. 2. And therefore we muft all confefs, that in regard of the 
Vrcceptive part of the Law of works ft#*r* *//unjuft, andcannoi 
be juftified by the deeds of the Law, or by our workr. 

Prop. 3 . And in regard of the Commination of that Law, We 
are all under guilt and the Cur fe, and are the children of wraths and 
therefore cannot be jufiified by that Law, or by our works. 'Both 
thefe are proved by Paul at large % fo that none have a perfonal Le- 
gal Right coufnefs. 

Prop. 4. No man can plead any proper fatisfaction of his dwn 
for the pardon of fin^and efc aping the curfe of the LaW : But only 
Chrifts Satisfaction, that fulfilled the Law , and became a curfe 
for us. 

Prop. 5. I^o man can pit 'ad any merit of 'his o&n for procuring 
the Reward (unlefs as aftions, that have the promt fe of a Reward 9 
are under Chrift improperly called 'merits) But our rigbtesufnefi 
of this fort is only the merit and purchafe of£hrift 9 and the free gift 

Prop. 6. We have no one work that is perfedly juftifiable by 
the per} "e& precepts of the Law offtorkf: And therefore We have no 
legal perfonal Righteoufnefs at all that can properly befo called ; 
but are all corrupt and become abominable,*^* being none that 


doth good, no not one ; Imperfect legal righceoufnefs, // an im- 
proper fpeech ; it is property no legal right* oufnefs at a/i, but a left 
decree of nnrighte oufnefs (The more to blame the) that call fan* 

Prop. 7. No man can fay tloAthe U a Co-ordinate Con-caufe 
"kith Chrifl in his f aft i fixation ; or that he hath the leaf} degree of 
a fatisfa&ory or Meritorious Rigbteou (he fs, which may bear any 
\a't in co-ordination With Chnftt right eoufnefs, for his jttftif ca- 
tion or falvation* 

Prop.8. We have not an) perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefc 
of perfe& obedience to the Precepts of Chrtft himfeif: whether U 
be the Law of Nature as in his hand> or the GoFpel pofitives. 

Prop.o. Even the Gofpel perfonal Righieoufnefs a/outward 
works, though hit in fincerity, andnot perfeflion, is not necefft, 
( no not as an antecedent ) toonr Juftification at the firfi. 

Prop. 10.. External works e/Holinefs are not of abfolsue *etejfi- 
ty toaWvation). frit is poffible that death may fttddtnlj *fter 
C*«vtrfion ^r event cfprtunitj : and then the inward faith and 
r*}t%t*nce will ftifftce : Though 1 thinks no man can give us- one 
izftaytce of fuctil man de fa&O *.: not the thief on the croft : far m\ 
cotftfiid prr.jfj, reproved the other k &c. 

Prop. 1 1 . /-/ here fincere Obedience iTiry to Sal vauav., 

it is not aH the fame Ac's of 

men, or at all rimes \ for rfa Matrerjw^ > >;d jet tU ftace- 

ri:y ofobtdunve continue,. But fome fpec;. .1 Atls vri of Neceffi*. 
ty to the ilrctrity. 

Prop 12.. 7fR:ghteoufnefs£* denominated from t he Precept, 
drifts Obedience wm a perfed legal R ; gJ*Ceoufceii,, a,iJ**vdig a 
ferfetl vonformit) to the Loft : But not jo y$ £ . ■ _ 4jc a$ Ri&h) 
teoefnefc: for he gave ut many Laws for ihe application cf hi* 
Merits, that he wm Neither oblige i to fulfil, xor capable of it. 
If 'Kjghttomffitfsle denom-nat'ed 'from the Proffiifc or previa 
part of the Law, fyri'fs rightjeopfnt m f+mt fort i<e rjh- 

tPmfnifs of He Ltw of jpjr<;, meriiei aUjice reward 

tktitLwi} *&u: h was prmcipjiy the rigbi - the fps- 

cial Covenant OfR^d^mprion ( b:iwie* -and him J ) 

but not vf Wt Ccvr-int ^ Grace made with man ( he- did *&& rtr 
ptn$.<cr ob:i ' wdon ani fahaiionl .iTLeUever^ 

If Righteoufnefs be denominated from the Comminatory or penal 
part of the Law, then Chrifis fuiferings toere neither a ft; idly 
legal or an Evangelical righteoufnefs. For the Law required 
the fupplieium ipfms delinquents, and kneft no Surety or Subfti- 
tme. But thus forifts fufferings were a Pro-Legal-righceouf- 
nej's, as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening, but a full 
Sacisfaftion to the Law-giver, ( which vas equivalent) and fo a 
valuable confideration, Why the Law Should not be fulfilled (by 
our damnation ) but difpenfed with ( by our (ardon ) So that the 
Commination Was the caufe of Cbriftsfujferings; and hefuffered 
materially the fame fort of Death Which the Law threatened. But 
moft flrittly his fit firings were a Righteous fulfilling his pare of 
the Covenant of Redemption with the Father : 'But in no pro- 
priety Were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of 
Grace, again ft the Dejpifers or negleclers of Grace. 1 mean that 
proper to the G off el. 

Prop. 13. Chrifl* righteoufnefs isWeS called our Evangelical 
Righteoufnefs, both at it is Revealed by the Gofpel, and confer- 
red byit,andoppofed to the legal way of J unification by perfect per- 
fonal Righteoufnefs. So that by calling our oWn per fonal right e* 
oufneft , Evangelical, we deny not that Title to Chrifts, but give 
it that in a higher rcfpett t and much more* 

Prop. 14. No perfonal righteoufnefs of ours , our faith or re* 
pentance, is any proper caufc of our firft Juftification, or of our en- 
teringinto*jufttfyed(late : Though as they remove Impediments, 
or are Conditions \ they may improperly be called caufes ; So much 
for the Negative Proportions, 

Affirm. Prop, i . That a Godly man hath a particular righ • 
teoufnefs, or may be Juft in a particular caufe , there is no man 
can deny : unlefshewill make himVfie+fe then the Devil', for if 
the Devil may befalfly accufed or belyedy he is juft in that particu- 
lar caufe. 

Prop. 2. ^HChriftians that I know do conffs an Inherent 
Righteoufnefs in the Saints , and the necejfuy of this righteoufnefs 
to Salvation. So that this can be no part of our Comroverfie. 

Prop. 3. Qonfeauently aUmuft confefs that Chrifts righteouf- 
nefs imputed, is not our only righteoufnefs* Teafhat the rigbteouf- 



nsfs of Pardon and fuftification from fin] is no farther necejfary 
then men art ftnners ; and therefore the left need any man hath 
of it, the better he pleafeth Chrift, that is % he had rather Vce 
would beware of fin as far as may be, then fin and fij to him for 

Prop. 4. And we are agreed I thinkjhatthe perfonal Righte- 
oufnefs of the Saints is fo muck the end of Chrift s Redemption and 
Pardoning Grace, that the perfc&ion of this u that blefled ftate 
to Which he will bring them ; fo that when he hath done his work, 
San&ification flail be per feci ; but Juftificacion by Pardon of 
further fins,foall be no more ; Heaven cannot bearfo imperfect a 

Prop. 5. We are agreed therefore that our Righteoufnefs of 
Sandjfication, or the Dotlr'tne thereof is fo far from being any de- 
rogation or di/bonour to Chrift , that it is the high honour which he 
intended in his Work, of Redemption , that the Glory of Qod the 
Father, and of the Redeemer may ever lafiingly Jhine forth in the 
Saints, and they may befit to love, and ferve, And praife him y Tit. 


Prop. 6 U is paft all doubt that this Inherent Righteoufnefs 
confifteth in a true fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gofpel- 
Promife,*»^ afincere Obedience to the Precepts of Chrift. And 
fo hatha double refpetlioncto the Promife ; and fo it U conditio 
praeftita : the other to the Precept ; and fo it is Officium prar fti- 
tum. AH Conditions here are Duties: but all Duties are not the 

Prop. 7. 1 think^we Aa agree djthat Juftificacion by Chrift as 
Judge at the great day , hath the vtry fame Conditions as 
Salvation hath, it being an adjudging us to Salvation, c^nd 
therefore that this perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs is ofnecef- 
fitj to our Juftificacion at^Qc Judgement, 

Prop 8. And I think We are agreed that no man can continue in 
a ftate of fuftification, that cominueth r.ot in a ftate of Faith , 
SanRificaiion,Qnd fincere Obedience . 

Prop. 9. We are agreed lam fur e that no man at age iijnftificd 
before he Repent and Btlieve. 

Prop. 10 And we are agreed th.it this Repenting f.nd'Believing 
is both the matter of the Gofpel-Precepr, and the Cond ticn of 

Mm the 

the Pcoraife. Cbrifl hath made over to us himfelfwith his imputed 
Righteoufnefs and Kingdom t on condition thxt w repent and be- 
lieve m him. 

Prop. ll fit cannot then he denied that Faith and Repentance be- 
ingbotbikcX)\iy co ill mindset andthe Condition required and 
performed art t-ulj * particular fpecialRi^htedufnefs, fubordi- 
naceco Chrift and his Righteoufnefs , "in order to our further 
participation of him,ani from him. 

Prop, 12. dndhftly its piftdifpute that tbx ptrtonti Righ- 
teoufnefs of Faith and Repentance, is not to be called a Le- 
gal, bxt an Evangelical Righteoufnefs, becaufe it is the Gofpel 
that both comroandeth them, and proraifeth life to thofe that per- 
form them. 

Thus methinks all that I defire is granted already : what Ad- 
verfary could a man dream of among Proteftants in fuch a 
Caufe? Agreement feemeth to prevent the neceffity of a further 

To be yet briefer,and bring it nearer an Itfue : If any thing 
of the ..main Thefts here be denyed, it mufl be one of thefe three 
things, i . That there is any fab thing as Faith , Repen- 
cance or San&ification. 2. Or that they fhould be called an 
Evangelical perfonal Righteoufnefs. 3. Or that they zreneeef 
far j to fnfli^cation and Salvtaion : The firft is de exiften- 
tm rei t The fecond is de nomine : The third is de ufu & 

The firft no man but a Heathen or Infidel will deny. 

And for the fecond , that this name is fie for it, I prove 
by parts. 1. It may and muft bs called A Righteoufnefs, 
3. tA s? erf onal Righteoufnefs. 3* iAn Evangelical Rigbtcouf- 
vsefs. "** 

2. As Righteoufnefs fignifieth the H^bitby which we give to 
all their own, fothis is Right eoufatfr. For in Regeneration 
fihe foul is habituated to give up it feif to God as his own, and 
Cogive up all we have to him, and to love and ferve all where 
ihis love And fervice doth require it. No true habit is fo excellent 
as that which is given in Regeneration. 

i. -The fincere performance of the Dutiet required of us by 



the Evangelical Precept, js ^fincert Evangelical Rigkteou'ntfs s 
Bat our rirft turning to God in Ghrift by Faith and Reren- 
tance, is the fincere performance of the duties required of us 

by the Evangelical Precept. Ergo. Object. The 

Goffelrequirttb aft ft at external Obedience and perfevirancc alfo. 
jfnfit. Not at the firft inftant of Converfion: For that in- 
ftant, he that BtLeveth and Rtptntetk, doth fincerely do the 
Duty required by it : and afterward, be that continueth herein 
with Exprejfive Obedience, which is then part of this Righte- 

3; The true Performance of the Conditions of Judication 
and Salvation, impofed in the Gofpel-Fromife, is a true Qof- 
pel Righteeufnefs : But Faith and Repentance at the firft, and 
Sincere Obedience added afrerward.are the true performance of 
thefe Conditions. Ergo. 

4. It is commonly calied by the name of Inherent Righte* 
ohfr.ifs % by all Divines with one Confcnt : therefore the name of 
£ Rtgbt eonfaefs 1 is paft controverfie here. 

5. That which in Judgement mud be his ;*/?/>*<* can fit, the 
Righteoufncfs of his caufe. is fo far the Right eo ft/heft ef ti\ per- 
fon : ( for the perfon rauft needs be righteous quotd kanc can- 
fam, as totbatc?ufe) But our Faith and Repentance will be 
much of the Righteoufncfs of our caufe at that day ( for the 
Tryal of us will be, whether we are true Believers, and penitent 
or not ; and that being much of the caufe of the day,we muft 
needs be righteous or unrighteous as to that caufe : ) there- 
fore our Faith and Repentance is much of the Righteoufncfs 
of our perfons^denominated in refpect to the Tryal and Judge- 
ment q( that day. 

6. The holy Scriptpre frequently calls it R'ghteoufyiefs, ar.d 
calls all true penitent Eeiievers, acid all that fincere ly obey 
Cbrift,£ righttws ]] becaufe of thefe qualifications ( fuppefin^ 
pardon of (jn, and merit of Glory by Chrift for us : ) therefore 
we may andmuft fo call them, /i/^.25.37 ,46. Then fl-ali ikt 

right eextar.faer- 'but ike righteous into life tttrnal^Ut.io. 

41. He ih-t receivetio a t ighteons tp,i» in thf n*i*eof a > ijhteous 
man, fall receive s righecus wans rtwrd. Heb.ii.j. TZjfait'e 
Abel offend, —bywUcb he c{?ta nsl^itr.eft that he **as 

Mm 2 ri'htcons, 


righteous, God tefilfjiug of his gifts, i Pet. J . tz. To* the eyes of 
the Lord art over the righteous.—— • i John 3.7. He that doth 
righteoufnefs is righteous x even as he is righteous. Ifa. 3. 1 o. Say 
to the righteous it Jh all be well with him. Pfal. 1.5,6. Mat.5.6, 
20. Anenemy to the faith, is called an enemy of right eoufnefs. 
A$si3.i°. 2 Pet. 2.21. 1 Johnziip. and 3. 10. Gen. 15.6. 
And hs believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righte- 
oufasfs. P&1. 106.3 1, Rom.4 3,5. Hi* faith is counted for 
righteoufnefs. ver .9. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righ- 
ts ou fiefs, ver . 2 1, 24. Therefore it Was imputed to him for righ <• 
teottfnefs. Now it Was not written for his fake alone , that it 
•was imputed to him, but for us alfoto Whom it jballbe imputed, 
if We believe on him that raifed up fefus our Lord from the dead. 
So Jam.2.23. Gal. 3. 6. If any fay that by [Faith} in all thefe 
Texts is meant Chrifls right eoufnefs, and not Faith, I will be- 
Seivethem when I take Scripture to be intelligible only by them, 
and that God did not write it to have it underftood. But that 
Faith is imputed or accounted to us for Righteoufnefs in a fenfe 
meerly fubordinate to Chrifts righteoufnefs , by which we 
ate jaftified, I eafily grant. }t\s to Satisfaction and CMerit 
we have no righteoufnefs but Chrifts* but a Covenant and Law 
we are ftill under, and not redeemed to be lawicfs ; and this 
Covenant is ordained as the way of making over Chrift and 
his meritorious righteoufnefs , and life to us : and therefore 
they being given or made over on Covenant-terms, there is a 
perfonal performance of the conditions neceffary : and fo 
that perfonal performance is all the righteoufnefs inherent or 
propria axioms, that God requireth of us now, whereas by the 
firft Covenant perfect Obedience was required as neceffary to 
life. So that in point of meer perfonal performance our own 
Faith is accepted, and imputed or accounted to us for Righte- 
oufnefs, that is, God Will require no more as neceffary to Jufli fi- 
xation at our oWn hinds, but that we believe in the righteoufnefs 
of another, .and accept a Redeemer (though once he required 
more : ) But as to the fatisfting of the Juftice of the offended 
Mfljefty^ and the meriting of life with pardon-, &c. So the 
Righteoufnefs of Chrift is our only Righteoufnefs. But nothing 
in Scripture w more plain then that Faith it felf is faid to be ac- 

counted to us for Righteoufnefs ; and not only Chrift s oVtn righ- 
teoufnefs : He that will not take this for proof, muft expect no 
Scripture proof of any thing from me. 

Eph. 4. 14. The new man after God is created in righteouf- 
nefs. Many other Texts do call our firft Converfion, or ftate 
of Grace,our faith and repentance , and our fincere obedience 
by the name of Righteoufnefs* 

2. And then that it may, and that moft fitly be called an 
Evangelical righteoufnefs, I will not trouble the Reader to 
prove, left I feem to cenfure his understanding as too ftupid. 
Its eafie to try whether our Faith and Repentance , our 
Inherent Righteoufnefs , do more anfwer the Precepts and 
Promifeof Chrift in the Gofpel , or thofe of the Law of 

3 . And that this is a perfonal righteoufnefs, I have lefs need 
to prove : Though it is Chrift that purchafed it ( and fo it may 
be called the righteoufnefs of Chrift ) and the Spirit that worl^ 
eth it in us, yet its we that are the Subjects and the Agents as to 
the afi. 

It being therefore pift' doubt that, 1. The thing it felfk 
txiftent and nece fury. 2. That righteoufnefs is a fit name for it. 
3. All that remains to be proved is the life of it, Whether it 
be necejfarj to Juftification and Salvation. And here the com* 
mon agreement of Divines, (except the Antinomians ) doth fave 
us the labour of proving this : for they all agree that Faith and 
Repentance are neceflary to our firft Juftification ; and that 
firtcere obedience alfo is neceflary to our Juftification at Judge* 
ment,and to our Salvation.So that here being no conteoverfi*,F 
will not make my fclf needtefs work. 

Obejd. 1 . But faith andrepentar.ee are not neceffarj to Juflificd+' 
tion qua juftitia quaedam Evangelica, under the notion of 'a righ- 
teoufnefs \btit faith as an Inftrument ^and repentance as a qualifying 

*Anfw. 1. We are not now upon thequeftion under whar 
notion thefe are neceflary. It fufficeth to the proof of our pre- 
sent 7**//, that a perfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs isnecefla- 
«rjf,wh€ther^M/wornor, M ra 3 2. Bat 


2. But the plain truth is, i . Remotely, in refpeft of it$ na- 
tural Aptitude to its office, faith is neceflary becaufe it is a Re- 
ceiving Afc and therefore fitted to a free Gift , and an A Rent- 
ing Ad, and therefore fitted to a fupernatural Revelation : 
And hence Divines fay, ItjuJIifiethasanlnftrument, calling its 
Receptive nature, Metaphorically an hftrument : which in 
this fenfe is true. And Repentance is neceflary, becaufe it is 
that Return taGod, and recovery of the foul which is the end 
of Redemption, without which the following ends cannot be 
attained. The Receptive nature of Faith, and the difpofiti%$ 
nfeoi Repentance, may bcaffignedas Rcafons, why God made 
them conditions of the Rromife : as being their aptitude thereto, 
%. But the neareft reafon of their Inter efi and Neceffity, is be- 
caufe by the free conftitution of God, tbey are made condi- 
tions in thatPromife th$t con ferreth justification and Salvati- 
on, determining that without thefethey (hall not be had, and 
thac whoever belicwh (hall notperifb, and if we re.pe.nt, our 
fins (hall be forgiven us. So that ibis is the formal or neareft 
Reafon of their neceffity and intereft, that they are thecon* 
ditions of the Covenant, fo made by the free Donor, Promi- 
mifcr, Teftator. Now this which in the firfl inflant and con- 
fideration is a condition, is in the next inflatf or consideration, 
a true Evangelical Rigbteovfiefs, as that Condition is a Duty 
in rcfpe& to the Precept ; and as it is our Title to the benefit of 
the Promife, and fo is the Covenant- performance, and as it bath 
refpeft to the fentence of Judgement, where this will be the 
caufe of the day, Whether this Condition was performed or not. 
It is not the Condition a* impofed, but as performed, on which 
we become juftified : And therefore as jententUl Juftijicati.- 
cn is paft upon the proof of this perfonal Righteoufnefs, which 
is cur performance of the condition, on which we have Tkle 
to Cbrifl and Pardon,and eternal life $ cvenfoour /unification 
inthe fenfe of the Law or Covenant, is on fuppofition of this 
fame performance of the Condition, as fuch ; which is a cer- 
tain Righteoufnefs. If at the iaft Judgement we zreftntentid/jr 
juftified by it as it \$quadam jujlitia, a Righteoufnefs fubordi- 
natc to Chrifts Righteoufnefs, ( which is certain, ) then in 

Law-fenfevieitejuftifiailt by icon the fame account, ^orto 



btju.hfiedin p4it of law, is nothing elfe then to be j*JNjiJ4i l 0l 

jatifiztnlu, by fentence ind execution according to that Ltw : 
ft) that its clear that a per fan d Righteoufnefs , ^ fate, is necef- 
fary to fxhfication % and not only 70* r«/«r ; though this be be- 
yond our Qjeftion in hand, and therefore I add it bat for eluzi- 
dation and ex abundant i. 

Object. 2. If this befo % then men are righteous before God doth 

zAnfw. 1. Not with that Righteoufncfs by which he 
juftifieth them. 2. Not Righteoufnefs (imply, abfoiutel/or 
jniverfally, but only fecundum qdd, withapirticular frghte- 
eufnefs. 3. This particular Righteoufnefs is but ^he means to 
poiTefs them of Chrifts Righteoufnefs, by which they are mate- 
rially and fully juftifled. 4. There is not a moments diftancc of 
time between them : For as foon as we believe and repent we 
are made partakers of Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, by a meer 
refultancy from the Promife of the Gofpel. 5. Who de- 
nyeth that we have Faith and Repentance before Juftifka- 
tion ? 

Object. 3. But according to thU Do&rim w* are jvftified 
before we are jvftified ' For £* that is Righteous u con/li* 
tuted juft, andfo Is jufli fable in fudgement, which is to bejuftified 
in Ltw. 

Anfw. Very true : But we are as is faid, made fall or jafti- 
iied but with a particular , and not an univerfal Righteoufnefs j 
which will not donominite theperfon (implya Righteous or 
juftified perfon : we are fo far cured of our former Infidelity 
and Impenitency, that we are true penitent Believers before 
our fins are pirdonei by the Promife : and fo we a-e in order 
of nature (not of time) firft jnftiflible igttnft ticfalfe Asca- 
fation, that wears impenitent V ^believers , before we are justi- 
fiable agiinft the true a:cnf*tion of all our f;; , and de fere of 
HtlL He that by inherent Faith and Repentance is no: fcft 
judicable agiinftche former fa! fe charge, canno: by the blood 


and merits of Chrift be juftifiable againft the latter true accufa- 
tion. For Chrift and Pardon are given by the Covenant of 
Grace,to none but penitent Believers. 

-ObjeA. 4. Bj this you confound 'J unification and San&ifica~ 
on : for inherent Righteoufnefs belongs not to Juftification^ but to 

4nffr. Your Affirmation is no proof, and my diftinguifh- 
ing them is not confounding them. Inherent Righteoufnefs 
in its firft feed and ads belongs to Sanclification, zs its Begin* 
ing % or firft part, or root .-And to Juftification and Pardon as a 
Means or Condition: But Inherent Righteoufnefs, in its flrength 
and progrefs, belongs to SaviBifi cation as the LMatteroi it, and 
to our final Juftification in Judgement as part of the means or 
condition .-but no otherwife to our firft Juftificationjhtn as a ne- 
cefTary fruit or confequent of it. 

Objcft. 5. By this means you make Sanclification to go be* 
fore Juftification^ as a Condition or means to it when Divines con$i 

monly put it after. 

j4nffr. 1. Mr. Pemble, and thofe that follow him, put 
San&ification before ail true Juftification, ( though they call 
Cods immanent eternal A&,a precedent Juftification. ) 2. The 
cafe is eafie, if you will not confound the verbal part of the 
controverfie with the Real. What is it that you call San- 
edification i 1 . If it be the firft fpecial Grace in Ad or Habit, 
fo you will confefs, that Salification goeth firft; For we re- 
pent and believe before we are pardoned or juftified. 2. If it be 
any further degrees or fruits, or exercife of Grace, then we are 
agreed that Juftification goeth before it. 3 . If it be both begin- 
ing and progrefs t faith and obedience that you call SanUification, 
then part of it is before Juftification, and part after. All this is 
plain h and that which I think we are agreed in. 

But here I am invited to a confidera tion of fome Arguments 

of a new Opponent, Mr. Warner in a book of the OhjeEh and 
Office of Faith. What he thought it his Duty to oppofe, I take it 



to be my Duty to defend : which of us is guided by the light 
of God,I muft leave to the illuminated to judge,wncn they have 
compared our Evidence. 

Cflfr. W. / noft come to frew that both tic* ft kinds of Rights* 
oufnefs, Legal and Evangelical, are not abfolutelj necefnrj to 

Jufttficatiox. - f do undertake the 7{jg4t.ve , 

and will endeavour to prove it bj theft demonstration!. Argu- 
ment I. // things in the mfelves contradittorj. cannot be afcrtb- 
edto the fame perfon or attion, then both theft kjndf of Right eouf 
r.eft tire not abfoltttel) necejfarj to make up our J unification : But 
things in themf elves contradictor j cannot be afcribed to the fme 

perfon or aft ions, There fore 1 Thefequell it thus proved by Paul. 

If itbeofVPorlrt, it U no more of Grace : ifofQrace^ then it is 
no more of workj. rVhat are therefore theft two k'tn% of Figb- 
teoufnefs Jbut cuntradiclorj to each other f And therefore it Jeemeth 
illogical Theologie to predicate them of the fame perfon or ailx. 1 2. 

An fur. Reader. I crave thy pardon for troubling thee with 
the Confutation of fuch Impertinencies , that are called Dt» 
monjirations : It is I that have the bigger part of the trouble: 
But how (hould I avoid it without wrong to the Truth ? See- 
ing ( would you think it / ) there are fome Readers that 
cannot difcern the vanity of fuch Arguings without AfiT:- 

i. What a grofs abufe is this to begin with, ro conclude 
that thefe two forts of Righteoufnefc are not neceffrry^fo trakf. 
#/T]our 1 ! ufttfication ,when [he Queftion was only whether they 
are neceflfary [ to~\ our Ju/iificatioK. [ Cfca\}nf up ] expnfTcth 
the proper caufality of the conflitu'ive caule?, { matter and 
form, ) and not of the efficient or final ; nauch lefs tbe Inte- 
reft of all other means, fuch as a condition is. So that I grant 
him his conclufion.takingjuftification as we now do Oar "Faith 
or Repentance goeth not to make it up. 

And yet on the by, Ifhall add, that if any manuiiim'eds 
take Juftification for Sanclification, or as the Pap ft? do crnr- 
prehenfvelj for Sah&ification and Pardon both ( as feme Pro- 

Nn ttfhrt 


seftant Divines think it is ufed in fomc few Texts ) in that large 
jfcnfe our Faith and Repentance are pare of our justifying 
Righteoufnefs. But I do not fo ufe the word, ( Though "Phi- 
lip Qodurcus have writ at large for it. ) 
2.1 deny his Confequence ; And how is it proved? By reciting 
Pauls words,Ront. 1 1 6, Which contain not any of the terms in 
th.2 queftion.P*#/f peaks of Ele&ion: we of Jufttfication(though 
that difference I regard not.) Paul fpeaks of works, and we 
fpeak of Evangelical Faith and Repentance. In a word there- 
fore I anfwer. The works that Paul fpeaks of are inconfiftent 
with Grace in Juftificatiori ( though not contradictory , but 
contrary, what ever Mr. tf'.fay.-Jbut Faith and Repentance are 
not thofe works • and therefore no contrariety is hence 
proved. Here is nothing therefore but a ra(h AfTertion of 
Mr. fV. to prove thefe two forts of Righteoufnefs contra- 
Be judge all Divines and Ghrifttans upon earth :• Did you 
/ ever hear before from a Divine or Chriftian, that imputed and 
inherent Righteoufnefs, or Juftification and Sand:ification,or 
Chrifts fulfilling the Law for us r and our believing the Gofpel 
and repenting were contradictory in themfclves ? Do not all 
that believe the Scripture v believe that we have a perfonal 
Righteoufnefs , a true Faith and Repentance , and muft ful- 
fill the Conditions of the Promife ^ and that in refped 
to thefe the Scripture calls us Righteous ? ( as is before 
proved. ) 

Mr. W.2« If the perfon jufiifiedis ofhimfelf ungodh , then Le- 
gal and Evangelical Righteoufnefs are not both abfolutelj necejfa- 
ry to ottr fuft fication : But the perfonjufrfied ( conftderinghim 

in the att cj juflfywg)is fijherefure. -The Sequel is undeny- 

able^ becaufe he Who is ungodly is not Legally Righteous j and 
that the per j on nob to be juftifisd is ungodly, is exprefs Scripture r 
Rom. 4. 5. But to him that V9or\eth not, but btlieveth » him that 
ftifi fitth she ur godly Jas faith is counted for righteoufnefs. 

Axjw. i. T fuppofethe Reader underftandeth thaj the Le- 
gal or rather Pro-legal Righteoufnefs, that I plead for, is Chrifts 



Merits and Satisfaction made over to us, for the effects- and 
that the pcrfonal Evangelical Righteoufnefs is our believing and 
repenting. Now thac thefe are both necelTary, this very Text 
provetb,whichhecitethagainftit. For the neceflicy of Chrifts 
meritorious Righteoufnefs he will not deny that it is here imply- 
ed : and the neceflity of our own faith is twice expreft, [To him- 
that believethjois faith is counted for right eoufr.efs. ] If it be the 
Being of Faith thac this Brother would exclude, it is here twice 
expreft: \i it be only the naming it [arighteoufnefs~] That 
name alfo is here expreft. How could he have brought a plainer 
evidence againft himfelf ? 

2. To his Argument, I diftinguifti of [Vngodlinefs~\ If it be_ 
taken for an unregenerare impenitent unbeliever , then I deny 
the M 'nor, at leaft infenfu compofito • A perfon in the inftanc of 
J unification is not an unbeliever; This Text fhameth him thac 
will affirm it. But if by [Vngodlf\ be meant \_Sinners % or per- 
f<%nsiinjuftifyable by the works of the Law, who are legally im- 
pipw] then I deny the confequence of the Major, Do I need 
to tell a Divine that a mac may be a finner and a penitent Be- 
liever at once. The SyrUck^ and £f&/0p/V^tranflating the word 
£ finner s ] do thus expound the Text ; and its the common Ex- 
pofitionof moft judicious Divines. It is not of the Apoftles 
meaning to tell you that God juftifieth impenitent Infidels, or 
haters of God : but that he juftifieth finners, legally condemn- 
ed and unworthy, yet true Believers,as the Text expreffeth. 

3 . If any rejecc this Exposition, and will take [ ungodly ] here 
for £ tke Impenitent , ] then the other Exposition folveth 
his Objection, viz,. They were Impenitent and Unbelievers, in 
the inftant next foregoing, but not in the inftant of Juftification .* 
For faith and Juftification are in the fame inftant of time. 

4. Rather then believe that God juftifieth Infidels contrary 
to the text,I would interpret this Text as Bez>a doth fome other, 
as fpeaking of Juftirlcarion as comprehending both Converfion 
and Forgivenefs, even the conferring of Inherent and Imput- 
ed Righteoufnefs both; and fo God juftifieth Infidels them- 
felves ; that is, giveth them fir ft faith and Repentance,and then 
forqivenefs and eternal life in Chrift. 

5. But I wonder at his proof of his Sequel [Becavfc he 

Nn 2 \*ko 

(l 7 $) 

who is ungodly isnoi legally righteous] whit is that to the Que- 
ftion ? It i-s Legal righteoufnefs in fori]} that Juftifieation giveth 
him: Therefore we all fuppofe he hath it not before : But he 
is perfonally Evangelically Righteous as foon as he Believes, fo 
far as to be a true performer of the Condition of Juftifieation •, 
and then in the fame inftanthe receiveth by Juftifieation that 
Righteoufnefs of Chrift which anfwereth the Law. 

Mr. W. If nothing ought to be averted by tu Which over- 
throws tsJpoftolical writings , then the neceffity of a two-fold 

righteoufnefs owght not to be aprted ^ But Ergo.^ — The 

Sequel if proved by this Dilemma. Apoftolical Writings are utterly 
again ft- a two -fold Righteoufnefs in this Worl^; therefore to affert 
both thefe kinds Is to overthrow their writings. For to rfhM pur- 
pofedid?&u\ d'/pute again ft Juftifieation by works of the L*w^ 
if the right eoufnefs of Faith were not fujficient I And certainly 
if both were required as abfolutely necejfury , it would argue ose- 
tream ignorance in Paul if he fhould not have known i> 3 and a* 
great unfaithfuln efs if \ &c. ' 

jfnfw.Eilhtr this Writer owns the *wo» fold Righteoufnefs that 
he difputeth againft, or not : If he did not, he were an Infidel or 
wretched Heretick., directly denying Chrift or Faith ; For Chrift 
is the one Righteouihefs,and faith the other. If he do own them 
( as I doubt not at all but hedoth/is it not good fervice to the 
Church to pour out this oppofition againft words not under- 
Hood, and to make men believe that the difference is fo mate- 
rial as to overthrow the Scriptures ? But to his Argument, I 
deny the confequence of the Major ; and bow is it proved ? for- 
footh by. a D*lemma t ( which other folks call an Enthymeme) Of 
which the Antecedent (That Apoftolical Writings are againft a 
mo-fold righteoufnefs )'\z proved by this Writers word. A learn- 
ed proof 1 into which his Difputations arc ultimately refolvcd. 
It is the very work of Tauls Epiftles to prove the neceffity of 
this Two-fold Righteoufnefs ( unlef* you will with the Papift* 
call it rather two parts of one Righteoufncfs,) Chrifts merits 
and mans faith, one in our furety , the other wrought by him in 


Bur, faith he, to what purpofedid /Wdifpate againft Tufti- 
fication by the works of the Law, If the Righteoufnefs ot fa ch 

were not furficicnt? 1 a nfwer you, t. Becaufe no man hath 

a perfonal legal Righteoufnefs : BiK VauI never difputed againft 
a legal Righteoufnefs in Chnft, or his fulfilling die Law, or be- 
ing made a curfe for as. Do you chins he did ? 2. A R'ghte- 
eufnefs of faith is furficicne ; for it fignifieth this two-fold righ- 
teoufnefs. i. That righteoufnefs which faith acceptcth, which 
is [ of F tith ~] because proclaimed in the Gofpel , and is the 
oby ft of Faith -, and yet it is legal, in tha: it was a Conformity 
to the Law, and facisfacrion to ?he Law-giver. 2. Faith it felfc 
which is a particular fubfervtent Evangelical Rigetcoufncfs, for 
the application and pofTeffion of the former. 

And now was here a fit occafioi to fpeak fo reproachfully of 
3>4*4, as extream ignorant, or unfaithfull,or immavi* foth'-fta ? 
and all becaufe he would not deny either Chrift or Faith ? Sure 
«2W hath let jis fee by revealing botb^tbat he was neither 
?gnorant,unfaithfufl nor a Sophifter. 

CMr. W.4.// both Legal and Ev angelic at righteoufnefs fterz 
thus required to tbepHrpojeofjuf}ifp>4g > then it mufi be becaufe the 

Evangelical is of it ftlf inefficient. But For if Chrifis rt gk» 

teoufnefs be infufficient to Salvation Joe Were not a fufficient Savi- 
our y and if the Righteoufnefs of Faith in him wire ofufelfinfuffi* 

Anfi*. By tbtstime I am tempted to repent that Iracdled 
with this Brother. If he live to read over a reply or two, he 
may poffibly underftand them that he writes againfl. He will 
prove that a Legal Righteoufnefs is not neceffary , becaufe 
Chrifts righteoufnefs (which is it that I called legal ) is fuffi- 
cient. Its fufficient alone: therefore not Necefarj. Am not 
I like to have a faic hand think you of this Difputer? To his 
Argument once more I diftinguifh: Evangelical righteoufnefs 
ii twofold 1. That which theGofpel revealeth and offereth ; 
and this is Chrifts righteoufnefs, therefore called Evangelical : 
but alfo Legal, becaufe it anfwered the rule of the Law of 
works>and its ends, 2, That which the Gofpei bach made the 

N-n 3 Con-- 


Condition of our part in Chrift and his righteoufnefs : and this 
is Faith it felf. Both thefeare fufficientto Juftification : but 
Faith is neither fufpcient , nor is Faith without Chrifts legal righ- 
teoufnefs : And Chrift is fufficient Bjpothetically , but will 
not be tffe&nd to our Juftification without Faith ( and re- 
pentance. ) 
But perhaps this Writer means only to (hew his offence againft 
my naming Chrifts righteoufnefs legal. If that be fo, i . I have 
given in my reafons, becaufe there can be no better reafon of a 
name then from the form .• and the form of Chrifts righteouf- 
nefs being relative, even a conformity to the Law of works 
( and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption, ) I thoughc 
did fufficiently warrant this name. 2. The rather when I find not 
only that he is faid to fulfill the Law and all righteoufnefs , and 
be made a curfe for us,but alfo to be righteous with tjhat rightc- 
oufnefs,which is denyed of us^which can be none but a legal oc 
prolegal righteoufnefs. 3. But yet if the n,ame £ Le gal] bewail. 
I could ealily have given this Brother leave to dy% fronvme 
about a name without contention, and methinks he might have 
done the like by me. ; 

Mr.W. Qbje&.But -what if work} and faith Veer e both of them 
apptyedte procure our fufitfication f 

Anfw. This Objection yet further Chews, that the Author 
underftands me not ( if it be me,as I have reafon to judge that 
he writeth againft ) for he fuppofeth that its works that 1 call a 
legal Righteoufnefs, when I flill tell him it is Chrifts fatisfa&i- 
on and fulfilling the Law, of which our faith or works are.no 
part, but a fubordinate, particular, Evangelical Righteouf- 

Mr. W.5. If both theft kinds of Righteoufnefs Were abfolutely 
necejfary^ then Where one of them is Wanting in a perfon, there can 

be no fafti ft cation of that per f on. But — r~ — Ergo. -y—For 

Where Was any Legal Righteoufnefs of the good thtffoi the Crofu 
condemned for legal unrighteoufnefs . ? 

An \fat 


Anfo. I deny your minor. The converted thief had a legal 
rigbteoufnefs banging on the next Crofs to him; even Chrift 
that then was made a curfe for him, and was obedient to the 
death of the Croft. I begin to be a weary in writing fo much 
only to tell men that you under ftand me not. 

tJAtr. W.6. If legal Rightecnfntft be thus necefiaril) to be join- 
ed Kith our Evangelical Right eoufnefs to Juftificatiin, then there 
muft be two formal canfes tffuftification* 

Anfw. I deny your confequence. If the formal caufecon- 
fift in remiflion and imputation as you fay , then Chrifts meri- 
torious righteoufnefs is none of the Form, but the Matter. And 
if befides that Matter a fubfervient particular righreoufnefsf of 
faith ) be neceiTiry as the condition of our Title to Chrift ; this 
makes not two forms of this J uftification. 2. And yet I grant 
you that it infers a fubfervient Juftification that hath another 
form, when you are made a Believer, or juftified againft the 
falfe charge of being no Believer(or penitent)this is not remifii- 
on of fin, but another form and thing. 

Mr.W.-j. That Which makjth void thrifts death % cannot be 
abfolutelj r.ecejfarj to Juftifisation. Hut legal righteoufnefs maktt 
voidkis Death y Q%\.2.i\. 

Anfw. Its a fad cafe that we muft be charged with making 
void (Thrifts Death, for faying that he is legally Righteous, by 
fatisfying and fulfilling the Law ; and that this is all the legal 
righteoufnefs that we hive. I am bold cherefore to deny the 
Minor : yea and to reverfe it on you, and tell you,that he that 
denyeth thrifts legal Righteoufnefs, denyeth both his death 
and obedience. The Text gal 2.21. fpeaksnotof the Law, as 
fulfilled by Chrift, but by us. Righteoufnefs comes not by our 
keeping the Law, but it came by Chrifts keeping it : yet fo,thac 
the Gofpel only giveth us tha-t righteoufnefs of his. 

*MrlW. 8. That Which concurs with another efficient , mufi 



■have both an aptitude ana* Confluence to produce the iffeft : but 
the Latt> , andconfequently Legal righteoufnefs hath no aptitude 
to give life , Gal. 3. 2. 

%Anf#. This is Difputing enough to make one tremble , and 
loath Difputing. Is there no aptitude in Chrifts legal Rightc- 
oufnefs to give us life ? The Law doth not give us righteoufnefs, 
but it denominateth Chrifl righteous for fulfilling it f and the 
Law-giver for fatisfying ) and to that it had a fufficient apti- 
tude. The Text Gal. 3, 2. faith truly that the Law giveth not 
life 1 but firft it fpeaks of the Law as obeyed by us, and not by 
Chrift, that fulfilled it. Secondly, And indeed its fpeaks of Mo- 
/«Law; andnotdire&lyof that made with A Jam. Thirdly, 
And it denies not that Chrift fulfilling it may give us life,though 
the Law it felfgive us none,fo that all this is htMts the bufinefs, 

Mr. W. 9. That ^ottrine which doth mofi exalt the grace of 
God, ought to be admitted before that Vthick doth leafl exalt it ; 
"But the Doftrine of purification by Faith alone , as our Goifel* 
righteoufnefs doth mofi exalt his Grace \and the other left. Ergo. 

tsfnfw. Still mifunderftanding ! Doth the Dodrine of faith 
alone without Chrift advance Grace ? Thats no faith. You do 
not think fo : that which denyeth Chrift or faith denyeth Grace. 

Mr* W. i°« That opinion which con fidtreth a per fort under 
a two-fold Covenant at the fame time, ought not to be admitted : 
'But to require both Legal and Evapgelical Righteoufnefs , is to 
confider him under the Covenant ofworl^t and Grace : I conclude 
therefore-that two forts of righteoufnefs are not nectffarily required 
to our J unification. 

tsfnfft. How far we are, or are not under the Covenant of 
works, I will not here trouble you by digrefling, in this ram- 
bling Difputc to enquire. But to your CMinor 1 jay, this opini- 
on confidcrech man only under the curfe of the Law till Chrift 
take it off him,by being made a curfe for us , and making over 
the fruit of his merits and fiiffcring to us. 


Mr. W. 2. As for the Sub jells ofthefe kinds of 7{Jghteouf. 
ntfs y I thus declare. I. That jefus (fhrift and hi alone who vas 
truly endued with Legal righteoufnefs, who at he no* made under 
the LaW 1 fo he did not dejiroy but fulfill it ; and if he had not been 
the fubjecl of Legal righteoufnefs in himfe/f , he could not have 
been the ^Author of Evangelical Righteoufnefs to its. 

Anfw. Here after all thefe Arguments, I have all that grant- 
ed me that I contend for (Yuppofing the Imputation or Dona- 
tion of Chrifts Righteoufnefs to us, whether in fe or in ttfettis* 
I now difpute not.) You have here his full confefiion that Chrift 
had a legal Righteoufnefs : Let him but grant the imputation 
of this, and then its ours : And then I have granted him that 
it may be alfo called Evangelical in another relpect. 

' Mr* W. p*g.l66. 1 thinly it to be no incongruity in /beech, or 
Paradox in Divinity ;> t*f*y that Chrt/ls Legal righteoufnefs is 
our Evangelical righteoufnefs ,i Cor.1.30. 2 Cor.5.2i.Jer.23.8. 

Anfto. Sure we (hall agree anon, foralltheten Arguments. 
Heres all granted but the name as to us. Many and many a 
rime I have faid, that Chrifts Righteoufnefs made ours is Legal 
inrefpc&totheLaw that it was a conformity to, and which it 
anfwereth for us ; but Evangelical as declared, and given by the 
Gofpcl. But the thing in queftion you now fully confefs. 

A/r.W.pag.iji. That We our f elves are not the fubjefts of 
Evangelical righteoufnefs , / jball endeavour to frove by theft 
Arguments. 1 . If our Evangelical righteoufnefs be out of us in, 
Chrift , then it is not in us, confifting in the habit or Acls of faith 
and Goff el obedience ; but it U out of stain Chrift. 

Anfw. We fhall have fuch another piece of work with this 
point as ehe former, to defend the truth againft a man that lay- 
eth about him in the dark. 1 . I have oft enough diftinguiflit of 
Evangelical righteoufnefs. The righteoufnefs conform to the 
Law, and revealed and qfiven by the Goffel is meritorioufly and 
materially out of us in Chrirt. The righteoufnefs conform to the 

Oo Gcftily 


g*fp*I t as conftituting the condition of life, £ He thxt believeth 
fbaUnot ferifh : Repent and be converted that your fins &ay he 
blotted *#*,] This is in our felves materially, and not out of 
us in Chrift. 

Mr.W. 2. If fatiifaftiou to Divine Jtiftice were not given or 
caufedby any thing in ut , but by Chrift alone , then Evangelical 

righteoufnefs it in Chrifi akne. But Ergo — without blood 

no remiffion. 

Anf*. Your proof of the confequence is none ; but worfc 
then filence. Befides the fatisfa&ion of Jufticc and remiflion of 
fin thereby ; there is a fubfervient Gofpel righceouihefs , as is 
proved, and is undeniable. 

Cftfr. W. $. If Evangelical right eoufnefs be in cur [elves \ 
then ferfetl right eoufnefs U in ourftlv^h But thats not Jo. Ergo. 

Anfw. Still you play with the ambiguity of a word,snd deny 
that which befeems yoiwifet to deny , that the fulfilling of the 
condition [Believe and Live'] is a Gofpel-righteoufnefs , par- 
ticular and fubfervient and imperfect The Saints have an In- 
herent righteoufnefs^ which is not Legal : therefore ic is Evange- 
lical. If you fay, its no right eoufnefs , you renounce the con- 
ftant voice of Scripture. If you fay, it is a Legal righteoufnefs 
imperfect, then you fet up Juftification by the works of the 
Law, ( the unhappy fate of blind oppofition, to do what they 
intend to undo. J For there is no righteoufnefs which doth not 
juftifie or make righteous in tantum : and fo you would make 
men juftified partly by Chrift, and partly by a Legal righteouf- 
nefs of their own, by a perverfe denying the fubfervient Evan- 
gelical righteoufnefs, without any caufe in the world, but dark- 
nefs, jealoufie, and humorous contentious zeal. Yea more thtn 
fo, we have no works but what the Law would damn us for, 
were we judged by it. And yet will you fay that faith or in- 
herent righteoufnefs is Legal and not Evangelical ? 

Mr.Vf.^ If Svangclical right eoufnefs Were in ourfelvet^nd 



coajifi iit her in tire habit or x new obedience, thin 

*fon the int ere iff or, of tb*fe *;?/, cu> J pficatron noxld discon- 
tinue. Bnt y 

An fa. If you thought nor your word rauft go for proof,yon 
would never fare expeel that we fhould believe your Conk, 
quence. For i .What fhew is there of reafon that theinterc fion 
of the ad ftiould caufe the cefTacion of that Juftificarion which 
is the conft quent of the Habit ( which you put in your Antece- 
dent?) The Habit continuetbinourfleep,when the ads do nor. 

2. As long as the caufe continueth ( which is Chrifts Merits 
and the Gofpel-Grant ) Juftification will continue, if the con- 
dition be bw fincerely performed (For the Condition is not the 
ciufe, much lefs a Phyfical caufej But the condition is fincerely 
performed, though we believe not in our deep. I dare not in- 
ftance in your payment of Rentjeft a Carper be upon my back; 
but fuppofeyougiveaman a leafeof Land? on condition he 
comeonceamoneth, or week, or day,andfay, Ithanl^jou, or 
in general, on condition he be thankful. Doth his Title ceafe 
as oft as he (huts his lips from faying, / thank, jou ? Thefe arc 
ftrange Doc%mcs. 

Afr.W, 5. If Sv angelic aI right ecufrefs were in our felves^ 
and faith ftttb our GoJfef obedience ftere that right etufnoffi then 
he Tvin hath mere or left faith or obedience .were more or lefs juftifi- 
***, and more or lefs Evangelically righteous , according to the de- 
g ees of faith and obedience. 

v4nftr. I deny your Confequence, couiidering faith and re- 
pentance as the Condition of the Prdmife ,* becaafe it is the (in- 
ctritj of Faith and Repentance that is the Condition , and not 
the degree? and therefore he rhat hath the leaft degree of fin- 
cere faith , Bath the fame title to Chrift as be that hath the 

2. But as faith andohecKencc refpedtht Precept of theGo£ 
pel, arid act the Pnwr/'T Co it is a certain truth, that he that 
btttunoft of them, hath moft Inherent Righteoufneff. 

O02 Mr.\V.6. 

Mr* VI. 6* That opinion which derogates from the Glory and 
Excellency of Chrifl above attGraces y and from the excellency of 
Faith in its Office ofjuflifying above other Graces , ought not to be 
admitted : But this opinion placing our Evangelical Righteouf- 
nefs in the habit, aft, or Cjrace of faith and Gotfel obedience dero- 
gates from both Chrift and Faith* 

Anf». Your Minor is falfe, and your proof is no proof, but 
your word. Your fimilitude fhouid have run chus. If an Ad of 
Oblivion b/ the Princes purchafe, do pardon all that will thank- 
fully accept it and com* in and lay down arms of Rebellion ; it 
is no derogating from the Prince or pardon to fay, I accept it, 
I ftand out no longer, and therefore it is mine If you offer to, 
heal a deadly fore on condition you be accepted for theChy- 
rurgion ; doth jt derogate from your honour \£ your Patient 
fay, Idoconfent and take you. for myCbyrurgion , and. will 
take your Medicines? 

Your proof isas vain and null, that it derogates from faith* 
What, that Faith fhouid be this fubfcrvient Righteoufnefs? 
Doth tbatdiflionour it?Or is it that Repentance is conjoyncd a* 
to our firfl Jaftification,and obedience as to that at Judgement ? 
When you prove either of thcfe dishonourable tofaich, we wilt 
believe, you ; but itmuft be a proof that is ftronger then the 
Gofpe 1 that is againft you. We confefs faith to be the receiving 
Cfinditio% and repentance but the difpofing Condition : but both* 
are Conditions . As for Phil.^.g. Do you not fee that it is againft 
you t I profefs with ?««/, not to have a righteoufnefs ofmyoWn 
Which is of the Law, ' which made me loth to call faith tmd re- 
pentance a legal righteoufnefs )but that which id through the 
faith of Chrift % t he righteoufnefs Which id of Qod by faith :] Faith 
you fee is the means of our Title to Chrilts Righteouf- 
nefs : And if you deny faith it fc!f to be any particular 
Righteoufnefs, you ma'i make it a fin, or indifferent, and 
contradid the Scriptures . And prefently contradicting what 
you have been arguing for ( that Evangelical Righteouf- 
nefs is not in us 9 and we are not the Subjects ef it : ) 
You profefs fag, 178. That Inherent Righteoufnefs is in as. 



It fcems then either Inherent r\ghuoufnt)i is not righttouj- 
nefs % or it is not EvMngeOcsi bat Legator it is in us,and not in 

Had yon only pleaded that we are not juftified by it as 
a Righteoufnefs , I (hould have anfwered you as before on 
that point. Not as a Legal R ghteoufnefs ; nor an Evan- 
gelical Righteoufnefs co ordinate with Chrifts • but as a 
fulfilling of the Condition of that Promife, which gives us 
Chrift, and Pardon , and Life ; by which performance of 
1 the Condition , the Benefit becomes ours by the Will and 
Grant of the free Donor; and we are no longer impe- 
nitent Infidels , but juft, and juftihable from the falfe 
charge of being fuch ; and fo of not having part in Cbrift. 
Its one thing to be accufed of fin as fin : And another 
thing to be accufed of the fpecial fin of not accepting the 
Remedy : and fo of having no part in Chrift and his 
Righteoufnefs. From the later we rauft have a real Faith 
and Title to Chrift, which rauft materially juftific us : but 
from the former, even from all fin that ever we are guilty 
of. Chrifts Righteoufnefs only juftifieth ur materially and 
naeritorioufly, and our faith is but a bare condition. 

Go | 



<5^/ Confutation of the Error ofSVfr. 
Warners 13 th Chapter about fuftu 
fication, and the inter eft of Obedience 

HE begins with a falfe Intimation, that we revive the Pa- 
ptfts htft and fecond Juftification : and he that will be. 
Heve him, may take his courfe for me : I crave only liberty foe 
my felf to believe that it is not all one to have Juftification be- 
gun and continued, and that Juftification by the fentence of the 
Judge, is not of the fame kind with Juftification Legal by the 
Donation of the GofpeL If I may not have this Reverend 
Brothers leave to believe thefe matters, I will believe them 
without his leave. And that the Papifts have fuch friends among 
us,as thofe that make the world believe that fuch things as thefe 
are Popery, I will alfo lament, though fuch Difputers give not 
their confenc. 

His Endeavours to overthrow thatDo&rinc of mine which 
he namethof [ fecond fufiification]beg\npag. 223, where he 
argucth, l. from Rom. 5. 12,3. That the beginning and end 14 
afenbed to faith. Anfwer. Its all granted; faith is ic that we 
are juftified by to the laft. We are agreed of this inclufively ; 
But the Queftion is, wbats the Exclufion : Not believing in 
Cbr'tft 4s Lord *nd Mafttr % mr Uvinghim ^ but the works that 
make or arc fuppgfed to make that Reward to be of debt, and 
not of Grace. 

His fecond proof is from <Pbil. 5.7*8. To which I anfwer. 
Wt are of PshIj mind, but not of yours. 1 , He counted all 



as lofs and dung that flood in oppofuion to, or competition 
wirhChrift: and To would I do by faith and love it (elf, thould 
they be fo arrogant. 2. Pia/exprefly natneth the works chat 
he excludeth, that is, toe Right eoufnefs which u of tic- La. ?, or 
in Legtlftorkj- And do we make any doubt of thu ? No,nor 
of thofe works that materially are Evangelical : for if they 
arc formally' Evangelical, they cannot be fee up againft Chrift, 
their very narure being to fuhferve him. 

Once for all, remember this A r gumcnt. Thofe works thar 
are commanded byGpd in the Gofpel, are not excluded by 
God in the Gofpel in that nature and to the ufe for which they 
are commanded. But faith in Chrj/t Jefus the Lord and Sa- 
viour, ( an entire faith ) and Repentance toward* Grd and 
love to him are commanded by God in the Gofpel in order to 
the par<jon of fin ; and the continuance of tfcefc with iincere 
Obedience, are commanded as w?a*s of our continued par- 
don, and as a mear/sof our final Juft.flcatton at Judgement. 
Therefore none or thefe are excluded by the Gofpel from any 
of thefeufcsorends. 

He citeth alfo, Aci. 1 5. and Heb. 2.0. and Rom. 1.17. toas 
muchpurpofeasthe reft. 

"Pag, 228. He begins his Arguments. The firft is [ Becaufc 
in vain art additions of numbers without which any thing may be 
done : But without addition of Vporkj the att of jvfttfpng is 

ferfeft, Srgo.] Anfwer. 1. As if the Queftionwcreof the 
Att of juftifpng^gad not of Justification paffively taken.Gods 
aft hath no imperfeftion , when yet it makcth not a perfeft 
work. 2. Itsbutfpleen and partiality to harp upon the term 
.[" works^\ dill to feduce your Readers to believe that I am for 
fuch works as P*«/denyeth.I ufe not the phrafe of \f unification 
by works'] nor think it fit to be ufed,unlcfs rarely, or to explain 
fuch texts of Scripture as doule it,or terms equipollent. 3jufti- 
fication is neither perfeft nor real, without a faith in Chrift as 
Head and Husband, and Lord, and Teacher , and Interceflbr, 
as well as a Sacrifice for fin, Nor is it perfeft or true, without 
repenting and loving Chrift. 4. Juftification is fo far perfeft 
atfirft,astrntnofinpaftor exiftenc is unpardoned. But it is 
not fo perfeft, but that, 1. Many future finsmuft have re- 


newed pardon. 2. And means is to be ufed by up, ( believing 
again at leaft ) for that end. ? . And the continuance of par- 
don is given us but conditionally, (though we (hall certainly 
perform the condition. ) 4. And themoft perfect fort of Ju- 
ftification ( by fentencc at Judgement ) is ftill behind. Arc 
thefe things doubtfull among Divines or Chriftians ? That the 
Church mud be thus molefted by fuch difputing volumes againft 
ir, to make the Papifts and other enemies believe we hold I 
know not what ? Read the many Arguments of learned Sand- 
ford and Farmer de 'Difitnf* % *nd Bp. VJhtr de Defcenfie ( to the 
Jefhite ) by which they prove that all Separated fouls, as fepa- 
rated, are under penalty, and that Chrifts foul as feperated was 
fo: and then tell us whether your fancy of abfolutely perfect 
Juftificatiori at the firft will hold or not. I wonder that men 
fliould fo little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven ; 
a finner in fle(h,and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God '? 
and (hould dream of fuch perfection (hort of heaven, the 
place of our perfection ? 

His fecond Argument is, £ Faith and works are here contrary : 
If of Faith, then not of works ] Anfwcr. Its true of the works 
that Paul excludes : but not of the works that you exclude : 
For Faith in Chrift is Q Works ] with fuch as you, fave only 
that ad that refteth on his fatisfafcion for righteoufnefs : And 
repentance and love to Chrift, and denying our own righteouf- 
nefs 3 are work* with you. And all thefe are neceflarily fubfervienc 
toChrift and Grace, and therefore not contrary. A^gufline^i 
after him the School- men, put it into their moft common de- 
finition of Grace,that its a thing [ qua nemo male utitttr. ] And 
as to efficiency its certainly true: Grace doth not do any harm : 
And if I may prefume to tell AHiu$inexh*x.\jb)e£livdf\ Grace 
may be ill ufed,yet perhaps he mightrepIy,[not qua ulu Without 
contradiilion^ln good fadnefsjs it not a ftrangc thing for a man 
in his wits, to exped to be justified in co-ordination with Chrifts 
merits, by denying that he hath any merits of his own that can 
fo juftifie him, and by repenting of thofe fins that have con- 
demned him, and by defiring, loving, hoping in Chrift alone 
for his Juftification : or by ThankfuLnefsto God for juftifying 
turn by the folc merits of Chrift ? And is it not a ftrange Expc- 


fition that feigned P \*l to mean and exclude Toch a6bas 
thefe under the name or work-. Bur yet reallv if fuch a man 
be to be found, that doch thsnkro men: J unification by de- 
nying fuch merir.I am aga'nft him as well a^ you. . 

His third Argument is, \_ f fdtthjujtifie o*,ly 44 the banning 
of our J ufitp cation, tier, here **e d grees of j-uftifi<a'ion : but 
there are no degrees. £rgo. ] tsfnffrer. 1. Faith is nei- 
ther the Beginning nor End of Juft rication , but a means 
of it. 2. If you would infiriuatechac I deny foith to be the 
means of our continued, as well as btgun Juftjrlcation, you 
deal deceitfully. 3. I deny }our Consequence. It may 
prove more neceflVy to the £e»ttKuaxceot our Juftinxati on* 
then to its beginning, and yer prove no degree? 4. Rutiioy 
JuAtficattonhach or hach not Degrees,I have told you before, 
and fgl cr in other writing*. 

His fourth A r gumenl is, £ Bectufegood &orly da not prtctdf, 
brnfoUovrfuftifictuon.^ Anfwer. 1 . Repentance,. and xhc 
Love of God in Cbrtft, aud fairh in C'bnfr as Lojvland Head* 
and Teacher, do go before the pardon of fio, and fo before 
Jultification. ;z. External obedience g^eth be ore Jtjftifica- 
tion ac Judgcimen^^nd Justification as continuediere.Did you 

. 1 His fifth Argument is, that [ Thefe tfto JvfijficatioMs pper- 
throw each other \ If b) one ve have peace w±tlr>G*$ % what neeA 
the pthtr? How c*n good wwJzj perfefi our fu^ification^ketng 
themjtlvet imperfeU * J Anfwer. A I] | his is ajrxfw^ red in the 
fecond Difputation. 1. Its no contradi&ioa to be juftified 
fcyGod, byChnft, by Faith, by Words, by Works, if God 
be to be believed, riiat affimerh all. 2. As impeded fairji 
may be tbe condition of parcon, fo may imperfect llepen, 
tance, .and iroporiect Obedience pf our fenuncial Abfoiu- 

Pag. ,*j g. He aniwereth the Objection. £ Bleffednefs ti 
*fcri fa dt vt far Grace f*l[ thus Not 4s if H ipWigjs &ere in 
them peiie, /^^«/f as they are fii»s. "] Answer. Proofing 
is more th<n tsffiribmg: 1;$^ great advantage for you to 
bave the forming of your 'Objections. 2? Happme^.pr/ir is 
as raucbio Love, asm Faish, *nd more. 3. Ochcr Graces 

Pp are 


ire medi* 9 means, which is more then only works. 

Pag. 241. He proves that works juftifie not fubordinate to 
Faith 2 cnus L Argument 1. No good workj Were found till 
faith had done its Workj ] Anfwer. 1. Faith hath not done 
its work till death- we are not juftified only by the firft ad 
of faith ; but by after-ads to the D^ath. 2. Faith in 
ChriftasHead,andLord, and Teacher, and Defirc and Re- 
pentance were found before Faith had juftified us. 3. O- 
bedience is found before the fentential Juftification, or thf 
continuation of our firft received Righteoufnefs*. 

His fccond Argument is, [ Becaufegood rvorkj are the effetls 
ef Faith and Juftification, and therefore cannot be the caufe, ] 
Anfwer 1. They are none of the caufeatall. Its not well to 
intimate that we hold them the caufe, as in defpight of all our 
own denyals. 2. They are not fo much as Means or Antece- 
dents of that part of Juftification, of which they are the ef- 
fect. The act of faith which vou will exercifc before your 
death, is as true a condition ( or Inftrumenr,if you will needs 
call it fo ) of your Juftification a; continued, as your firft 
act of faith was of your Juftification as begun. And yet that 
act of faith is but the fruit of your firft Juftification, as well as 
Obedience is. 

His third Argument is, that \ If Gofyel Obedience % and good 
work* do fubordinattly aU with faith to the effe 11 hg of J unifi- 
cation y then the Juftification which proceedethfrom both, muft 
bt of a different kjnd and nature. ] Anfwer I. Neither faith 
nor works effect Juftification. 2. Juftification by Promife 
and Gift, and Juftification by Sentence, Plea, &c. are 
much different. 3. But your confequence is nothing worth. 
For thefe are not caufes.but conditions. And if they were^et 
different catrfes may concur to the fame effect, which never 
man before you denyed, that I know of. Our cafe is, as if 
to a Rebellthat hach forfeited Life and Eftatc,the King (up- 
on a Ranfom ) grant him both, on condition that he thank- 
fully accept them as the fruits of that gift and Ranfom, and 
to hold them on condition, that he often do his Homage to 
the King, and return not to Rebellion. Doth the firft ac- 
ceptance here ferve turn for continuance of what is firft re- 

C*9 l ) 

ceived, without the following Homage and Fidelity ? or do the 
different parts of the condition make fuch a difference in the 
benefit, as you here take the[ Monftrous fvfttficttion ] to be 
( asyouraflilycallit?) 

Another Argument is, [ If faith be a total caufe or condi- 
tion of producing the t{fel~t of purification , then thirt's na 
want of obedience fcr its afpftance. ] Anfwer I. F*i:h or 
obedience are no caufes of pardon. 2. I will not trouble the 
Reader to open the (hame of that Philofophy which you make 
fuch oftentation of. Only I would remember you, that caufes 
totals ftiogenere y may have others under them. And that 
it followeth not, that the fun (hincth not, or the fire heateth 
not, or that you underftand not, and wrote not thefe words, 
though I fuppofe you will fay that God is Caufa total* of all 
thefe acts: nor yet that God doth ufe his creatures becaufe 
of an infufficiency in himfelf. 3. Faith taken for our \be- 
coming Believer i •, Difciples, Chriftians~] is the total condition 
of our firft Receiving Juftification. 2. Faith taken more nar- 
rowly for our accepting ChriftsRighreoufnefs,is not the total 
Condition of our firft Receiving of Juftification. 3. Obe- 
dience is part of the condition of the continuance of ir,and 
of our fentential Juftification. And whereas you talk over 
and over of [_Total caufes, and particular can fer. ] I tell you 
again they are no caufes. 

He adds that then £ obedience dsth nihil agere, or actum 
agere. ] Anfwer. }t doth nihil efficere. But befidcs,["»/M] 
and [fatlum ]thert's twotlvngs oft mentioned , Juftifica- 
tion at Judgement, and the non-amiflion of it here. 

3. Heinfipidly again difputes that L If an effect doth totally 
proceed from any cauft, then it totally depends on it. ] And what 
then ? Therefore ic folely dependeth on it .- And if thefe 
things were true, what are they to our queftion ? But faith he, 
[ When gtod wor^jhe fruit of faith are interrupted , yet oHr 
f unification abide J by the {ingle influence of faith only as a total 
caufe of its being and confer vition. 3 Anfwer. I. Alas / What 
would fuch Difputantsdowith the Church, if Gods mercy 
did not hinder them 1 By your own Argument now, neither 
God,nor Chrift, nor the Gofpel are any caufes of pur Juftifi- 

Pp z cation. 


eation. For you fay Faith Is a Total cau r e y and there can be 
but one Total Caufe i unlefs you iofeche honor of your Phi- 
lofophy. 2. Faith is no proper caufe at all. \ Did you 
not fee what muft needs be anfwered you That Faith is in- 
terrupted as well as Obedience and yet no imercifion of out 
jt>ftiicati>n. When we fleep wedonot.atleaftalwayjactfaith 
no mare then obedience (iffo much. ) And the habit of both 
concinueth together deeping and waking : And if you fhould 
give over love and fincerity of obedience, you would ceafe to 

His laft Argumenc is, [ "Secaufi for fins after Converfiov, We 
muft have recourfe only bj faith to Chrift > as our Advocate. ] 
Anfwer. i. That fpeaksonly of renewed pardon for parti- 
cular fins, but not of our Juftiricacion ac Judgement, nor the 
non-omifiion here. 2. We muft have recourfe to Chrift with 
Repentance, andefteem, and felf- denial, and defire, &c.a$ 
well as that aft of fairh which you plead for, as the total caufe* 
And when you would fctZanchy againftZ^c^you do but 
mif-underftandhim. He faith truly with Paul, that neither 
in whole or part are our own works ( fuch as Paul fpeaks of) 
ourRjghteoufnefs, that is, to anfwer the Law as Paul menti- 
oned, or any way to merit or fatisfie, or (land in co-ordina- 
tion with Chrift. But Zdnchy never thought that Repentance 
and Faith in Chrift as Head,and Lord, and Defire, and Gra- 
titude , &c. might be no means or Conditions of any fort 
of Juftification, or of that which we affertthem to be means 

I would anfwer much more of this Difputation ; but I am 
pervaded the j idicious Reader will think I have don? him 
Wrong, in troubling him with this mu:h. See p*g. 298, 299. 
how he anfwereth the Objedlon, that pardon is promifed to 
Repentance, &c I will not difparage the Readers under- 
ftanding fo much as to offer him a Confutation of that, and 
much more of the Book. Only his many Arguments on the 
Queftion of my flrft Deputation, I muft crave your Pati- 
ence, whik I examine briefly, and I will tire you with no 


LMr. W. pag. 411,412. / toiti rally up my Arguments 
again]} theforejaid Definition of Faith to he an accruing of C 
4U Lord and Saviour ; proving ilo.-it Chrift on' 1 a* Saviou* and 
Pr>eft % offering kinfelf up to the death of the Crois for our ftnt y is 
the proper Objeft of ' juftif.ing Faith, as jt*/fif}ihg. Arc ume'iC 
J. If the Faith of the Fathers under the oLd Teft*ment )S\u direeim 
td to (fhnfl us djing Vneft and Saviour ; then atfo the 
Faith of Believers now ought [0 to be diretted.TSut. — Ergo. 

Anfvf. i. I grant the whole, and never made queft : on of 
it. But what kin i*theconc!ufion of this Argumenc cochae 
which you had co prove, unlcfs £ Only J had been added. 
Did we ever deny that Faith tnirt be diredcJ to Chrift as 
Prieft? 2. A Saviour isa termrefpe&ingour whole S.ilvarion, 
and fb Chrift faveth by Teaching, Ruling , and judicial jufti- 
fying as well as dying. 3. The Fathers faith did not: refpeft 
Chrift as dying or fatisfj ing only, which you fhouid prove, but 

Mr. W. Argument 1. If Chrift as djing % and at Saviour 
do fat is fie Cjods Jufticr y ani pacific a finners confctenee i then 
art djing and Saviour he it the Ob\tft of l^ftfj^g Faith. But 
! Ergo. 

Anf*>. The fame anfwer ferveth tothisas tothe laft. The 
conchifion is granted, but nothing to the Queltton, unlefs 
[Only ] had been in. 2. Chrift as obeying actively , and 
Chrift as Rifing, and as interceding , and as judging, as King, 
doth alfo juftifie us, Rom. 5.19. Rom.*, 24,15. /c^w 8.33^4* 
^M2,]7. and25- 34,40. Perufe thefe Text* impartially, 
and be ignorant of this if you can. 3 . And yec the Argument 
wiH not hold, that no act of taich is the condition of Juttifica» 
tion, but thofe whofc object is confidered only as juftifymg. 
The accepting of Chrift to ianctifte us,is a real pare of the con- 
dition of Justification. 

P p 3 * Mr* 


CMr % W- Argument 3. IfChrifl as Lord be property 
theObjeEl of fear, then he u not property the Objetl of Faith as 
juftifjifig : But- — Ergo,- 

Anfvp. I . I f [ Properly ] be fpoken de propria quarto modo % 
thenisChrift properly the Objed of neither, that is, he is 
not the objed of either of thefe Oxlj. 2. But if [ pro- 
perly ] be oppofed to a tropical, analogical, or any fuch im- 
proper fpeecb, then he is the Objed as Lord, both of fear, 
and faith, and obedience, &c. 3. The deceit that ftill mif- 
leads moft men in this point,is in the terms of reduplication, 
[faith as jttftifjting, ] which men that look not through the 
bark, do fwallow without fufficient chewing, and fo wrong 
themfelves and others by meer words. Once more therefore 
underftand, that when men diftinguiCh between^/ qua jufti- 
ficans, and qua jufttficans, and fay, [ Faith which jufttfieth, 
accept eth Chrifl as Head and Lord ; but faith as juflifying 9 taketb 
him only as a 7rieft. ] The very diftindion in the later branch 
of it, [quajuftificans. 2 Js 1. Hither palpable falfeDodrine. 
2. And a meer begging of the Queftion 3 . Or elfe co-inci- 
dent with the other branch, and fo contradidory to their afl 
fertion. For 1 . The common Intent and meaning is, that 
^Fites qua credit in Ckrift urn ]ufiiftcat : And fo they fuppofc 
that Faith is to be denominated formally [juflificans^ab objttlo 
qua objeSlum : And if this betrue> then^i qua fides juft if- 
cat: Tor the objed is effential to faith in fpecie. And fo in their 
fcnCc 9 [fides qua jufttficans ] is but the implication of this falfe 
Dodrine, that hac fides in Ckriftum crucifixum quit talis jvfli- 
fcat. Which I never yet 'met with fober Divine that would 
own when he fawit opened. For the nature and eYTenceof 
faith, is but its aptitude to the office of juftify ing, and it is the 
Covenant or free Gift of God in modo prowittendi, that af- 
figneth it its office. The nature of faith is but the Difpofitio 
materia ; but its neareft interefi in the effed is as a condition 
©f the Promife performed. 2. But if by the £ qua juflificans'} 
any fhould intend no more then to define the nature mate- 
rially of that faith which is the condition of Juftifkation, then 



the qua and the cjhx is all one : and then they contradict their 
OWnAflercioryhac[/j^/ qua)xftificans nor, rea:tt Chrift hm 
nt'Dominnm. ] 3 . If the [ q *a J {hould relate co the effect, 
then ic would only exprefs a diltmccion between fnftificmism 
and other Benefits, and not between faith and faith. For 
then quajvftiftcans] (hould be conrradiftindt only fi om cjua 
fancrificarsj or the like. And if fo, i: is one and the fame 
Faith and the fame aces of faith, that fanctific and juftifie. 
; As if a King put into a gracious act,to a company of Rebel*, 
that they (hall be pardoned, honoured, enriched, and all upon 
conditionof their thankfull acceptance of him,snd of this act 
of GraceiHcrc there is no room to diftinguifh of their Accep- 
tance, as if the acceptance of pardon were the condition of 
pardon, and the acceptance of riches were the condition of 
sheir Riches, &c. But it is the fame acceptance of their Prince 
and \xi% Act of Grace, that rmh relation to the feveral confe- 
q jent benefits, & may be called pardoning^onouring&enrich- 
ing in feveral refpects. 1 1 is the lame marriage of a Pr nee that 
makes a woman rich, honourable, &c. So it is the fame faith 
in whole Chrift,as Chrift, that is fanctifying and juftifying, as 
it relateth to the feveral Benefits .- that is , it is the condition 
of both, fo that their^a* jujlifi ats^dozh either intimate this 
untruth, that hac flies qnt talis , id efi, qua fides in Ckriftum 
crucifixum jnftificat ] ( which is true , neither of one act, nor 
other, ) and fo begs the Queftion, or elfe it faith nothing. So 
that I fhail never admit thisfn juftificans, without an Ex. 
pofiiion; and better then yet I have feen from any that ufe 

Mr. W. Argument 4. Thit which is the f Mm and fultftance of 
Evangelical preaching , h the objetl of 'fnfiifjing Faith. 'Bm 
Chrift as crucified, is the fub fiance of Evangelical preaching, 

Anfw. i . When I come to look for the condufion which 
excluded Chrift as Lord, Teacher, &c. from being the ob- 
ject, I can find no fucb thing in any Argument tbat yet 1 ice. 
They have the fame face as Mr. BUkfs Arguments had, to con- 


dude no more rb^n what I prant, thic is, that Chrift as cru- 
cified, is the object or juuirying faicb. >ut whercsthe £'£?*//.»] 
or any exclusive f the reft. 2. but if it be impived, then 1. 1 
fay of the term crucified, that Ch,it* crucified to purchafe 
fanctifi.cat»on and frlvation, is the object of that faith which 
is the condition « f Jutificanon, and not only Chrift crucified 
to procurt jufttficatton. 2. 1 deny the Minor, if by Qfum and 
fubftarce ( \ i>u exclude Chrifl as Lord, Teacher, Judge, Bead 
C#c* Surely Evangelical preaching contained* Chntis Refur- 
rection, Lo;ci-(hip, Jntercefiion, &c. as well ashisxleathjor 
elfe the Apoftles preached not rhe GoipeMbis needs no proof 
with ihcm that have read the Bible. 

Adr.W A gum. $. That Khich we fbould defirc to know above 
all things js tht Obje-i of j up if y in g faith : But that isChrlft cm' 
cifisd. -Ergo. 

Anfw. i.^till the Queftion wanting in the condufion : Who 
denyeth thac^ trill crucified is the object of juftifying faith ? 
2. But if [only jbe here understood .really doth nottthis Brother 
defire toJinow Chrift obey ing,Chrift nfen^Cbrift teaching,ru- 
ling, interceding,^? I do. 

Mr. W. Argument 6* That in Chrift h the objeB *f faith, 
asjnfiifying whnh being apprehended doth juflifie hs : But the 
deat buffering, vloodtfbedittice ofChrifi to de*th u that. 
Therefore /t u the proper objeM offaith t as jufiif)ing. 

Anfe. 1. I diftingu : fh of the term [ as jujlifying ] and an- 
fwer as before. No aft of Faith cffe&eth our Juftification ; 
and whole faith is the condition s 1 he being or Nature of no 
ad is the formal or neareft reason of faiths inrereft inJuftifV 
cation It juftifiech not \jh this *tt y nor as that.^ 2. If [only~\Gi 
fome exclufive be not implyed in the condufion,! grant it iwll: 
Bur if it be, then -both-Major and Minor ««re rfalle. .1. The 
Major is falfe «, for it h ^not onlv ihe tmarter jof iour Justifi- 
cation, that is the object of jufttfyingfaifh. To affirm *h«„ 
is but to iegihe queftion: weuxpe# lyoariproof. 2. The 




Mnor is falfe : for befides the iufferings m? nrioned, the very 
perfon of Chrift, and the adive obedience of Chri , and the 
Title to pardon given us in the Gofpel, &c. apprehended by 
faith do juilfie. But the queftion is not what juftirleth e x parte 
ChriJIi, but ex parte noftri. 

Mr. \V. Argument 7. That which the Gospel doth firft pre- 
fentuswith, utheOb)dl of faith as ^ftifying : 'But Chrift h 
in the Gofpel firft frefcr.ted as a Saviour : therefore he ts therein 
the objett of faith as j"ft*fj*"g' 

A'fw. 1. Diftinguifriing as before of the £as )uftifying ] 
I ftill grant the whole ; the exclusive and fo the queftion is ftill 
wanting in the conclufioru 2. But if he mean i»lj s then both 
Alaior and CMinor are falfe. The M«ior is falfejfor that which 
the Gofpel doth firft prefent us with, is but part of the objed 
of jufttfying Faith. For it prefentethus with the Articles to 
which we mufl: A (Tent, and to the Good which we muft Ac- 
cept by degrees , and not all in a femence or word. The Mi- 
nor is falfe, becaufe in order of nature , the Defcription of 
Chrifts Perfon goech firft, and of his Office afterward* 3. The 
word Swiour, comprehendeth both his Prophetical and 
Kingly Office, by which he faveth us from fin and Hell • as al- 
fo his Refurredion, Afcention, Interceflion ; &c. And in^hfs 
large fenfe I eafiiy grant the Condufion. 4. If by a Savi* 
ottr^ he mean only ( as his caufe importeth ) a facrifice for fin, 
then (as this is a ftrangely limited fenfe of the word Saviour^ 
fo ) certainly the Incarnation, Baptifra, Temptation, Miracles, 
Obedience of Chrift are all expreft before this ; And if it were 
otherwife, yettheconfequencebfthe Afaior is utterly ground- 
lefs and vain.Priority or Pofteriority of any point delivered in 
the Gofpel, is a poor Argument to prove it the ObjeS ( much 
lefs it alone) of juflifying faith, 

Mr.W. Arguments. 7 h.tt which the Lirds Supper doth as 
.a feal prefent to jvftifjfing faiths that is the objett of faith as 
juft ifjixg : Bat the Lor c:s Supper doth prefent its with Chrift as 

djivg. Ergo. 

Qq jiuf*. 


Anfto.i. Still the queftion is wanting in the conclufion. 
Whac a pack of Arguments are here? 2. Do you believe in 
your confeience, that Chrift is prciented and reprefented in the 
Supper only as dying ? 

M*-.W. Argument p. If Veebave Redemption and rem\ fflon 
of fins through f*itb in bis blood, then faith at juftifpng jbould 
only lookupon that : ButVee have redemption and remiffion of 
fins bj his bloody Col.l. 

Anfvf. Here's one Argument that hath the qucftion in the 
conclufion. But 1. I deny the confluence of the CMajor t 
as not by Chriftians to be endured. The Q only] followeth not. 
Though we muft be juftified by his blood, 1 have proved be- 
fore, that we are alfo juftified by his Refurrcftion, Obedience, 
Interceflion,Judgemcnt s d"f. 2. Moreover the confcquencc 
is falfe on another account : Juftifying faith , that is, Faith 
the condition of Justification , muft look at more in Chrift f 
then that which purchafeth Redemption. It juftifieth not effi- 
ciently, nor of its own nature, but the Promife juftifieth with- 
out faiths co-efficiency ; only it makes the condition fine qua 
non: and this it may do by another Aft of faith, as well as 
that which apprehendeththeRanfom. 5. The [quajuftifin 
cans^ Ibavefpoketo : Qua cannot here properly refer to 
the nature of the faith, but r o the Benefit. And fo ftiith qua 
jftftificans, is neither this aft, nor that aft, nor any aft ; but 
Iqua jufitficans^ noteth only its refpeftto Justification ra- 
ther then to Sanftjfication, or other benefits. As when I kindle 
a fire, I thereby occafion both Light and Heat, by putting to 
the fewel. And if you fpeak of that aft of mine [ qua calefa- 
ciens: or quailluminans ) this doth not diftinguifb of the na- 
ture of the aft, but oftheRefpeft that the fame Aft bath to 
feveral effefts or confequcnts. 

C^r.W. Argument 10. JfChriji only aj crucified be the Me- 
ritorious faufe of our Redemption and fuftification, then Chrift 
crucified u the onlj objebl of faith a* fts^ifjing. But-*- - -Ergo. 



Anfw. i. The confcquence of the CWajor is vain and an 
proved. More then the Meritorious Caufe of our Redempti- 
on is the objedt of juftifying faich. 2. The Minor is no fmall 
errour in the Judgement of moft Protectants , who maintain 
thatChrifts a&ive Obedience, and fu faring life, are alfo the 
Meritorious caufe of our Juftifkation, and not only his Cn*. 

Mr. W. Argument 11. ifChrifl as a ftrvant did /at is fie 
Gods Juftice, then he is fo to be believed on to Jujfification. Bui 
as a fervant he did fatisfie Gsds Juflicc ■ Ergo. 

An ftp. i. I grant the conclufion. Chrift as a fervantisto 
be believed in. 2. But if [only 1 was again forgotten', I further 
anfwer. 1. I deny the confequencc of the Major , becaufe 
Chrift 15 to be believed on for Juftifkation in other refpeds, 
even in all eflential to his Office, and not only as fatisfying. I 
inftanced before in Obeying, Rifing, Judging, from exprefs 
Scripture. 2. If the conclufion were granted, its againft you 
and not for you. Fori. A&ive obedience is as proper to a 
fervant as fuffering. 2. Chrift Taught the Church as a fcrvant 
to bis Father, andisexprefly called ACMinifter of the Or- 
cumcifion. So that thefe you yield the objects of this faith. 

Mr.W. Argument 12. If none can call Chrift [[Lord] before 
he be juft'fieJ by faith, then faith as jfs^ifying is not an Ac- 
cept <nghim as L^rd. The Minor is true , becaufe none can call 
hint Lord, but by the Spirit : and the Spirit is received by the 
hearing off.i;h, after we believe t 

Anfxv. Any thing muft ferve. 1. Both Major and Minor 
are fuch as are not to bz fwallowed in the lump. If by Calf] 
you mean the calloi the voyce, then the confequencc of the 
Major is vain and groundless. For a man may believe in Chrift 
with the heart as Lord and Saviour, before he call him fo with 
the mouth. But if by {_C a ^\ y° u mean [Belteve^\ then the Mi- 
lt & fo confefled by all Proreftants and Chriftians that 
Q_q 2 ever 


ever I heard from of this point, till now : For they ali confefs 
that faithjn Chrift as Lord and Teacher, and Head, &c. is 
the fides qua ju/lificat, or is of necelfity to be prefent with 
the believing in his blood, that a man may be juftified. Ne- 
ver did I hear till now that we firft believe in Chrift as dying 
only, and fo are juftified before we believe in him as Lord, 
( and it feems before we are his Subjects or Difaples,and that 
is ; before we are Chriftians.J %. To your proof of the Minor 
I anfwer, i . It is no proof becaufe the Text faith only thar f 
£ No man can call him Lord but bj the Spirit ] but our quefti- 
on is of Believing , and not of Calling which is C.°rf e Jfi n g* 
2. Many Expofitors take it but for a common gift of the Spi- 
ri" thats there fpoken of : and do you think Juftification 
mud needs precede fuch common gifts? 3. But if it had been 
\_ 'Believe in ftead of CaA ] its nothing for you : For I eafily 
grant that no man can believe in Chrift as Lord but by the Spi- 
rit : but I deny that this gift of the Spirit is never received, till 
after that we believe and are juftified. And becaufe it feems 
you judge that Believing in Chrift to Juftification is without 
the Spirit, I pray anfwer firft what we have faid againft the 
Armintans^ and Augnftine againft the Pelagians , for the con* 
trary. Who would have thought that you had held fuch a 
point ? 4. How could you wink fo hard as not to fee that 
your Argument is as much againft your felf as me , if you do 
but turn it thus ? [ // none can call Chrift Jefusjr the Saviour , 
or believe in him to Juftification, before joe be juftified by faith, 
t-hen faith a* jnftifjing is not the accepting him as a Saviour; 
The UVUnor is proved, becaufe none can call him Jefus, or be- 
lieve to Juftification but by the Spine] This is as wife and 
ftrong an Argument as the other, and all one. Sec 1 lob. 4. 1 5. 
&5-5- Believing in Chrift as Saviour is as much of the Spirit, 
ss believing in him as Lord. 5. The Text makes againft you 
( 1 Qor % 12.3.) For there when Paul would denominate the 
true Chiftian faith or Confcftion , he raa&eth Chrift as Lord 
the Object, 

Mr.W. Argument^. If the promife- of Salvation be 4?e 
proper objeclof juftifjiug faith, then not the cowmaKsIs of Chrift 
as LordasdZaVp-givtr. But- *j_ Ergo. Anf 


tsfnfft. i. The condufion is nothing to our Queftion.wbich 
is not of Commands, but of Chrift as Lord. I: may be you 
know no difference be:weentheRela:ion and fubfequcnt Du- 
ties, between cbe A andtbeCommand, be: '..:r, 
je&iona^dobedicnce. 2. The Mmar is ftlfc, If by 
you mean Only ( and if not , the confcquencc is vain and 
rullj ForthePerfonof Carift, and hi> Office, and the 
of his Office, even Pardon, yea and ( are the true Ob- 
jects of juftifying F2 

f . \V. Argument 14. Ifm **e not bj Rlgk- 

teonfnefs Inherent and Impu;: :€ ) ir, & C 

Lord and LaVr-giver. Ba: Ergo. 

Anfip. Wha:? t!.i ; r otheQueftion? 1. About Ju 
on by Righ Is Imputed or Inherent we fp re. 

2. The conclufion never was acquainted with our Queftion > 
Again it fcems you cannot or will not diftingu fh between Re- 
lative fubje&ion and a&ual obedience. A man may become 
your fervant and fo have the Priviledges of a fervan:, by cove- 
nant, before he obey ycu. A woman i 3ge may fubj;ct, 
I"e:felftoyou. and bavelntereft in your eftace even by that 
Marriage n mifeth fubje&ion as well as Lovefwithoui 
excluding the firfl from being any condition of her Intereft ; ) 
and ail this before (he obey you, 3 . Your confequence would 
follow as much againft your feif as me. For Believing in Chrift 
as a Ranfom, is a particular Inherent Righteoufne fs, as 
believing in him £5 Lord. 4. We are juftified by R : ghteouf- 
nefs Inherent as a pa: though not as a 11- 

;rfal: as ::> ChriftsR': efs that it may 

be oursj though not . it. 

Mr, \V. Argument 15. **}***& rf fl 

and La\\'- giver b; 'erij or formally fait' "opcrty 

to bee alUd obedience , rmaBy juftifiid by f*'ub 

tyim Lord,xor i»7 cttr t to h'»m as Lsr.i. B t ftch an 

acceding of him is not proper Ir. cr in the account of God, 


felf Faith or obedience. Ergo. — The Minor I prove : if pur- 
poses t intent iwsy or verbal profejfions to believe or obey are not 
properly faith or obedience , then fuch an accepting u not faith 
or obedience. The Minor proved. That which is or may be found 
in Hypocrite t or Reprobates is not true faith or obedience. 
Bh 'Ergo. 

Anfo. The Lord pardon the hardnefs of my heart that ' 
hath no more companionate fcnfe of the miferics of that poor 
Church , and the difhonour of God which fuch Difputes as 
this proclaim ; by Arguments as fie to be anfwered by Tears as 
by words, i . A little before he was proving ( Argument 12.) 
that none could call Chrift Lord but by the Spirit , and there- 
fore this ad was after Juftiflcation : And now he provcth 
that its common to Hypocrites, & Reprobates. 2. Here he de- 
livered me from all the trouble and fallacy that the diftindion 
of fides qu& Jufiificat and fides quajuftificat, hath been guilty 
of. For if the ad that we difpute about , be no faith at all, 
then it is not the fides qui. And yet he often is upon the Qua 
Juflificans himfelf, forgetting this. 

3. Had I but delivered fuch a Doctrine as this*, what foculd 
1 have heard t Justifying faith hath three Parts, ASSENT, 
CONSENT, and AFFIANCE , ( which alfo have fcvetal 
ads or part?, according to the divers efTential pares of the Ob- 
ject.) ASSENT is but Initial and introductory to the rsft, 
as all acts of the'lntellcct are to thofcof the Will. CON- 
SENT is the fame which we here call ACCEPTING, which 
is but themeer VOLITION denominated from its refpect 
to the offer and thing offered. This, as it is in the will, the 
commanding Faculty, fo is it as it were the Heart of Faith ; 
the firft act being but to lead in this, and AFFIANCE the 
third, being commanded much by this , or depending on 
it : For as it is feated in the Affedions, fofar itisdlftinct 
from this Velle or CONSENT. Now when ever we name 
Faith by any one of thefe three acts ( as the Scripture doth 
from every one) we include them all, though to avoid tedi- 
oufnefs we ftand not to name all the parts, when ever by one 
word we exprefs the whole. And all thefe Acts have whole 



Chrift in all the effentials of his Perfon and office for their ob- 
ject. Now thac this faith in Chrift as Lord, or accepting 
him, (hould be faid,andtbatby a Chriftian Divine, and that 
in the Reformed Church, to be no faith at all, fro fay nothing 
of his denying it to be obedience; ) is ne matter of honour 
or comfort to us. How oft doth the Scripture esprefly men- 
tion faiih in our Lord Jefus Chrift ? Receiving Chrift Jefus the 
' Lord, Col 2.6. with other equipollent terms. But I will not 
offer to trouble any Chriftian Reader with Arguments for fuch 
a Truth. 

4. But yet the man would bethought to have Reafon for 
what he faith; and to his proof I further anfwer. 1. Pur- 
poses, Irttevtiensi and verbal Prcftffions were none of the terms 
or things in queftion : but Accepting or "Believing in £fa*fi as 
Lord, Tetcher&c. Thefe are but concomitants (the two rlrft ) 
and ( the laft ) a confequent. 2. Is it the Act [_ Accepting] 
that this Brother difputeth againft , or is it the Object | Chnfl 
as Lor a ] as being none of the faith by wliich we are juftified ? 
If it be the former, 1. What Agreement then hath this Argu- 
ment with all the reft, or with his queftion? 2. What Agree- 
ment hath his Judgement with the holy Scripture , that caileth 
Faith a Receiving of Chrift , and maketh it equipollent with 
[Believing in his Name"] John 1.1^12, C0I.2.6. 3. What 
Agreement hath his Judgement with the Proteftant Faith, that 
maketh Chrift himfelf as Good to be the Object of faith ; to 
be embraced, or chofcn, or accepted by the will, as well as the 
word as True,to be Affented to by the underftanding. But if 
itbetheO^fft that he meaneth , then what force or fenfe is 
there in his Argument, from the terms, [ Purpofmg, Intending, 
Con} "effing ? j Let him name what Act he pleafe , fo it refpecc 
this Object ; and if it be an Act of faith indeed, its all one as 
toour prtfentC ntroverfie. If he take C 0Y> f* nt * ™tt ,yi Z- or 
tsfccevirgoi Chrift to be no act of Faith, let h:m name any 
other that he will own ( for I would quarrel as little as may be 
about words, or impertinent things, j and let that be it. 

4. And how could he choofe but fee, 'hat his Argument is 
as much againft £ Accenting Chrifi as Prieft ~] as aga?nft Q Ac- 
ceptinghmas Lord] to Juftification ? No doubt but a man 


(5 °+) 

that had the common Reafon' to write but fuch a book as 
this, muft needs fee this if he regard what he laid. And 
therefore I muft take it for granted that his Argument is 
againft both alike : even to prove that Accepting oi Chrift as 
Lord, or as Saviour, is no faith or obedience at all. But the 
Reader will hardly believe till he weighech ic, that a waking 
roan would reafon thus upon fuch a Queftion as this in 

5. Confenting that Chrift (tall be my Lord and Teacher, 
and Head, doth imply a confent, and fo a Purpofe of future 
obeying, learning and receiving from him j And fo confent* 
ingthat Chrift (hall be my Righteoufnefs , Interceflbr, and 
Juftifier , doth imply a Purpofe of Trufting in him for the 
future. And yet this confent in both cafes is Juftifying faith. 

6. And its dolefull Do&rine (were he a true Prophet ) to 
all Gods Church, that Purpofes and Intentions te believe and 
obey y are no more then may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates. 
Tor though there are fuperficial uneffe&ual purpofes and In- 
tentions in them, as there is an unerTeduai faith in them; yet if 
no Purpofes and Intentions will prove men Saints, then no- 
thing in this world will prove them Saints ; For the Evidences 
of Grace are more certain to him that hath them, in the Heart 
then in the outward Actions. And in the Heart, the very new 
Creature lyeth much in thefe two. Defires themfelves will 
prove true Grace : Much more when they rife to fetled Pur- 
pofes. Why elfe did Barnabas exhort^the young beginners, 
that Q With purpofe of Heart they fhould cleave unto the Lord'} 
as intimating that their ftability lay in this ; And Intentions 
are the very Heart of the New man. For Intention is that act 
that is exercifed about the End, which is God himfelf. Inten- 
derefinem, is no more then Vettt vel Amare Deum ^ It is the 
Love of God above all. And if this be common to Hypo- 
crites and Reprobates, what a cafe are we in then ? 

I hope I have given you a fufficient account of the Imperti- 
nency and vanity of Mr .Warners fifteen Arguments. To which 
he adjoyneth a rabble of the words of Socinians , A'minian: , 
and I know not who, to aflure you that we his new Adverfa- 
ries, do joyn with that company and plead their caufe : And 



he that will believe him, -fhall no further be difturbed by me in 
his belief. 

I doubt I have wearied the Reader already, and therefore I 
fhall only add a few words about a few more of the mod con- 
siderable pafTages in his Book. 

Some other of Mr. Warners pafages 
ofmojl importance confdered. 

Ttg* 3 *5- \J[ R - W. faith £ Its worth the obferving hoft to 
IV Jl evade the Difiinftion of the Atts of faith , he 
filth that faith u ont ati in a moral fen ft , as Taking a man tJ 
be mj Prince^ Teacher^ Phyfitian % 8cc> and not in a phjfical fence ^ 
for fo it U many a£ts&c. ] And he confuteth me thus : [ Her*, 
Re*der f fee the Wit or forgetfnlnefs of the many who to man tain 
hit own groundt doth often con fider faith 04 Phyftcally fe cited in 
the under ft Unding ani^iU \ but when we a (fault him , will not 
allow us % an j Pbjftc*l % but a moral tsfeceftion of it. ] 

Anfwer A moft grofs untruth 1 ( and thats an Arguing 
that Faith needeth not) Your forgery is not only without 
ground, and contrary to my plain and frequent words,but con- 
trary to the exprefs words that you draw your Observation 
from. I fay faith PhyficaHy taker*, is many ads •, but moral- 
ly taken it is one work : Hence you call out to the Reader to 
oblcrve, that I will not allow you any Phyfical but a Moral 
AcceptioR of it. ] Is it fit to Difpute with fuch dealing as this ? 
Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether 
faith be a Phyfical Ad ( except them of late that take it to be 
but a Paflion and a Nominal adion ? ) Surely all know that ic 
is an Ad in order of Nature, before it is a moral ad. Attus 
mora!u,\sfa& a&usPhyficus. Though Moraliter alius , j, e. 
aftusReputativw, may be but a non-ading Phyfically : He 
that wilfully famii'hcth his own child, doth kill him morally or 
reputatively, and fo is moraliter agent , that is, Reputative.But 
btthatcherilhetbhim is an Agent natural and moral, that is v 

Rr> EchicaE 


Ethical or Vertuous. I wonder what made you think me of 
fuch an opinion that I have fo much wrote againft ? 

He next faith, that [ Though by one moral ati we receive Ai- 
vers benefits , jet We receive them to divers furpofes.] Anfmr, 
True 1 But many fuch paflfages of yours are to no purpofe ; 
and fuch is this -.impertinent to the bufincfs. 

P*g*19 l * HecomestomyDiftin&ion, where I fay, that 
ex parte Chrifii hefatisfieth Jufticeas aRanfom, andTcach- 
ethusasourMafter, andRulethusasourKing , yttexparte 
noftri, it is but one and the fame entire faith that is the conditi- 
on of our Title to his fe vera! benefits : From hence he ingeni- 
oufly gathereth that I fay, [That faith hath but one refrett to 
thofe benefits \ ana* is not diver ft fied by fever al afts ; and deny the 
rteceffity of 'thefe diflinft atis in reference to the fever al benefits 
efChrift.] Whereas I only maintained, that though the!<Ss 
be Phyiically diftinfl, yet they are not diftmct conditions of 
our Intereft in the benefits, but the fame entire faith is the one 
condition of them all. Hereupon he learnedly addrefleth him; 
felf to prove that faith hath feveral acts. And he that think- 
eth it worth his time t<ftranfcribe and confute bis Arguments, 
Jet him do it, for I do not. 

P Age /pi. He thinks \Wt need not dilute whether the Re* 
ception ofChrifl by faith* be moral or Phjical : however it is net 
An improper, but proper reception."! Anfft. 1 . It fcems then we 
need not difpute whether Chrifts body be every where , and 
(whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as 
the mouth doth the meat ? 2. And whereas Ridpere , in its 
firft and proper iigniflcation was wont to be pati , now it is 
agere : And whereas confent or Acceptance was wont to be 
called Receiving but Metonymically, now it is becoma a pro- 
per Reception. 

Page 30 3.504. Reafoning againft mc,he faith, £ The near- 
eft formal Reafon of a Believers Interefi , is no-: (jods making it 
a condition, Vehich is the remote reafon thereof , but a Believers 
fulfilling the condition ,&c] Anfa.i. Here {ie changeth the 

fueftion, from [ What u the nearefl reafon of faiths Intereft ] to 
What is the near eft reafon of the believers Intereft* ] To the 
firft I fay, [ hi beingmadt the condition of the Promife.JTo the 



ft cond I fay, [ The Promifi crgrant itfilf.] 2. He findeth a 
learned Confaurioufor me,™*. That ic is not Gods m&king^mi 
the fulfilling the condition th»t is the formal Rcafon. Anfo. Per- 
formance, that is,Believingmakcth faith to be faith, and exift ; 
but the Promife makes that the condition. 2 fpoke de c{fe f and 
he it exifiere: And yet I ufually fay,that [The neareft Keafon cf 
faiths intereft in fufiifi cation, is, as it is the condition of the Pro- 
mifes fulfilled'] that I might joyn both. 5. Note that in this 
his Aflertion he granteth me the fum of all that I defire. For 
if this be true, then it is not the Nature or the Inftrumenta- 
lityof faith that is the neareft reafon, as is ufually faid. 

Page 200. He doth as folemnly call his Adverfarie ad pari 
tes, as if he were in good fadnefs to tell him what is the caufa- 
lity of works in Juftification : And falling to his enumeration, 
he tells us th&t^The particle A or Ab notts the peculiar caufali- 
ty of the efficient : the particle Ex notes the material caufe : the 
particle Per or By* the formal caufe : thep.trticle Propter , the 
finalcaufe.~\ Anfw. I mufl erave pardon of the Reader while 
I fuppofe all this to be currant, that I may anfwer ad hominem. 
And then 1. It feems faith is not the efficient caufe,and there- 
fore not the Instrumental caufe : For A or ab is not affixed to 
«t,inthisbufinefs. 2. It feems then that faith isthe formal 
caufe of Juftification, becaufewe are faid to be Juftified «t* x 
afe* Rom.3.22 2j,3p, & pajjim[ ftyVmh ] So that faith 
is come to higher promotion then to be an Inftrumental effici- 
ent caufe. 3. Hence it feems aifo that faith" , even the fame 
faith is [ the material caufe] too : For moft certainly we are 
faid to be juftified ex fide : &> ™rws: Rom. 3.2^, 30. Rom. 5. 
x.G4/.-i.i6:&.3-8,7,-5,9j22 24-& 5.5. fam.t.z^. Whether 
ex fide hi *faki do indeed exprefs an Inftrumental efficient ,1 
leave to confidera:ion : But fure I am it fitly exprefleth the In- 
tereft of a condition. And if Mr. tv. will needs advance faith 
hereby to be the matter of our Rightcoufnefs , iE muft be but 
of our fubordinate particular Evangelical righteoufnefs, which 
confifteth in fulfilling the condi:ton of Juftification. 

Chap.$.pag.ig. 30>3i. He fpends a Chapter toopentous A 
the meaning of [fidesquajuftificat.] And profefleth that it 
k*tbe Cardo controvert* : yea it was the remembrance of 

R r 2 thi* i 

this diftin&ion and the light he received by it that induced 
him to enter on this Difcourfe ; and that it is the bafis of h« 
following exercitation. And what think you is the happy 
Light that deferveth all this oftentation? Why i. On the 
Negative wc are fatisfied that he means not \_wh*t fides qm 
-fides can do : ] And then we are fecure that he means nothing 
that can hurt his Adverfaries caufe. 2. The Light then is all 
but this £ That qua here u not takfn Reduplicative^ but fpecifica- 
iive, when by the p Article qua or quatenus, there is fame neW or 
fingular kj»d of Denomination added to the fubjetl of the Propofi- 
tion : as when We fay, man as a reafonable creature fee let h : In 
this latter fence ( faith he ) / believe tht particle qua or quate- 
nus is taken , when We do not fay > faith as faith , but faith as fufti- 
fying^'xz* as a Grace defined to this at! or operation of fufttfy- 
ing> looks on Chriff as Saviour."] 

sAnfw. This Chapter was worth the obferving. Tor if this 
be the Bafis of all the Exercitation, and the Light that Gene- 
rated all t^e reft,the difpatch of this may ferve for all. It feems 
by his words he had look't into Reebe's Diftinflions in the end 
of Cdflaneus y and meeing with Reduplicative and tfecificative^ 
admired the diftincticm as fome rare Difcovery : and this preg- 
nant fruitful Diftinction begot a Volume, before it was half 
underftood it felf. Had he but read the large Schemes for ex- 
plaining £lua or guatenus in others , its like it would have 
either begot a larger Volume, or by informing or confounding 
him, have prevented this. Pirft, he difowneth the Reduplica- 
tive fence ; and then owneth the Specific at we. But i. He 
feeth not,it feems, the infufficiency of this diftinction ; 2 Nor 
the meaning of it ; 3. Nor could well apply it to the fubject 
in band. Of thefirft I ftiall fpeak anon. Thefecond appear- 
eth by hfs Defcription, his Inftance, and his Application. He 
defcrlbeth it to be [ When there u fome neVv or jingular kjndof 
Denomination added to the fubjetl of the Propofition.~] 1 . And 
why may it not be added alfo to the Pre dicate,as well as it may 
Redufltcatively fas Motus eft aUns mobilts quatenus eft mobile. 
2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will 
not ferve for your ffecificative Qmtenns. The inftance you 
fiive is, T <u when we fay man as a Reafonable creature faileth. 1 



this was but an unhappy Tranflation of [Homo cju'afenut anU 
mal eft ftnfibtlu ] and its true in the Latine, how falfe foever 
in the Englifti. For the Application, i . You fay £ y u [ Be- 
UcvQ its thus take*. As if y ou did but Believe, and not know 
your own meaningin the Bafts of your Exercitation. 2. Your 
Svtcifisative Quatenu* is Caufi*I> or fignifieth -the Reafon of 
the thing, either of the Predication or the thing predicate: 
; But fo cannot your Bads hold good. Far faith doth not looJ^ 
en Chrift as a Saviour (as you plea fe Metaphorically to fpeak) 
becaufe it Juftifieth : for its Nature is before the erfed , and 
therefore cannot the effed be given as the caufe of it ; (uniefs 
it were thefinal caufe, of which anon.) 

Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common ufc 
fignirieth the proper reafon of the thing or predication ; and is 
appliableonly to that which is fpoken v&t* nwuoe. As to the 
terms, fometimes there is a Reduplication of the fame term, 
fometimes that reduplication is of the w^r#r,but in other terms % 
as in a definition, or ry nominal words, or it is implyed : fome- 
times it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Re- 
duplicate ; fometimes it is without a Reduplication : And then 
fometimes it giveth a Reafon from an gjfential Part : fome- 
time from the Qtnerical Nature \ fometime from the Specific^ 
Nature j fometime from an Accident .- and thofe are divers : 
fometime from a QuiLty : fometime from Quantity ; fome- 
time from Relation ; and that is multifarious : If we (hould 
run into all the fences of this Term which Mr. w. doth lap up 
in the word Q Specificathe ] the words might exceed the pro- 
fit. And its to be noted that ufually the term is refpedive as 
to fome other thing excluded which is contrsd ftind : & fo we 
give fometimes a more Remote and General \3c fometime a necr- 
cr and more fpecial Heafon by Qua or quattmu. As if you mix 
a purging Eleduary in your D> i»\ , I fay that Purgeth quate- 
nus medicated, which is to exclude the 1) i»k from being Pur- 
gative. If I fpeak of the EleUuary, I may fay that it purgeth 
quatenus Diagridtate ,to exclude many other Ingredients from 
being Purgative. But if. I fpeak of the < T>iagr\dium y 1 may fay 
that it Purgeth as having an EleElive faculty, dec. to excltde 
other Reafons of its operation. 

Rr 3 Now 


Now for the opening of the matter in hand, let us try cer* 
tain Proportions that may be fuppofed to be laid down con; 
cerning Faith. 

£ i. Faith a* faith }uftifitth2 This k?™', taken laxelyl 
for the excluding of £ faith as ameer Phyficalatt, or merit orU 
0W-&C. ] but ft is falfe firitlly taken^s fignifying the formal or 
nearcft reafon. 

So £2. Fides in Chriflumsjua talis Juflificat'] that is, ha* 
fihs injpecie] is true, taken Laxely and materially to exclude ail 
other Faith : q d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul, but faith in 
(thrift as fuch that is the matter deputed, to be the condition of 
fufiification. But its falfe taken flri&ly y de ratione formal*. 

3 « So £ This faith as it is an Apprehenfion or Acceptance tf 
Chri(i 9 ju(tifieth.2 Its true, Materialiter & Remotius, taxly : 
but falfe formaliter & ftritle de ratione proxima. For this is 
nhe farce in other terms with the fecond. . 

So C 4» Faith juftifieth as an I nftruwerital efficient caufecf 
&ur J unification.] Us falfe in every tolerable fence. 

So [ S • Faith juftifieth at an Inflrument of receiving Chrift,'] 
Its true, 1. taking the word [ Inflrument ] Metaphorically, 
and meaning only the Nature of this faith, which is [ to Believe 
in and Accept Chrifts *. and taking Jguatenue remotely, laxely 
and materially only ,q.d. Faith is the Sletled matter of the condi" 
tion (or is chofen to be the condition of JuftificationJ for this 
Apthude ', as, or becaufe it u a Reception or Acceptance of Qhrift. 
But its falfe, 1 . Taking an [ Inflrument ~\flritJlj and Logical* 
ly^ 2. and (peaking de ratione formali. 

So [ & Faith as a believing in Chrifts facrifice , juflifieth* ] 
Its true, Laxly, Materialiter & partialiter : that is, This att 
of t faith is part of the matter of the condition. But its falfe ,/bnwa- 
liter de ratione proxima. 

So C 7. Faith juftifieth only as it is a Relieving in Chrifts fa- 
crifice or Righteoufnefs.~\ Its falfe both de materia & deration 

So [ i* Faith as Juftifying is only a Believing in % or Atcept- 
hfg Chriftas our Ranfom^~\ Here is darknefs, and either non- 
fence or falfe doctrine. 1. [As fuflifying ] fignifieth either 
C<te ajftftifying efficient caufe J 2, Or [as the merit or matter of 



our Right eoufn*fs.~] }. Or [_'as the means i. e. condition of our 
Right eoufnefs , of which juftification u a confluent and final 
caufi.1 Inthefirftfenfcit is every way falfe. In the fecond 
fenfe ic is every way fall* , fpedking of our Univerfal Righce- 
oujpefs. In the third fenfe, if fpoken laxelj de materia^ falfc, 
becaufe of the exclufivc [ Only. 3 And if fpoken de ration* for- 
n wah velproxima, i . Its prepofterous to put the Confequent 
before the Antecedent^ you fpeak de or dine exequendi .- 2. And 
it is falfe : For [ qua Jufttficans ] fpeaketh of Justification as 
the confequent,or as an ad, and not of the Nature of Faith ic 
felf. And therefore [ qua fuftificans ] faith is nothing ( much 
lefs that a& alone.) For it is not de ejfe fidei that the term 
fpeaks, but of the confequent h So that the £ Fides qua juftifi- 
cans eft] what ever ad you mention, isabfurd andunfound: 
For as non jnftificat quatenus *ft,ita non eft quatentu Juftificat , 
its Effence being pre-fuppofed. But if you fpeak dtordine In- 
Sentionu t \'\z. £ Faitkas elefteda means or condition ofjufttfi* 
cation is onlj a ^Relieving in Chriftsfacnfice. ] then Laxelj & 
CWateriatlj it would be7V«r, if it were not for the £ only. ] 
But becaufe of that it is falfc^both de materia & de ration* for- 
ntali. The nature of it is before its Office. 

So [ 9. Faith 04 defigned to this aft or operation of fuftifjing, 
lookj on Chrift as a Saviour. ] This is Mr.^i. Affertion. Bat 
l]*fttf)i»g is not an aft or operation of faith ; but of 6od on 
the Believer. 2. But if you mean but conftituting it the con- 
dition of Juftification,then 1 . the wrong end is fet firft : For 
it doth not look at Chrift, as its made the condition-, but its 
made the condition, becaufe being an Accepting of Chrtft, its 
Apt for that Office. So that Materially and Lax ij , its rhus 
true ; (a Saviour,comprehendeth Chrifts Kingly and Propbe- 
tical Offices, and cvcrlafting Priefthood in Heaven ) But this 
is nothing to the formal Reafon of its Intcreft in Judica- 

But left you think that [ qua Juflificans~] hath no p r oper 
place, I further inftance [ q. Faith at ju/lifjmg u dijiir.sl from 
faith as entitling to Heaven , or other premifed mercie*.] This is 
true f fuppofingjuftification and the faid Title to Glory to 
differ.^ But this is but a denomination of the fame faith from 



its divers confequents. As my lighting a candle being one a&i- 
on is Abl.o iUam'mAns ( ut caufa maralis t ) & calefaciens ; & 
qua ilium™ a*s non efl c alefacie ns* So a wotnans marrying a 
Prince, is an Honouring, enriching aft i ani qua honouri g, it 
isnoc enriching. Bat its the fame entire undivided aft or An- 
tecedent Means, or Condi.ion, that is thus varioufly denomi- 
nated from fcveral Benefits. And thas Relations may give 
divers denominations to the fame perfon ; the fime man may 
be considered as a Father , as a Phyfitian? as a Subje&^r. . 

CHR ST, was CHOSEN and ORDAINED by God the 
Condition of Juftification and Life, becaufe his Wifdom faff? it fit 
for tkt Office, aid that fitnefs lyethi* its retfett to theObjett 
and gods ends ( fuppofing we may afljgn Reafonsor caufes of 
Gods Will. J By this faith (la conftituted the Condition) we 
CONDITIO* OF GODS PROMISE.] This k the plain 
Truth in few and eafte words. 

By what is faid you may fee that when they fay [faith as Jv» 
ftifying ] is this or that, it is both prepofterous, and the [ qua ] 
as diftinft from the [ qua ] de ratione formal'^ caufally fpoken, 
is plainly falfe : Bat in other cafes, Laxely and MateriaRj % z\& 
£ qua ] fignificth the fame as the [ qu*2 w ' cn theexdufion of 
other matter. And when they have raifed never fo great a duft 5 
the Queftion is but this : Whether we are juftified by Believing 
in Chrifl as Chriflioronlj in Chrifl as a Ranfom ] ( and yet as 
a Ranfom and as dying he purchafeth SanftiAcation as well as 
J«rftirlcationO Or. [ Whether faith in Chrtfl as Chrifl , or only 
faith in Chrifl as Purchajing fufttflcatipn^ be the condition of our 
purification .] 

Reader , Having Shewed the darkncfs of that Light that 
caufed Mr. fVs. Exercitation, and overthrown its Bafis, I (hall 
put jthee to no further trouble. _. 



To my Reverend Brother Mr. fobn 
JVarner, Preacher of the Gofpelat 
Chrifts Church mHantJhire- 


T Hough ( through the privacy of my habitation ) I neve* fo 
much as heard of jour name, before your Book^ofthe Object 
artjl Office of faith was m the Prefs ; yet upon tht perufalofit 
I confidently conclude, that a z.eal for God , and that fthich you 
verily think."* be his Truth,hath movedyou to this undertaking ; 
and doubt lefs you th'tnl^ that you hive done God firvice by it. 
1 love your zeal : and your ind gnation again ft Error ; and jour 
tendernefe of [o great a point as that offuflfication. And could 
J fin i your Light to be anfmrable to jour heat r I hope I fjould 
alfo love ani honour it : Bad) oh not taken me (yrith ihe Vfco Re- 
vert nh Brethrtn Whom you oppufe ) to be the enemies of the per- 
fonand Grace of the Lord Jefus,or the followers of [htm (as 
you [aj<> Fpijt. p*g*6.) I am perffcaded yon ftcula net have ether 
called tu fo^ or thought your felf called to this affault. *y4nd if 
Hove ChriftJ mufl love that man that hateth me, though mifta- 
hinglyjor the fake of (fhifl. That print Iple Aitkin you that hath 
made Chrifl and Truth fo dear to )cu, that you rile up for that 
which fe em eth to you to be Truth , 1 hope ftiftgrow till jou attain 
perfection in th*t world of L ?ht that will end our dfferences. 1 
[ball not go about to deprecate your indignation fcr my plain ex- 
prejftoxs in this Defence, When the nature of your matter did re- 
quire them : For lam not fo unreafonable as to expeel that fair 
word: Jhould reconcile a good man to thofe that he take! to be ene- 
mies to Chrifl i or to their followers. 'But as J can truly fay if 
He/sow what U in my heart, that the Reading of your 'Book, hath 

Sf bred 


if red no enmity to you in my breft, but only handled a love to your 
z>eal, with a ce-mpaffion of jour Aarknefr, and a d ft ke of your fo 
much confidence in the dark ; fo it fh ill be my care as it is m) du- 
ty % to lovi yon at a miftaken fervant ofChift, though yctt fhould 
take me for hi* great eft enemy. And therefore being c on f clous 
of no worfe (ffetlions to you, I deftre tbit fuftice of fou , as to im- 
pute the ungrate full paffages that you meet With, to my opzrehen- 
fion of the badnefs of your caufe and Arguments, and a comfaffion 
K to the poor Church that muft be troubled and tempted, arid endan- 
gered by fuch grofs mifrakjs, and not to any contempt of your per- 
fon t with which I meddle not, but as you are the ^Author ofthofe 

In your preface J find a LaW impofed by you on jour Anfwe- 
r er, which I have not fully obferved : I. Becaufe f had Written 
my Reply to your Arguments a con /tier able time before I faW 
your Preface -, For it fell out that I firftfiW your Book^ without 
the Spiftle and Preface, 2 . 'Becjufe I thought it fiueft to fol- 
low the Method that my Subjetl and the Readers edification did 
require* ' 3 . Tet kid I once purpofe to have anf veered all that was 
of moment in your Book again [I the Truth', but Upon trial I found 
your Reafons fo inconfiderable % thrt v earinefs interrupted me and 
put an end to my Reply, and withal f grew confident th*t my la- 
bour Would be to little purpofe* For I dare venture any fudici- 
oui Divine upon your Hook without the help of a Reply : t And for 
thereft y it u not replyingthat will ferve turn : but either pre]** 
dice will hold them to the fide that they have taken , or elfe they 
Will thinkjoim inthe right that hath the la ft word : When th(y 
have read mine t they will think that f am in the right ; and When 
they have again ready ours , they will thinly that you carry the 
taufe : and when they read my Reply agatn/hey will fay, you Were 
wiftak^n ; but ufually they will go With the party that is in great- 
eft cr edit , or hath mo ft i#.t ere ft in them ^ or advantage on them. 
But yet I thinly you Will find that none of your ftrength againft 
me xneglecled : For / can truly fay y that when I think not meet 
to Anfrter all that a man hath /aid, Ineverpafs by that which I 
take to h his ftrength, but purpofely call out that y and letve that 
Which I think i*fo grofly weak m to need no anfwer: So much 
tfjottr ten Dtmands or LaWs at / apprehended neceffary, t have 



here anjrvered; fupfofirg what 1 had fud of the fame points i* 
my firft D.fputat:. •; / /rf\V no BeS/on too often to R%- 


I am none cf. yea for too much ftheMeta- 

phy Picks, but rather m*.r vail that you feared not left jour Meta- 
physeal Read*K &i0 wrong yon by mif- applying jour atedScheg 
kias contrary to your bitter epixton of your J elf , and take both 
your Schcgkias and your Scaliger for Prophets that could Jpeak 
as if they had read jour 'Beoi^, and been acjuainted)frith )onr ar- 
guings. Hut itfeemsycuare net the fi-fi of that way, 

B j your Arguments in your Frefa;e i I ptrceh-tyou think, it 
a matter of very great moment toj ou r caufe, to prove that there 
ere divers atls of Faith, whereas I am fo far from denying it , 
that I am ready to demon/Irate , tb At even the faith by which Wf 
are fuftified>id likjr to have tnenty alls then one only ^ but many 
certainly tt hath. Tour fi' ft Argument is, from the d fferent cb- 
jeHs^becaufe the Obje Els fpecife the Aclt. Afufficient Argument 
which no man can confute. Bat I . This it no proof ' , that one 6C~h 
only is it that we are juflifiedby. 2. Whore you add that f uni- 
fying Faith hath not retyell to Chnfl as Lord formaliter,js* beg 
the J^ueflion t and affert no light mifluke. But where you add _ in 
its aft of jaftifying you do but -obtrude upon us your fund** 
mental Error ( wLicb le-dcth you to the reft b* ■:ak K ed affirma- 
tions. Faith hath proper/} no jufiifying atl : Juftificareeft ef- 
ficere, Faith doth not effttl cur : unification \ Wv ttej ju/lifird bj 
faith indeed , but not 04 by \r. efficient can ft nnlefs you Wiii take 
Juftificatirn -for Sanciificaticn ; For real tfva'.tative Mutati- 
ons it doth tf ttl J but tke]u* or Title to any mercy in the world 
it cannot Effcd, but Accept when nered. if ycu anna fee fo 
plain aTruih n its Evidence, yet ob erve b) the words of the Re- 
verend Brother that is my Opponent in the feco d Difputati n ^nd 
by your Prefaers Dr .Kend als c cur fe. that its apajftve inflfum t.- 
tality that the Defenders of y.w caufeat lai arc drtvejt to ; a-;d 
• not of i:s ad of juftifyir.j: 
Gods ad of Jaftifyipg which faiih is cr ; e Condition of. 
e as you make unbelief to be formally a fl gluing and 
r.egled.ng Chrift as a Saviour and effectively ( you muft m*an 
only effeliive & non formatter ) a denying iubjeccion to him 

Sf 2 as 


as Lord. You err fo great btttfo rare an error 9 that 1 fupfofe it 
mtdlefs to confute it. All Christians as far as I can learn have 
been till noty agreedjhat Believing in fhrift as Prophet and King 
is a real part of faith ^ and that unbelief or rejiBing him as Pro- 
phet and King is a real p*rt of unbelief. 

Tourfecond Argument is from the different fubje&s • where 
jougjve m two fisch palpable Fitlions, that its a wonder jots can 
make your felf 'believe them, much more that you (hould lay fo 
great a fir efs on fitch abfurdities. The firftis thai the Ad of 
Faith is in feveral faculties : and you elfwhere give us to under- 
ft and that it is onePhyfical Act that you mean, s>4nddoyou 
think^in good fadnefs that one Jingle Phyfteal aft can be the aft of 
both the faculties ? Thefccond is that the fear , love and obe- 
dience to Chrift as King is but in the Will. Bttt i . what Rea- 
ders do you expetl, th«t wilt take an Ajfertion 0/ Fear, Love, and 
Obedience, in /lead of an ajfertion concerning Faith ? Were yon 
not comparing faith in Chrift as King, ^ith faith in Chrift as 
Prieft only? And why (peak younot of faith in one part of your 
comparifoK t as well as in the other ? Tottr cone/ufion now is nothing 
to the Queftion .* 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Chrift as 
"King is not in both faculties, as Bellas Faith in Chrift as Prieft 
or facrifice, disiyou think^thzt any man of ordinary underftand- 
ingwould ever believe youWuhottt any proof ? or that ever fuch 
a thing can be proved ? 

Tour third Argument is, [Becaufe they are in a different time 
exerted ; the one, that is, Faith as Juftifying, being precedane- 
OUS to the Other, ( and to other Graces ) ] Anfw. PVonderfuli I 
// that man jttftified thitbelievcth not in Chrift as the King and 
Prophet of the Church t Do you believe this your felf '? why then 
an Infidel is juflified by Faith. The "Belief in Chrift as a Sacri- 
fice or Prieft Only, is not the Chrift ian faith ; it is not faith in 
Chrift properly % becaufe it is not faith in Chrift as Chrift. For 
Chrift as Prieft only is not Chrift. A Heart only ii not Corpus 
humanum : tsfBody only is not a Man •, Where there are three 
ejfential parts, one of them is not the Things without the reft* The 
name £ Jefus Chrift ] fignifeth the office as well as the ferfon. It 
is ejfentiiho that Office, that he be Prophet and King* And here- 
by you jhtw that )ou do not 0>?//diftinguifh but divide. Fir Where 


(3 '7) 

there is a diftanct of time bet)to een the Atts , there is a divifton. 
Do you thinly that ft e are Chrifts enemies , or followers oftbem> 
unlefs we will believe you that a man is fuflifitd by Belttving in 
Chrift only as a Trieft or Ra^fon^ cr in his Right eoufnejs, before 
ever he believe in him as King And Lord (andfo as Teacher. Sec. ) 
If I had [aid that yon are Chrifts enemy for fuch DjHrine^bich, 
thinkjyou, had had the fairer pretence for his cenfure t But I am 
far from faying fo y or thinking it. I knoV? that the AJfent to the 
effential Articles of Chriftiaxit r jontaineth many A els, and that 
our Confent and Affiance are many Phjftcal A els, as the parts of 
Chrifts Office are many ObjeEls, But yet I {do not think,£/*r) am 
certain that all t he fe phjftcal AUs concur to make up thit '^Mo- 
ral A^ which is cabled Chrift ian, or favmg^or fuftfying Faith ; 
and that he that believeth not in Chr'ift as to all that is effential 
to Chrift, is no Chnftian* And a man is not juftified by Faith 
before he is a Chrifi ian. tsfnd truly Sir , men that an loth to 
fiie from the Light , and that love the Truth , and diligently 
fee\ it ( as heartily, if not as happily as you) muft yet needs tell 
you, that if you produce your Mormilu:kj an hundred times, an\ 
cant over and over [ a Papift. a Socinian, an Arminian ; and an 
Arminian, a Socinian and a Papift]] their under /landings will ne- 
ver the m?re be perfwadedt) embrace your Deluftons , though 
you Jhould fay that the Kingdom ofCjol doth confift in thsm. 

Tour fourth Argument is that , [_ There is a difference in 
Nature,Erflcacy, Energy, and Operation ; therefore the Acts 
are not the fame. ] Anfw. 1 . / maintained the conclufion ( th*t 
faith hath different Aels ) before ever 1 h tar d of your name ; 
and have no reafon now to denie it. 2. The difference of Nature y 
1- grant j m between many Alls of faith i butWhttyou mean by 
the Efficacy, Energy, and Operation , he th*t knoWs can tell ; 
for I cannot. 

But fttH Ide/ire youto know that I deny faith to have any 
efficient operation in jnftifyng us , or that it is a* efficient caufe of 
our f unification ; ejpecially its no Phyftcal efficient ; you add a 
ftrange proof of your Ajfertion 1 £ viz. For faith as Juftifying 
makes a myfticai Union and relative change on the perfon ; 
buc faith as working and fan&ifying produceth a moral union 
wkh Chrift, e^.]yf*/w. I. F aith as ]uftiijing doth only fufti- 

Sf 3 fi* 


fie y and produce no Vrriov^ the fame fath as uniting Lihe meant 
ofVr.ion. 2. The que ft ton is of ^ Faith in Chrift asPrieftS and 
faith in Chrift as Prophet and King alia] And you talk c/^faith 
as juftifying, and as working and ianctifying ] A fma.lt alterati- 
on. 3. What My focal Relative Union U that which is not a 
Moral Union ? 4. Faith in Chrift as Chrift, and not as a Ran- 
fom only, is the means of our Juftification ; And you give m no- 
thing like a proof of the contrary reftriftion. 

In the fame Preface ycu tell the world of a threefold Artifice 
that we ufe ± the fir ft is £ tofetup a fccond Juftification ] Anf 
Is it the Name or the Thing that you mean ? If the name, 1 . cite 
the words Where we ufe that Name. 2. If it anfVcer the fubjetl, 
you may bear With the name. If it be the Thing , then tell u$ 
-what Religion that it that denyeth 1 . a Juftification by fentence 
at fudgemtnt* 2. (jods continual ju ft tfyng us to the Death. 
3. And his particular pardoning or jujftifyi/tg us from the guilt 
of renewed particular fins. 4. And that faith is not cnlj/ in the 
firfl ably but through all our lives, the means of our Juftification ; 
Or, juftifying faith is more then one inftantaneous Atl ; or a man 
ceafeth not to have juftifying faith afttr thefirft Atl or moment. 
Tell us Who thofe be, and what Religion thej are of that deny all 
thefe, that Chrf-ftiansmay be acquainted Vrith them , if they be 
Worthy their acquaintance. 

Cnyjecond Orifice is^ £ to require Works only as Gofpel- 
Condittons. "\ Anfw. Wouldyouhaveus fay more of them^ or 
lefs ? fief, I hj-ve f aid enough of it in the ftcond D Jputati* 

Our third ? Artifice is, £ To include works in the Definition 
of Juftifying faith, making it a receiving of Chrift as Saviour, 
Lord and Law-giver to Juftification • as alfo confounding our 
confummate Salvation or Glorification with our Juftificati- 
on.] Anf.C/ > 0/ s untruths I contrary to la r ge and plaine expreffi- 
ons of my mind in fever al Volumes ( >fyou mean me, as you know 
I have reafon to judge) 1 . lever took^ Vvorks to be a fruit of faith, 
and no part of it, nnlefs you take the word Faith improperly and 
taxely • unlefs by £ Works ] you mean £ Acts] tyind you take 
faith for fuch a Work^ your felf, that is, an Act, 2. J expref- 
ly diftinguifhed what you faj I confound ;Confumm ate SanUifica- 


t ion or (glorification, andconfummate J ufiifieafion. Bit yet as 
Ido in the Definition ir.cliie Con en: to Chrifts Lordfhip, 
though not Obedience ( thus only implyed to be a neceffa^y con- 
fequent,) fo I flill fay thit much of y^ur fmfi ideation is yet to 
come ; And if your Riligiov tea:hyj*n fay, that you will be 
beholding to C^ r 'fif or no tnore Juflification t fo doth not mine. 

And whereas you cite fome that f*y, that all our fins a^eptr- 
donedin our fir ft believing f as if I had ejuefiioned anyfuch thinf, i 
mufi tell Jou that I eahly grant it, that every fin is then for* 
given,andfa far as that J ufiifieafion it perfett\but what have you 
yet J aid to prove, I . That vce are never jvft'fied bjfvth % but in 
that one infant. 2. That We need no particular Juflification 
from particular fins that after fij ill b? committed. 3. Nor no 
fentential Juflification at Judgement , which cJ*/>.Burgefs will 
tell you, is the chief. Tou and others ufe to fay, that, that at 
Judgement , is but Declarative. 'But 1. It is w common 
Declaration, but a Declaration by the Judge. 2. And the 
Sentence doth more then meerly declare -, for it d;th finally decide, 
acquit and adjudge to Glory. 3 . Andmethin^s thii Declarative 
fhould be no term of Diminution, but of Aggravation, with 
thofe that ftillufe to fay that Juflification is a judiciary Term. 
tAlaslThat thefe matters among the friends ofChrifland Truth, 
fhould needfo many words. 

Some more lhad to fay to you, but you m*y find it in the Pre- 
face to thefe Difputations. I only add, that if indeed it be true 
which you Write to that Honourable perfon, to whom you dedicate 
your Labors, viz. That the SubjeU cf your Difcourfe isfo ex- 
cellent ana neceffay to be known ; and that He who is Igno- 
rant of theObjecl and Office of Faith, doth neither know 
what he believeth , nor how he is juftified ; / fhould thmk 
it is high time , that you call your ZJnderftanding once more 
to an account, and review the Fabric^ that you have built on 
aqua juftiflcans not under flood, or upon a fpecificative qmte- 
nus, Where there U no fuels thing : And if you thinly me unfit to 
be heartened to in this, ( as being one of the men of perverle 
minds that there you mention , ) its more Worthy your induflry, 
tofeek^the advice of the learned Oxford Divines htrein > then 



■that they fhould be fought to approve and midlife fuck a Book^in- 
to the world : and its Ukelj thai their Charity will provoke them 
to beferyiceable to yon in this ; though I hear that their Difcre- 
tion forbad them the other. For all men are not jo eaftly Whiff- 
led into a Cfaifts- Church contention againft the Truth and 
£hurch of Chrift, as T>r. K, and one cr two Confidents , that 
living in a cold and ft er it C omtr Ji Are l*f s fubftantive y and more 
adjeclive ' 3 then Innocents and Independents ufe to be. 

None's here fo fruitfuil as the Leaning Vine : 

And what though fome be drunken with the Wine ? 

They'l fight the better, if they can but hiti 

And lay about them without fear or ) But flay I 

See What Example is I As the name of Dr.K.andthe remem- 
brance of his differtatiuncula ( an Appendant to fax pro Tri- 
bunal^ that couldhlva. fide, fldem folvere ) began to tice mt 
intoajdeoundvein ; fo jour concluding Poetry hadalmofl temped 
■mein An Apifh imitation to Poetize, when wearmefs made me 
thinks of aconclufian. 'Bus 1 had rather conclude with thisfe- 
rious motion to yen (that my end may meet your beginnings) that 
before you next write on this Subjttl^ you will better conftder 
of the que ft ion that your qua jultificans concerneth : Anzin- 
fteadof telling us , that fides qua juftificans refpicit Chriftum 
Salvatorem, thatis t fides qua juftificans eft fides, as if it were 
juftifying in order of Nature before it is Faith : you will be 
pleafed to tell us , fub qua ratione fides juftificat ( vel fide 
juftificamur ? ) Whether you will Jay , that fides qua juftifi- 
cans , juftificat , or fides qua fides juftificat , ( which / 
think^yon difoWn, ) or fides qua refpicit, apprehendit , recipit 
Chriftum, Which is all one 9 as fides qua fides, or fides qua 
Inftrumentura apprehendens , which Metapborical cxprtffion 
flillfignifieth no more then £ qua credit in Chriftum, or qua fi- 
des? ] Or whether you Willftandto what you have affirmed, chap. 
9* pag, 67. that its Gods affignation of it to the office, who 



Therefore doth it, becaufe he wills ic : andtotokat {onf<*id % 
pag.g04. I he mcercft formal reafon of a Believers Intcrcft 
ro pardon, is- — a Believe? s fulfilling the condition. A>:d 
if jch will ft and to this that joh hwt [aid, and under ft and that 
the Doftrine of us Whom jcu affattlt is the fame ( more carefully 
exprejfed, ) be intreated then to let jour next bolt be Jhot at the 
right mar\ : Which is all t hats now reqttefted ofyou % by 

Your Chriftian Brother ( whether you will or no ) 

Richard Baxts*. 




Richard Baxters 


O F M r 

fohn Tombes his Friendly, Acceptable 


Aphorifms, and other Writings. 

- i 

About the Nature of fuftifi- 
cation^xA of juftifying Faith* 



Printed by K.w. for Ntvtl Simmons , Book- feller in Kc 
dtrmirtfttr, and are to be fold by him there , and by Natht- 
nitlEkins, at the Gun in T>*ult Church-yard. 1658. 


pPO^ reading of the Poftfcript in your 
late Book, 1 have fent you thefe Ani- 
madve fion?. You fay Aphor. of Ju- 
ftification, fag 184. £ ^/// riii^r 
Seriptvres which r pe4k^of Jtiflification at 
done in this I- ft, I nndcrfiand of fxfttfi - 
cation in 7 it It of Lato. So Row. J. I . 
and 4 2. and 5.9. fam. 2.1 1,25 ,#•*•• ] 
I conceiv: Juftification , being Gods 
Aft, Rom. ?.30, Rom.%,i^. consequent upon Faich , and 
calling, and importing a fcnrence oppofre to Condemnation y 
Rem.S, 30,33^4. and 5.1. renr hated on particular perfons, 
Rom. 4.2,3 Rom$.$o it mutt he more then the Vertual 
Juftification in Law-Title ; which K only an ad of God prt- 
fcribing or promifig a way of Juftification, not the fentence 
it feif, and is general, and indeterminate to particular perfons, 
and is performed before the perfon juftified believes : Yea is 
the fame, though none were a dually juftified : and therefore 
inmyapprehc-nfion, that Ad of Gods Covenanting or pro- 
mifing, in which I conceive you place the Juftification by 
Law- Title. Thtf.tf. Is not the Juftification by faith meant, 
Rom.\.\.e$ c. • 

Befides, to be juftified notes- a Pafiion > which prefuppofeth 
an Adion - r an Ad Tranfient, not Imminent ; or only Gods 
purpofe to juftifie: nor can it be Gods Proraifc tojuflific: 

Tt 3 For 


Tor the Aft, though it be Tranfienr, yet it is only a Declarati- 
on what he will do ; his promife to juftifie upon condition , is 
not Juftifying , and therefore a man is not by the Covenant, 
wthuuta further Aft, Denominated Juftified, though he be 
made juftifyable by it. I conceive Juftification is a Court term, 
Importing an Ad of God as Judge, whereas his promifing is 
not his Act as Judge,but ReBor y thef.^z. you mention the An- 
gels judging us Righteous, and Rejoycing therein ; which 
whence ic (hould be>but by a fentence parted in Heaven,I know 
not. Confticutive Juftification, different from Declarative by 
fentence, I do not find exprefled under the term [Juftification] 
It would beconfidered whether any other Ad befides the fen- 
tence, doth make a man juft,buc giving of faith; notwitbftand- 
ingChrifts Death,and the conditional Covenant before faith,a 
pcrfon is only juftifyable ; Cond tiontlu nihil ponit inejfe. A per- 
fon is upon giving of Faithjuftified ; but not by giving of faith 
(thats anaft of Sanftification) but by a fentence ofCod,T^r/'. 
59.Youmake juftification a continued aftjnow it being a tran- 
iient aft,l fuppofe it may not be well called a continued Aft, 
which imports a fucceffive motion between the ternrnns a quo % 
and terminus *l quern \ whereas the aft, whether by fenteme,oc 
Covenants notfuch a Motion. Its not to be deny cd,tbat the 
Benefit and Vertue of it is continued, but I think not the Aft, 
If it be notfemel, but fiepejet it (hould be rathtr celled Aft*** 
Renovattu^RcpetitiuJterattu ,then continued I incline to think 
there is but one Juftification of a perfonin this life, though 
there be frequent remiflions of fin. Of this you may Cpnfider, 
lt[thtS^\vn% Evtrh fling Reft, pag.i i. Doubrlefs the Co i 
pel takes faith for our obedience to All Gofpel Preceprs, Be* 
lieving doth not produce fubjeftionro Chrift as King, as a fi- 
nite, but contains it as anEffential part , &c. Aphor. p. 25.5. 
Faith doth as Really .and Immediately Receive Chrift as King 
( as Saviour,or Prieft) and fo Juftifie^n*/:^. Scripture doth 
not take the word [ Faith ] for any one fingle Aft ; nor yet 
for various Afts of one only faculty ; but for a compieat en- 
tire motion of the whole foul to Chrift its Object, M'/.57* 
It is the Act of faith which juftifies men at Age , and not the 



Againft this I object •, I . Faith toorketh by Lcve, Gal. ?. 
16. Jf one bean effential part of the other, and faith a com- 
pleat entire motion ofthe fou!,thcn when it is faid,Faith work- 
eth by Love, it might be faid,it worketh by Faith. 

a. Gofpel Prccepti are many, if not all , the fame with the 
Moral Law ; if Jaft'fied then by obedience to them, are we not 
juftified by the works of the Law ? You' conceive the Juftifl - 
cation, f*m>2* to be by works in a proper fence and that be- 
fore God i and R+habs act was a work of Hofpiraliry , w.25. 
commanded in the Law; and Ahrzhwtt work was a facnti- 
cingjor offering a work ofthe Ceremonial Law, ver.zi . 

3. Repentancei? obedience to one Gofpel Precept, yet 
Faith and Repentance are diftingnifhed, Mar. 1.15.6,1. Love, 
Faith, Hope, art three, I Cor . 1 3 . 1 3 . I Ti0. 1.5. 1 The/. 1.3. 
ftith and Love have different Objects,Ca/. i^.T^hil.%. 1 The/, 
1*?, Therefore not the fame j nor one an Effential part ofthe 

4. Obedience is a fi^n to prove faith,] am. 2.1%. and chere- 
fore not an E Hernial parr. 

5. if Faith include obedience to all Gofpel Precepts as an 
Effential part,then actual faith includes actual obedience to all 
Gofpel Precepts as an effential jjart;and if the Act of faith Ju- 
.ftific men at Age, not the H*bit • and receiving Chrift as King, 
as irnmediady J uftifie, as believing m drift as Saviour, then a 
per/on of Age is not J unified without actual obedience to all 
Gofpel Precepts, and this may be nor till Death ,i( the n , and 
fo, no Justification in this Life. 

tf.If Faith juftirie^s immediatly by receiving Chrift as King, 
asbv-receivinghim asSaviour , then it juftiries by receiving 
Cbrift as Judge, Mattb.2% 54. as 'Lawgiver, Avenger of his 
cnefeies,andfoa man is jaftified By receiving Chriftj Judging, 
Punithing, Condemning, Commanding, Avenging, as well ft* 
having by his Death ; which is contrary to #0^.3 25. & 5.9* 
7. The Scriptnfe makes the object of jnftifying fairh Ctoifo 
X)eath, Refurrection, Blood, K^.3.2^. &* o o.'(5V.2. 20,-21. 
Nowhere Chrifis dominion. Ergo. *S .objection toGhrift <as King 
S. The object of Taith is -nowhere Ttfafte ro be a Gofpel 

Pr^cepr ? , 

Precept, fuchlis forgiving others, ufing Sacraments,^, nor 
Chrift as commanding ; buc the Declaration of the Accora- 
pli{hmentsofChrift,andthecounfelofGodinhim, i CV.15. 
i.&c.Rcm,i 16,17. 64/. 3. 8. Ergo Obedience is not an Ef- 
fential part. 

9, If itbeaneffcntial pirt, then cither Genus or Diffe- 
rence ; for no other Efllntial parts belong to a quality or Acti- 
on : nottheGenus,that'sA(Tent. ^£.^254. 274. whenthe 
objeft is a Proposition,: when it is an Incomplex term, Truft 
is the Genus : not the Difference, thats chiefly taken from the 
obfed. Keker.fyft. Logic. /. 1. feci. i.e. 2. can. Dtfin. Acrid* 
5 . 7. Obedience may make known Fa th as a fi gn, but not as a 
part, its at leaft in order of Nature after- the caufe is afore 
the effc d: : the Antecedent before the Confequent ; and faith 
is fcch>Hefr.ii.8.&c. 

10. If Faith beacompleatentire motion of the whole foul 
to Chrift, then it faould be Love, Joy, Hope, Urtderftanding, 
Will, Memory, Fear ; But this is not to be faid . Ergo. 

Itisalleadgcd, 1. Faith muft be the Aft of the wholefoul- 
rife part fhould receive him, part nor. 

Anpto. Faith is exprefled by the Metaphor of Receivings 
Jok.i. 12. Col. 1,6. And he is Received by the Receiving of his 
Word, fob. 1 2.48. 1 Tloef.i. 1 3 . which is Received by Affent. 
2. The whole foul receives Chrift, though by other Grace: be- 
fides faith. 

2. v4#j 8.37. ,&?/». 10. io. Ahfo.Tht term [ wbch ] notes 
not every inward faculty ; but (as after) fincerely , not feign- 
edly, as Simon Magm. So Illjricw. 

3. Faith is called Obeying the Gofpel, Rom.10. 16- 1 Pit. 
1.22. & 4.17. zTbtf.\%.Gali.\.&%.7. Heb.$.9. Butthe 
Gofpel commandeth All thus to obey Chrift as Lord, forgive 
others,Iove his people, bear what fuffcrings are Impofed, dili- 
gently ufe his Means and Ordinances^onfefiing^bewailing (ins, 
praying for pardon fincerely and to the end . 

Anpto. Htb.%9* fpeaks of obeyng Chrift,but doth not call 
faith obeying Chrift : but be it granted,Faith is called obeying 
of Chrift, or the Gofpel ; doth it follow that it is obedience in 
doing thole named Acts ? It may be obedience by Affent to 


the Doctrine of Chrift, that he is the Aftjflah£\ti for fins, 
&c. commanded i Cor. 15.3. 1 fob. 3. 23. which the terms 
mtfr&u and <&axvHr do rather Import, then the other Afts 
mentioned. The Gofpel and Truth arc reftrained to the Doc- 
trine of drifts coming, dying, &c, nowhere applyed, that I 
know, to the Precepts of forgiving others ,fuffering death, re- 
ceiving the Lords Supper,^. 

4. The fulfilling the condition of the new Covenant is called 
liilhfiaLi. 12,23,25. 

esfnfaer. Neither of thefe places make faith the fulfilling 
of the Condition of the New Covenant, nor anyplace t\k, 
In Cy <?/. 3.12,. Its faid,the Law,thatis the Covenant of the Law, 
is not of FaitruVdofch not aflign Life to Faith in drift. Faith 
Ga/.}, 23, 25. is put , faith Ptfcat. for the time of the 
Gofpel, or drift, fay others, or the Dodrine of Faith. By 
Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Juftifi- 
cation in this life is fulfilled, not concerning every Benefit of 
the new Covenant. Repentance is the condi:ion of Remifli- 
onof fins;forgivingothers,doinggood to the Saints, of enter- 
ing into Life. 

J. The Gofpel reveals not Chrifts offices as feparate. Ergo. 
They mnft be fo believed. 

Anfw. The conclufion is granted , but proves not faith to 
juftifie in receiving Thrift as KinS. 
6. It offers Chrift as King,and fo rauft be received. Anfwer 
the fame. 

7.Scripture nowhere tieth Juftification to the rcceit of bira as 
prieftonly. ^r.Tbe contrary is proved from Rom. 3. 2 5. & 5.9. 

8. Commonly Chrift is called our Lord and Saviour. Anjw. 
True ; But we arejuftified by his blood. 

9. If we receive him not as a King, then not as an entire 
Saviour. ^«/ft».True ; Yet Juftification is by his death, 2 Cor. 
5.2I.C74/.2.2I. Rem-'} 25 and 5 9. 

10. Chrift is not received truly ,tf not entirely as Kin:. ^«- 
/w.True^But this proves not that obedience is an efler.tjal part 
of faith j orthat fubjcAion to Chrift as King, juftifies as im- 
mediatety,as receiving him as Saviour. 

it. The exalting of his proper Kingly office, is a Principal 
End of Chrifts dying. TV*/- 2. flow, 1 4. 9. 

Uu Anfw. 

^»/W,True \ But it follows not that cither Obedience is 
Effentiat part of faith , or fubjeftion to Chrift as King 

»n JblieriLicll pan. vm raii.ii , vl juujv:y.uv/u tu vyuiiii as iving 

juftifieth as immediately as receiving him as Saviour or 


Tow s in the Truth I. T. 

1 Ts to be eonfidered, i . Whether thefe words, answer to Va- 
•*ledict.orat at 2?. jug. ipi. [ Nothing but thefaufaUionof 
Chrift % u th*t which aar Divhes call the matter of our fuftifica- 
tian , or the Right eoufnefs which ti?« mzft pit ad to Acquit tu it 
Ju>jlgeinc*t.~\ And it is faid Rom, 3. 2, 5 through faith in his 
Blood, and /^fj.5.9. by his Blood, Do noc prove Chrift* 
Death either the fole or chief Objeccof faith as Juftifying- and 
bowthisltandswithAphorifcn of Julification, Thef66. and 
its Explication. 

2 Whether the words, Lul^ii. 14. impart not a dif- 
daiming or denial of a Title to judge , and fo your anfwer 
be not inefficient pag,7,j6, which feems to fuppofr a 

Title,and only a Sufpenfion of Exercife in that ft ite of H'umi-- 


3. Whether if Magiftrates be Officers of Chrift as King, 
by Office they be no: in his Kingdom, and fo Infidel Magi- 
strates in Chrifts Kingdom,contrary toC0Z.1-.14. 

4. If it be maintained, Thtf Chrift died for every Child of 
Adam conditionally, It would be well proved from Scripture, 
that the procuring of fuch a conditional Law or Covenant, 
was the End or Efre<S' , of Chrifts death •, and whether the fo 
Interpreting Texts that fpeak of his dying for all, will no* 
ferve for Eva(So£S to put by the Arguments drawn from them 
to prove Chrifts Satisfaction aid Merit, proper to the Eled. 
For if they may be Interpreted fo>ffe died to procure the conditi- 
on* I Covenant for every one ,this miy be alltdged jjftly ; thcnyou 
can prove no more thence, for that is the fenfc ; and* then we 
cannot prove tbence,,hedied/^0«(3y?^e^Itisamatter of 
much mQfflcnc,aad needs great CircumfpecHi on * Toms. 



ID Eddes] what hitb been formerly fuggefted to you, theft 
^ words in your Scripture proofs, f^.323. ^^ »&fr* £* 
next faith, that in the aged fever al difpofittons art required to fit 
a man to receive p*r don, (and [e juftification)y'a Cathode faith , 
kept of pardon fear fpumjhment, grief for fin >a purpofe again fl fin- 
ing hereafter, axdapurpofe of a new life, all which difpofe the Ke- 
celver ; ami I agree to him, though all do not ] are fo like the 
Dodrine of die Trent Council, fcff.6x.6- thatic will be 
expected you declare , whether by avowing that fpeech of 
Dr. Ward, you do not join with the Papifts, contrary to Bi- 
(hop DoVrnam of J unification, /. 6x.y.§.i.z.\U. Vemble vim- 

And when you make Juftification a continued Ad upon 
condition of obedience, its to be confidercd how you will 
avoid Tompfom opinion of the Intercifioft of Juftification, 
upon the committing of a fin that wads the confciencc, refuted 
by Dr. Rob. Abbot, but vented after by Montague in his appeal, 
and oppofed by Dt.Prefton, and others. 

As for JuftificatioB by Law-Title, by the Covenant upon 
adual Believing, without any other ad of God, confequent 
on Faith ; if it were fo ; 1 . Then it (hould be by necefTary 
Refnltancy ; B ut Judication is an Ad of Will,and no ad of 
Will is by neceflary Refultarcy. 

2. If the Covenant juftifie without any other Ad of God, 
then it Adops 5 GlorifieSjSanctifics, ^.without any other Ace, 
which is not to be fa id. The reafon of the Sequel is, becaufc 
the Covenant of it felf doth in the fame manner produce the 
one as well as the other. 

3- The Juftification of the Covenant is only conditional, 
therefore not Actual- Actual Juftification is not till Faith be 
put: and then Psfita condittcne , it is Actual : A conditional, 
is only a poffiblc Juftification ; its only in fountia^ till the 
Condition be in act; Now the Covenant doth only affare 
it 00 condition, asafuture thirig.not therefore as actual, or 
prefer^. Uo 31 4. The 


4 TheCovenantisanActpaft,7VM.2. (W.3.7,8. fonoe 
condoned •, and confequently, the Juftifict:ion barely by it, 
without any other Act, muft be part long fince, and not conti- 
nued ; and then either Justification Actual, and in purpopfe ; 
or virtual , will be confounded, or an ef%: (hall be continued, 
without the caufe. 
fan.17, 1 65 1. Tours. 

J.T . 

Reverend Sir, 

I AM more thankfull to you for thefe free, candid, rational 1 
Animadverfions, then I can no w cxprefs to you : yet being 
ftill contained to diffent from you,by the evidence of Truth 
I give you thefe Rcafons of my diffent. 

i.Firft, You think that [the Scriptures cited, are not to be in* 
Upreted of ? unification in Title of Lm y becaufe this it only an N 
.AS of Qod preferring or promifing a way of fuftipCation j not 
the fentence it felf ^ and is general } and indeterminate to particu- 
lar perfons, &c. ] To which I arifwer. 1 .That I am paft doubt 
that you build all this on a great miftake about the nature of 
Gods Law or Covcnant d & Promife,& the moral aftion thereof. 
Foryou.muft know that this Promife of God , 1. is not a 
bare Afiertio explicatss de futuro animum qui nunc eft ; ( as 
G><?tf*# fpeaks ; ) Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitation 
cum voluntas feipfam pro futuro tempore determinate cumfigno 
fujficitnte ad judicandamperfevcrandi neceffitatem. But it is 
'Perfefta Tromijfio % ubi ad determinationem ta'em accedit 
fignum volendijus prdprium alteri conferre, qua ftmilem habet 
ejfettum qualem alienatio Domimi. Eft enim aut via ad alienor 
tionem rei y aut alter) dtio par ticuU cujufdam noflra liber tat it > 
&c. Vid % ultra Qroi.de jure Belli IJ.z.c. 1 1 . § .2 . 3 ,4. 

2. This Promife or Covenant Of God,is zlfo bis Teftament : 
and who knoweth not that a Teftament is an ^nftrSlmentot 
properltonatiov, and not only a PredtlUon ? 3. Moreover 
this fame which in one refped is a Covenant and Promifc, aod 
in another a Teftament, is alfo truly part of Gods Law, even 
she New conftiiutiou of Chrift, the Law-giver and King. Bnc 
undoubtedly a Law which conferrcth Right either absolutely 


or conditionally,, is the true and proper raftrument of that 
Effect, and not only [ the prefenting orpromifing a w*y thereto ] 
The proper EfFeS or Product of every Law, is Dtbitum *tU 
quod; Et de foe debito dftermintre is its proper Aft. Now 
therefore this Promife being part of Chrifts Law, doth deter- 
mine of and confer on us , the Debitum, or Right to fententi- 
al Justification, having ftrft given us an Intereft in Chrift, and 
foto the Benefit of his facisfaction ; and this is fufttficatio 
conftitmivd. You know a Deed of Gift ( though but con- 
ditional J is a moft proper Inftrumenc of conferring the Bene- 
fits therein contained. And is nor the Promife undoubtedly 
Gods Deed of Gift ? And doth he not thereby make over, as 
it were under his hand, the Lord Jefus, and all his Benefits to 
them that will receive him? So that when you fay, that££*/ 
Promife to juftifie up in condition* is not '^ftijjigg ] You may 
fee it is other wife by all the forementioned confiderations of 
the nature of the Promife. You may as well fay, a Teflament % 
or deed of Gift conditional-, doth not give % or a LaX> doth not 
confer Right and Title. And in thefc Relative benefits, to 
givcRight to the thing, and to give the thing it felf, or right 
in it, is all one : ( ftill allowing the diftance of time limited 
for both in the Inftrumcnt ) It is all one to give full right to 
fon-fhip, and to make one a Son : or at leaft they are infepa- 
rable. Yea, ( which weigheth moft of all with me ) it being 
die proper work of Gods Laws to giveDunefs of, or Right 
to r B*nefits % it cannot be any other way accomplifhed that is 
within our Knowledge ^ I think ) For Decree, Purpofe, and 
fo Predeftination cannot do it, they being Determination* [de 
eventn , and not dedebito, asfuch: And th^fenttntialdecU' 
mtwwprefuppofeth this Debitumt or true Right eoufnefs, an 
therefore doth not give it. No wonder therefore while you 
deny this Legale Teftamentary, Moral Donation, that you 
are forced alfo to deny Jftftificttion conftitutive; ( but very 
inconveniently andunfafety.) By what way doth God give a 
father Authority over his Children, and a Husband over his 
-Wife, and a Magiftrate over the people, and a Minifter over 
the Church or Flock , but only by this Moral, Legal A&ion? 
And even fo doth he give Power to them that receive him, to 

Uu 3 becomev 


become his Son?. And it is the fame Inftrument which per? 
formeth this, which is called a Promife, Covenant,Teftament» 
DifpofitionorLaw; the name being taken from different re- 
fpe&s or accidental confiderations. 

Again, If the word of Chriftdo judge us, then that word 
doth juftifie and condemn • ( For judging in general con- 
tained thefc fpecial Actions. ) Rut the word doth judge us , 
J and (hall do at the lali day: ) therefore the word doth juftc- 
fie and condemn. 

Again : It is a Rule in the Civil Law ( as VlfUn ) thati?jr 
the [ante ^ay as an Obligation is induced or can fed , it muft be re- 
moved or deftroyed: But by the curfe of the Law, or the 
Threatningof Penalty.was our 6bligation to puniftiment, and 
condemnation induced or caufed : therefore by the way of 
Law dtffolvirg that caufe, muft it be taken off, Now as Rea» 
tut eft obligatio ad Pcenam y fo pardon is the diflblving of thai 
Obligation, ordifchargc from it 5 (Vena & Poena fmnt *4« 
verfa : ) And therefore the Law of Chrift, or this his Pro- 
mife or Grant, is the Inflrument of Pardoning. And me- 
thinks, when you are convinced , that God pardoncth by 
Law or moral A&ion, you (hould eafily yield, that in the 
like way he juftificth. For if you be not of the Judgement, 
that Rmiflion and Justification are aH one: yet you muft 
needs yields that they are of fo near anatnre, that the dif- 
ference is exceeding fmall, and rather notional and respec- 
tive, then real. I might to thefc Arguments add fomewfcae 
from the Iflfue, and different tendency of this my opinion 
and the contrary* As that this doth give Gods Laws their 
honor and dignity, by afcribingto them that higher and more 
noble and cfTeftive Action ; which the contrary opinion de- 
nying it, doth very in juripufly debafe the Scriptures or Lawa 
of God. Alfo that this opinion is the only expedient left, 
( that I can fincJJ to avoid the Amlnomian fancy of an Eter- 
nal Juftiflcation, which all they muft aflert, that fay it is an 
Immanent Act ( whjch you juftly and truly deny.) For 
your way lying in the other extream, 1. Overt hroweth all 
tonftitutive Justification • which is not to be born. ( Whether 
All Tar don by the Covenant, I yet know not your mind ) 

2. And 


ji. And it Intepretetb all Scriptwes ( char /peak of a Jufth- 
fication in this life ) of a f?rang« feigned Juftification, which 
for ought I find hath no ground in Scripture at all • and is 
wholly aliene to our condition ; and a: leaf* utterly un- 
known to us, if not known to be untrue. What doth it con- 
cern a finner to be juflified or condemned now before a Court 
of Angels, wheie he is not prefent,nor knows any thing of it ? 
nor do we know what Angels have to do infuch a bufinefs. 
And what Tranfient Ad is it that God then and there puts 
forth or pcrformeth? Carr you tell ? or doth Scripture tell 
you ? God fpeaketh not to Angels b-y voyce. If you think (as 
the Schoolmen, fome,) th it they fee our Juftification. as other 
things in the face of Go<f,- Chen icis aa rranfient A& Elfe 
why may not t-ey fee it in if felf? Arrd then either our Juftifi- 
cation is Gods Eflence,and they fee it in him as his Eternal Be* 
ing,or elfe God muft bemutable, as having fometbing to be 
feen in him den»vo y which was not in him from Eternity. If 
you fay that this Tranfient Ad is Gods Illuminating the An- 
gelical underffanding to know us to be juftified ; then this fup- 
pofeth that we are juftified already by fome former A&( which 
can be nothing that I know but the moral Act of hi&Lawes : ) 
For their knowing us to be juftified is not a juftify ing us , but 
prefuppofeth us to be what they know us to be. I can think 
of nothing elfe that you can fay, except this , that Conft at 
man may Vocally (or by fome equivalent Tranfient Act) pro- 
nounce us Juftifled; as he will do at Judgement. Eat i . this is 
without Scripture. ?. and it is God -that juftifieth. 3 . And then 
bow were all the faithful juftified before Chrtfts Incarnation 
and Afcenfion ? Or do you think none were juftified before ? 
But I will return to your Exceptions. 
You fay, £ This » but Virtual fuft%fie*tim 1 which is in Law 
Title. Anfw. I . It is tsfclusl Confkitutivt Juftification, &nd not 
Virtual only. 2,But it is indeed but Virtual f$»unti*J justifica- 
tion. But yet itisof the higheft kind of Virtually. Jt h 
that which makes us rt&os in- curia* (which I take to be the na- 
ture of our Juftification in this life.) And taken divipmjt. fee m- 
etb more excellent in fome refpeel, then the fentence or decla » 
ration it felf j forbethatby Parchafeirf^andPardoa<writ- 



ten ) aftcr,maketh Offenders joft in Law,) i. e. ( non obligam 
ad panam , ) feemcth to do more for them by that act, tben 
after by pronouncing them juft . Though yet this laft I know 
is the moft perfect Juftificationjtakenc^jawtfjw with the reft, 
as the end to which they tend , and as that which giveth them 
their full effect. 

Your next Objection is, that this Gofpel Juftification. Q r/ 
general and indeterminate to f articular perfons ] Anfwer.lt can- 
not be more certain or effectual. Forwhenit is to all, no man 
hath reafon to think himfelf excepted ( who excludes not 
birafeif by non-performance of the conditions. ) Every par- 
ticular man is comprized in All. And for the determination, 
the Description of the perfon is as certain a way as the naming 
of him. To give Chrift and his Righteoufnefs to All that 
will receive him, is as effectual a determinate Gift to each 
particular Receiver, as to give him to Peter, Tinl, John by 
name. If a Pardon be proclaimed, or given in the Laws, to 
all Offenders that perform fuch a condition ; is it not as ef- 
fectual to each perfon, as if he were named ? If a Father be. 
queath fuch Lands or Monies to all his Children (or a man 
to all the poor in the town ) on condition that they come by 
fuch a day to fuch a place, and fignifle their acceptance and 
gratitude : is not this as fure and good, as if they were all 
named ? 

Next, You objed, [ Thit id performed, before the perfon 
juftified believes. ] Anfwer. I have faid enough to you of 
this already. ( of Bapt. pag.ioO. ) I add this much : you 
mult diftinguifh between the Phyfical ad of making this Law, 
Promifc> Covenant, Grant or Teftament ; and the Moral 
Agency of this Law, Grant or Teftament once made. The 
former was before we Believed : but the later was not ( pro- 
perly and fully ) till after. Do not all Philofophers and Di- 
vines in the world that .meddle with it;, tell you that this is 
ufual with moral caufes, that they may have all their abfolute 
Entity and vim agendijong before they produe their effeds ? 
and may be Attn primo, etfi nen fecundo efeUum producenie, m 
being long before. The Law that determineth of your right 
to youf Pofleffion, Or that doth give a Reward to every man 



l tbat kiileth a wild hurtfull beaft , or that condemneth every 
mantbatmurderethorcomrn«rtrth Felony, err. was in Be- 
ing before thofe perfons were born perhaps ; And yet it did 
not hoc *gere; it did not Pntmi*re> Punire, Pracipere, &c. as 
to this man before"; A pardon from a Prince ?o a f ray tor, on 
condition, doth not perform the moral act of his difcharge,till 
he perform the condition, though it were in being before. 
The like r may fay of a Teftament or Deed of Gift : But 
what need many words in a cafe where the Troth is fo obvi- 
ous ? If fome mora! caufes may be canfes, and Agere mora- 
liter y or prodace their effects, even before they are naturally 
in Being, much more may they fufpend it, and fo produce it 
long after they are in Being : Camfe enim moralis ea ratio eft t 
ut ctiam cum non eft uElu % fit efficax, medo habe at ( mt loquun- 
tur in fcholti) e§e ccgnitumiinqmt RivetUS Difput.i$. de fdttf- 
fatt.Chrifli. pag.282. 

Next you fay, [_ Tea it is the fame, though none Were a&u- 
ally jnftified. ] Anfwer. This requires no other anfwer, then 
what is given to the former. It is the fame Phjfsce conlderata f 
vel in Entitate ntturali : But the moral action of pardoning 
and juftifying is not the fame, nor is at all : A conditional 
^Pardon^ Deed of Gift, Teftament, &c. doth not at all par- 
don, or (jive, till you perform the condition. For it is the 
proper nature of a condition to fufpend the ad of the Grant : 
fo that till it be abfolute or equal to Abfolute, it is not Atlu* 
*/RcmifIionJaftiflcation, £-c. ) The reafon of all this is,be- 
caufe thefe Laws, Teftaments or Proraifes, are but the Law- 
makers, TeHators or Donors Inftruments , and therefore 
ad when and how he pleafes : and it is his pleafure that they 
fhould ad nootherwife then as is aforefaid,and as in the Te- 
nor of them he (hall exprefs. 

Next ycuadd \_Tohe)n^ified % notes apAJfion* Vvhkh pre- 
fufpifetb an AUion tranfient y not immar.ent,or onlj Gods purpofe 
tojnftifie : ] Anfwer 1. ^0 far as the Reception of a Rela- 
tion may be called a Paflion, this is true: And no doubt you 
are in the right, that it is not AElus immanent. But now, 
What tranfitnt Ait it is, I remember very k w Divines that 
once tell us 5 bat only in general fay, h u aTranfient A&. 

Xx Now 


Now you arid I that have adventured to enquire, do happen to 
be both lingular from others,and differing between our felves, 
( only Mr. Rutherford % and fome few others I find faying 
oft, thai we are pardoned and juftified by the Gofpel ; by 
which they feem to mean as I )But for your way of Jurtificati- 
on by a fentence before the Angels , as I never met with any 
that jadged that to be our Juftification by Faith, fo as I have 
iaid, it feems to me very groundlefs and ftrange. And then, 
if yours ftand not, mine only muft, for any thing that is yet 
difcoveredjthat I have feen/or I know of none that tells us of 
any third, 

Your nexr Objection is the fame before anfwered , that 
[ Gods Tronsife to juftifit, u only a declaration what he V(>$il do , 
and therefore a man is not bj Covenant without a further Act 
yuftifitd^ but ]u fit fable. ] Anfwer. Grotius defatisfatl. will 
tell you, thatPromifes give right to him to whom they arc 
made; and that therefore they cannot be reclaimed, though 
threatnings may. But if thefe were only Promifcs chat God 
will by another Ad do this or that for us, then it were to the 
purpofe that you fay : but that you cannot prove. Nor needs 
there any other Ad, but the moral Adion of the Inftrument 
itfelfto change our Relations here : Etfruftrafit proplura t 
&c. Indetdan Ad of our$[fBelitving]muft come in before 
the effed : but you and 1 arc agreed, that this is but conditio 
! onal, and not effedive. Thefe Promifei therefore being alfo 
j Gods Law, Teftamerit ( of Chrift ) Deed of Gift, Cove- 
nant c. they do not only foretell an Event to come to 
pafs by Tome other Action-, but they do confer a Right or 
make due the benefit or relation, and fo effect it ; only the 
Author is pleafed to fufpend the tflfed of his Inftrument, till 
we perform the Condition. As if by a Leafe, or Deed of 
Sale, there be fome Office or Dignity made over to you ■ or 
fome command m Army or Court, or Country : or by a Law 
a Foraigncr be Naturalized or Enfranchized, on fuch or fuch 
a ConditionjThis Leafe or Deed,or Law doth not only foretel, 
but cried the thing. 

You add that £ f unification is a C^urt-term^ importing an 
.Mi cf Cjo&tis fudge, whereas his fromifng is not ' his A tl a$ 


je, hutRetlor.] Anfwer i. If by a Court-term, you 
alftTmean a L*»-ttrm, ( verbum forenfe or juMciarium in the 
full fenfe) I agree with you. But if you confine it to the fen- 
tence as pronounced, I require Proof; as alfo proof of any 
fuch fentence before Judgement, particular or general. A 
Redor is either Supremus w Sub alt emus : A Judge is either 
fupreme above all Laws, as being the Law-giver, or fab lege. 
God is both Reftor and fudge, only in the firft fenfes : and 
by judging, he Ruleth ; and Rettor is but the Genus, whereof 
Judex is z [pedes. As Rcftor fupremus , God is the Legiflator, 
and fo actcth (and juftifieth by his Laws, Grants, tfrc. ) 
as Judge he fentencetb and abfolvech thofe that were firft 
made juft. A man is accofed for killing another in fight, at 
the command of the Sovereign Power. Is it not as fit and 
proper a faying, to fay [The La\\>dothjuftifie this man for fo 
doing agiinft all Accvfers, J as to fay, £ The Judge mlljufttfie 
hit»> ]\ Nay, Is it no: more ordinary ? And in a fort, the 
Suprcara or Soveraign may be faid to be ( though in a diffe- 
rent fenfe ) /unified , as well as an Inferior ^ when yet the fard 
perfon to" ' uprcmacy hath no Judge, nor is to have any by 
Law,and fo cannot be juftificd by fentence. God will be jufti- 
fied in his fayings,e^.as he hath in a fort bound himfelf by his 
ownLaws,th;?t is,figniflcd his Refolutiontoobferve them; fo 
in the fenfe of thefe Laws, his works are now juft, and (ball be 
hereafter fo be manifeftcd : but not by any fentence of 
a Superior. Cut this I confefs differeth from our Jufttfica- 

Next you fay, £7** fyoft not whence itfiouldbe that Angeis 
Jhould ju iee us righteous, and rejoice therein, but by a fentence 
p 'fed in H?~vol J Anfwer. If you think ( and prove ) that 
Angels cannot know us to be righteous then I will not affirm 
that they judge us fo. For I prefuppofe that that the/ know us 
to b* fo made by fome Act before,and therefore they judge us 
to be as we are. And if they may know that we are Believers, 
and know that th* New Law juftifieth all fuch, then they may 
judge us ro be juftified without any fentence rn Heaven, even 
as they know when a (inner is converted, and rejoice in it ^ 
which doubtlefs they may know without a fentcr.ee in 

Xx 2 Heaven 


Heaven pronouncing us converted; and Gods making then* 
Inftruments in conferring his Mercies may make them 

You fay that[ Conftitutive f unification , different from Dei 
clarativeb) fentence, I do not find exprefled under the term (J\x* 
ftification : ) it would be considered » Whether any other Atl be- 
fide the fentence ^ doth ma\e a man juft , but giving of faith. 3 
Anfwer. Thefe two things I fhall prove to convince you : (be- 
caufe this is of fome moment.) i • That Tome Ad there muft 
be to conHitute us juft,before or befides the fentence. 2. That 
neither the fentence nor the givingof Faith doth firft and pro- 
perly conftitute us Juft. 

1 . If we be not juft before we arejudged as juft,then God* 
Judgement Gvould not be according to Truth. Rut Gods Judg- 
ment is according to Truth : therefore we are juft before we 
arefo judged. 2. Hethat hath Chrift,and the Benefits of his 
fatisfa&ory Righteoufnefs given him by the New Law, Cove- 
nant, Tcftament or Grant of Chrift, is hereby conftituted righ- 
teous. But every Believer hath Chrift and the faid benefits Gh 
ven him in and by the Law or Covenant: therefore he is there- 
by made or conftituted Righteous. 

And here by the way take notice, that the New Law or Co- 
venant hath two Offices ; the one to Befiow Right to the Be- 
nefit; and hereby it mak,es Righteous : The other to Declare 
and minifefi openly, and to be the Rule ofpublique Judgement ; . 
and Co it doth both atlione morale proclaim believers righteous, 
and Virtually fentence them lb. And therefore in Rom. 10. 5. 
itjs called £ the Righteoufnefs which U of the La® ] And if the 
Old Law had a power of making Righteous , if man could 
have performed the condition, fo alfo hath the New. 

2, And that the fentence do:h not conftitute us Juft , needs 
no proof; It is the. work of a fudge by fentence to clear the 
Guiltlefs,and not to make them Guiltlefs. Pardon indeed may 
do fomewbac to it : but that is not the adion of a Judge as a 
Judge, but ( as you before diftinguilhed ) QfzReftor ( in cafe 
of tranfgrefling Lawes.J A Judge pronounceth men to be 
what they firft are according to Law ; and not makes them to. 
b&righteous who are not. He that faith to the wickgdjhou art 


C 34-J) 

Righteous, Nations fall curfe htm ^ pecplefhaU bhor him: Vtol 
24.24. He that jvfiifittb the Wicked , and hi that condemneth 
the }nft,even they both are abomination to the Lird,Trov.ij.i$. 
If this were not fo,then we rauft believe that no man is juftified 
before the day of ( particular or general ) Judgement, till you 
have proved that God fentenceth at a Court of Angels. 

And that the Giving of Faith doth not make Righteous 
(that is, according to the Law of works) efe&ve, I think you 
confeft. If I thought you did not, it were very eafily proved : 
Faith being but the condition of our univerfalrighteoufnefs 
(which the old Law requireth in its fteadjeannot be that Righ- 
teoufnefsitfelf : and fome other efficient there muft be of our 
Justification here. 

Next you fay [ NoVtolthft aniing Chrifis Deith*<d the Con- 
ditional Covenant afore faith, a per (on it only jufltfyable ' Con- 
ditionals nihil fonitejfe.'] Anf*. All this is very true : but not 
any thing againft me. I like well what you fay of Chrifts death, 
becaufe it is (as Aquino* and cur Da venavt } VJZ?er, &c.fay t ) but 
C'aufauniverfalU^vtl Remedium omnihtu applicabile. It is ttt 
prepare for and merit, & not direftly to effeft our Juftification, 
( whatfocver the Aminomia>js dream: ) But the Covenant or 
Teftamentis the very efficient Inftrumental caufe of Juftifica- 
tion: and its Aftion is Gods Aftion. Yet its tiu.* that Condi* 
tionalis ni'ilponit in ejft : that is, till the condition be perform- 
ed : but then it becometh of equal force to an Abfblute Gift , 
and doth ponerein ejfr.even the fame Inftrumenc doth ir,whofe 
Aft ion till then was ( by the Authors will) fufpended. 

YOu next pafs to another Point ( about Tbef.%9) whe:her 
Juftification be a continued Aft. And you fay that [ be* 
ing aTranftent Aft , it cannot be well called a contiwtd Aft, 
Which imports a fucceffive motion between the Terminus a quo 
and ad quern, whereas thU Aft , vhttber by fintence or Cove- 
nant, i* not fuch a motion, &c] A rip*. 1. All this may be true 
of a proper natural Aftion .- but you know that it is only a 
moral Aftion-which I affirm to be continued , and of this you 
know your Rule de mtu holds not , except you take Afrtus 

Xx 3 .Iwgcty 


largely and improperly. As paffive Justification, or the effeft 
of the Juftifying Aft is but a Relation, which is the weaker!: of 
Entities; fo doth it per nudum refultantiam arife>which is by the 
weakeft of Caufalities; The Act of God giving out and enaft- 
mg this Law or Covenant at fkft,was indeed a proper tranfient 
Act, and is ceafed : but the moral Action of the Law thus ena- 
fted is continual* The Law of the land , which condemneth 
Delinquents, and juftifieth the obedient, doth both by a conti- 
nued moral Aft. The Leafc of your Houfc or Lands gives 
you Title thereto by a continued moral Aft So that this which 
I aiTert, is not Alius repttittu velrenovMu*. 

You add that £ You incline to think, that then is but one Ju* 
ft if cation of a T erf on in thiflife y though frequent Remijfion of 
fin*'] Anfw. In that you judge as moft of the Orthodox do : 
And I have faid nothing to the contrary. I think alfo, that as 
Scripture ufeth the phrafe of oft-forgiving , but feldom of ofc- 
juftifying, fo it is fafeft to fpeak as Scripture doth. Yet as to 
the things me thinks, that as Remiffion and Judication do but 
refpeftivelyorvery narrowly differ; fain this cafe, one may 
as truly be faid to be repeated, as the other : that is, As there 
is an univerfal Remiffion of all (in paft, upon our firft true Re- 
lieving • which univerfal Remiffion is never iterated, but con- 
tinued : fo is there an Univerfal Juftificatton of the perfon at 
the fame time, by which he is made juft, ( and in Law fo eftee- 
med , pronounced or judged ) by being acquit from the con- 
demning Power of the Law, which ( for his (ins paft only) was 
before in force againft him. And fo if you look to fuch a Re- 
miffion or Juftification as wholly changeth the Mate of the per- 
fon, making him Pardoned who was before wholly unpardon- 
ed* and fqlly under guilt of all former fins ; or making him ju- 
ftified who was before unjuftified, and condemned ( in Law ; ) 
neither of thefe I think, are iterated. But chen , as you con- 
fefs a frequently renewed pardon for following fins, fo I know 
no reafon, but in the fame fence there muft be a frequent Jufti- 
fying : For as our Divines well conclude, that (in cannot be 
pardoned before it be committed (for then there fhould be 
pardon without Quill •, for no man is Guilty of fm to come 
formally ; ) fo is it as neccflary to conclude, that no man is ju» 



ftified from fin before it be committed • that is,from that which 
is not •, and fo is not fin ; For then Juftincation fhould go be- 
fore and without Legal Accuftcion and Condemnation : For 
the Law accufeth and condemneth no man for a fin which is 
not committed, and fo is no fin. It is faidv/tf/ 13.59. that 
(by Chrift)w# arc Jmfttfifdfrem all things jrom Which \X>e could 
r,$ihc juftified by thi Laft efMofts. Where,as I defit e you co 
obfervc that phrafe of being ?*ftifi*dby the Law,to (Lew it is 
tnA&oftheLaw ( though fin rnaketh tranfgreffors unca- 
pablej fo you fee it is a Scripture phrafe to fay, we are f*fti- 
fitd from fin : And then either there muit befomekind ofpar- 
ticular Juftification from particular (ins after faith , of the na« 
ture of our renewed particular Pardon ; orelfe what will be- 
come of us for them ? For fure if the Law be (o far in force 
againft the actions of Believers as to mike and conclude them 
Guilty and Obliged to Punifhment (as much as ink lycth) and 
fo to need a frequent ptrdon ( for pardon is a difcharge from 
Guile, which is an Obligation to punifhment ; ) then it mu t 
needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation, and fo 
to Accufe f and as much as in it lyes to condemn) them ,• and fo 
they muft need alfo a particular J unification. But then ac- 
cording tomy Judgement, 1 . There is a fure Ground laid of 
both in the Gofpel or new Law or Covenant. 2. And the faid 
New Law doth perform it, by the fame Power by which it did 
univerfally juftifie and pardon them at the firft. There needech 
no addition to the Law. The change is in them : And the Law 
is laid Mora/iter a ftrt quid ante anon afttimerat , becaufe of 
their new Capacity, neceftity and Relation. As if your Fa- 
thers Teftament do give you a thoufand pound at his Death, 
snd twenty fhillingsa week as long as you live after , and fo 
much at your marriage, &c. here this Tettament giveth you 
thefe new fums (after the firft ) without any change in it • and 
yet by a new moral A& ; for it was not a proper Life, nil rh? 
Term cxpreffcd,or the condition performed .* and if that tei m 
hid never come, nor the .condition been performed , you had 
uever had right to it : (o 1 conceive, Gods Gofpel Grant or 
Terlament doth renew both our Rcmiffion and particular Ju- 
ftification > If Satan fay, Tkk mm hnihdtftrvtddtAih by fin- 

C 34-4) 

■tng face y Believed (as David) muft WC notbe juftifiedfrom 
that Accufation? 

And here let me ask you one Queftion , which I forgot be- 
fore about the fit ft Point. Seeing you think (truly) that Par- 
don is iterated as oft as tve fin,by what Transient A& of God 
is this done ? Doth God every moment at a Court of Angels 
Declare each (inner in the world,remitted of his particular fin? 
(Tor every moment we commit them. ) If you once-fec a ne» 
cefficyof judging the New Covenant or PromifeGods Par- 
doning Injlrument^ I doubt not but you will foon acknowledge 
as much about Jttftification. And fure a Legal or written In- 
ftrument is fo proper for this work, that we ufe to call it [ A 
P*rdo»,] which a Prince writes for the acquitting of an often- 

Be(ides,the Gofpel daily juftifieth by continuing our Juftifi- 
cation, as your Leafeftill giveth you Title to your Land. 

(Mat. i*. 37. is of more then the continuance of Juftificati- 
on, even of J uftification at Judgement.) 

THe next Point you come to about the Nature and Object 
of Faith,you are larger upon , through a miftake of my 
words and meaning. I know not therefore how to Anfwer 
your Arguments till I have firft told you my fence , and better 
ftated the Queftion. 

Indeed that in pag.i 1. of Reft, I apprehended my felf,fo ob- 
vio us to mifconftruclion, that I have corrected it in the fecond 
EdVjon (which is now printed. ) Yet 1. I fpoke not of faith 
as Juftifjing, but as the condition of Salvation, which contains 
more then that which is the condition of our firit juftifkation. 
2. I ncuer termed t ho k-Gofpe l-Precepts t whkh are not in fome 
way proper to the Gofpel. And for the next words £ That 
fufyfticn to Chrift u an EffentiaJ part of faith. ] I confefs I do 
not only take it for a certain Truth, but alfo of fo great mo- 
ment, that I am glad you have bent your ftrength again!! it , 
and thereby occafioned me to fearch more throughly. But 
then, if you think (as you fc*m to do ) that by •£ Subjeflion ] 
I meanQ AftnalObtdmct J you quite miftake me : for I have 



fatly opened my mind to you about this in myAphorif. tha E 
fpeak only of the fubjtttion of the Hearty and not of the 
^tf*tf/0^i>*rr,whichisthepra&ifcof it. I fpeak but of the 
Acceptation of Chrift for our Lord, or the Conftnt thereto, 
and fo giving upourfelves to be his Difciples, Servants or 
Subje&s. This I maintain to be an Effential part of juftifying 
Faith,in the ftrict and proper fenfe of that word. 

Its true that dejure Chrift is King of Unbelievers, and fo of 
them that acknowledge him not to be their King. But in or- 
der of nature, the acknowledging of his Dominion, and 
confent thereto, and fo receiving him to be our Kin£, doth go 
before our obeying him as our King. As a woman in marri- 
age-Covenant , taketb ber Husband, as one whom (he muft 
obey add be faithfull to : But that taking or confenring. goes 
before the faid Obedience, as every Covenant before the 
performance of it. Yea though the fame act fhould be both 
an acknowledgement of, and confent to the Authority, and 
alfo an obeying of it ; yet it is Quatenut a confent and accep- 
tance of that Authority, and not as it is an obeying of ir, that 
I fpeak of ie when I afcribe Juftifkation to it : as faith in the 
common fenfe is certainly an act of Obedience to God : and 
yet Divines fay , it justifies not as ic is Obedience, but as an 
jnftrumtnt. So that by Heart'ftih\tttion to Chrift, I metfn 
that act by which we give upourfelves to Chrift as his Sub- 
jects to be ruled by him •, and by which we take him for our 
Soveraign on his Redemption. title. But when 1 judge the 
word Faith to bz taken yet in a larger fenfe, comprehend- 
ing obediencej never faid or thought that fo it is the condition 
of our firft Juftifka :ion,norwi!l I contend with any that thinks 
the word is never taken fo largely , it being to me a matter of 
fraal moment. Now to your Objections. 

I, ^OU fay, [ Faith Vorkethbj Uvt, &c.s^ Anfw. 
I I. Faith is fometimc taken ftrictly for a Belie -.'of 
Gods word* or an Aflent to its Truth. 2. Sometime more 
largely for the wills embracing alfo of the objec as an offered 
good, befides the uoderftandings AfTcnt to the Truth of the 

Y y word 


word which offereth if. The former if by the A poftie ofc diftin- 
gutfoed from Love, and is faid to work by Love ; as cbe live- 
ly acts of the understanding produce anfwcrable motions in 
the will. Bat the later is that faith which juft . fieth • to wit, 
The Receiving of an of end Chrift. And this comprfczeth both 
the Act of the Undcrftanding and Will ( as almoft ail Protc- 
ftant Divines affirm. ) Bat bo:h tbefe acts together are called 
Faith hom the former, which is moftftrictly fo called: be- 
caofe the great difficulty then lay in Befoeving the Truth of 
the Gofpel, ( and would do ftM, if it were not for the ad- 
vantages of Credit, Education, Cuftom r c^ ^ therefore the 
whole work is thence denominated : though yet the corn- 
pleating of the work be in the Will, and the Underftandings 
Act but preparatory thereto. 2. You srtuft alfo diftinguilh 
between Love to Cbrijl the Mediator, and the Grace of Cha- 
rity i* general, as it is extended alfotoGod as Creator, to 
Saints, to all men, &e. And between that firft act of Love, 
which is in our firft receiving of Cbrift, and the love which 
wc afterwards exercife on him : and fo I anfwer you, 1. That 
as the Apoftle diftingui&eth between Faith, Hope and Love, 
fodol. a. Faith taken ftrictly foraffenc ro Divine Teftio 
raony , producetb love in every one of the foreraentioned 
&nfes ( of the word Love : J 3. Jnftifying faith (comprizing 
ffhe wills acceptance ) produceth both the grace of Charity, as 
ic is excrcifed on other objects, and alfo the following acts of 
it towards Cbrift the Mediator: And fo I acknowledge that 
Faith workcthby Love, and that Love is not faith. But yet 
whether Love be not in fome fenfe eflential to juft ifying faith, 
if you fpeak only of Love to Chrift, and that not as a diftinct 
grace, but as it is comprized in our Accept anct of him at firft, 
I (hall leave to your consideration, when you have firft refol- 
ded the fe things. 1. Whether jaftifying faith be not an act of 
the Will as wdi as the Underftanding ? Few but Papifts de- 
ny it, and not all of them. 2. Whether Chrift himfeif be not 
tie object of it? Few Proteftants will deny it. 3. Whether 
Qoii be notthc^jf^of the Will, and fo Cbrift be not wil- 
led as Good? None doubts of it. 4. Whether this willing 
Sbe not the feme as Loving, as love is found in the rational ap- 



petite ? Sore Aqutnts faith fo, ro man that I knew contra 
dieting it. 5. Whether ycu can call affiance, oranyotber 
arc of the will jufiifjirg faitb 9 excluding tbiswi/AVg, ornot 
principally irxkiding it? For 1. Tbi$i$ the W- ills firft ace to- 
wards it object ; and will ycu fay that Love goes before jufti- 
fying faith, and fo before Juftification ? ard futh a Love is is 
diftinct from juftify ing faith a* being ro part of it ? How then 
is Love the fruit of faith, and as Divines fay, a confequent of 
Juftification? Yet it is beyond all doubt, that this VeiU or 
Love to Chrifl goes before Affiance on him, or any other act 
of iht WWlvidi A quirt. 1.2. ^23.^.33. £m 2&o.*.i Et 
Tolet it amma, /. 3 . cap.g. ^27,28 Et Amef contra Qrsvin- 
chov.pag.i6. 2. And can it be imagined that preceding aflent, 
and fubfequent Affiance, in Cbrift (hould be conditions of our 
Jmtification • and yet the Vefle Chriflvm ibUtnmshtx. willing 
which we call Conft*t % Election or Acceptance^ which goeth be- 
tween aflent and Affiance,fhould be excluded as no part of this 
condition ? s.Efpecially confidering that Affiance contains di- 
vers a&s,whereof one is of the Irafcible of the fenfuive,and fo 
is but an imperate ad of the Will , and lefs noble then that elf- 
cite Aft ( which I plead for,) a s well as Pofttrier to it : and if 
Aqstin. be not out in his Philofophy , when he fo oft faitb that 
jMticis is fpes roforataythen our Divines make Hope to juftific. 
Yet for all this, I have not efpoufed this faying, that Love 
U Cbrift is EJfential to jtfftfying faitb ' nor will contend with 
any man that thinksnt unmeet ; if we agree in the things of 
moment,! hate fo quarrel about words. 

Nor do I think it a meet phrafe to fay, we are juftifiedbj 
Lcv9 % (though in thefenfe before mentioned, I think it true,; 
becaufeitis wit a part, oraffeclion as it were of that rccep* 
tin, by which we are juftified, and ftands not in fo full a rela- 
tion tothe objeA received. 

And yetp if I bad faid none of all this, I fee not that I need 
anymore then to deny your confequence, as being wholly 
ungrounded: For it followeth not , that £ it be an clTen- 
tsal part , that therefore it muft have the DcFomination 
of the whole : yea , though the whole be faid to work bf 
that part. The Brain and Heart are effential pans of the 

Yy2 Body: 

Body : and yet not to be called the Body ; and it is more pro- 
per to fay that the body works by the Brain or Heart ; ot 
that the vegetative foal doth work by the natural heat and 
Spirits; then to fay, the Body worketh by the Body, or the 
vegetative foul by it felf. I will explain all together in my 
ufual Similitude, which is Dr. Preftons ( or rather Pauls ) 
A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon, and alfo to be 
made a Queen, if (he will but take the Prince for her Hus- 
band. Now here put your Queftions. i . h Love Any part 
cftke Conditim of her Pardon and Dignit) ? Anfwer, Yes : 
An effential parr^for Confent is of the EiTencc of it : and Love 
is eiTentiai to true confent, to receive any offered good : Not 
love as it is a Pajfton, but as it is an a& of the rational Appe-! 
cite ; which is but Velle^ And £hgere t C on/entire ^Acetftare are 
nothing elfe but a refpettive willing. 2 . But it is qoc Love as 
a Venue in general, or as exercifed on any other obje&,iwhich 
isjthis effential part of the Condition : but only love to him 
whom (he married. And fo her firft love is neceffary to her 
Pardon anjd Dignity as begun ; and her continued love ( and 
marriage-faitbfulnefs ) is neceffary to them as they are robe 
continued : ( fuppofing the Prince to know the heart as Chrift 
doth. ) Qu.2. lsittbenameetpbrafetofayfhat (he is pardon^ 
tdand dignified b} loving ftrch a Prince} Anfw.. it hath fome 
Truth m it, but it is not a fit fpeech ; but rather that it is by 
marrying him, becaufe Love is but a part, or as it were an Afr 
feSion of that CM arriage Covenant ot confent , which indeed 
doth dignifie her. Love may be without marriage, but not 
Marriage ( cordially ) without Love. So in our prefent cafe, 
juftifying faith is the very Marriage Confent or Covenant 
with Chrift ^ It is therf ore fitter to fay, we are jufcified by it^ 
then by love ; becaufe the former expretfeth the full conditU 
on : the latter not. £>u. 3. ■ // love be an effential part of the 
Marr\agi-confent , then may wt not as.. rrellfay i Marriage cauf- 
gth Marriage, as to fay , OWarriagecaufethLwe. Anfwer NoJ 
for 1 -., That Love which it caufeth, is the following ads 0$ 
Love. 2. An#thej name of Love is moft ufually given only 
so the Paflion which is in the fenfitive ; but not ufually to the 
jneei Vtllt % tjic elicite ad of the rational appetite. I have 



been the more prolix on this, becaufe itferves rifo for ati- 
fwer to other of your Objeftions.efpecially the third . 

3. You objc&[ Cjofpel- Precepts are many, if not all, the 
fame Veith the *soral L*W: ifj«ft*fied then bj obedience to tbenr % 
art toe net jttftified by the workj of the Law > &c. Anfwer. 
i, fumes yields the whole. 2. If youfpeak of our Juftifi* 
cation at firft, by which, of gaiicy and lyable to condemna- 
tion, we become recli in carta, or are acquit, I then yield aH 
chat you feek here, viz. that we are not juftified by works; 
jv This objection is grounded on your forraentioned raiftake 
of ray meaning, as if I thought that juftifying faith contained 
cffentiaily iuch ofodience or works. 4. We are not juftified 
by works of the Law, if you mean the Law of works, or by 
any works which ma^e the reward ro be not of Grace, but of 
Debt, which are the works that 7>4«/fpeaks of. 5. That 
which you call the moral Law, viz. the bare Precepts of the 
Decalogue, taken Divifim, without th^ fanSion , vfc. the 
Promife or the Commination , is not the Law, but one part cf 
the Law : and the-.other part, viz. the fan&ion adjoined, if 
diverfified,nakesittw<>diftinA Laws, though the Duty conr- 
raanded be the fame, The Law that commandeth Socrates to 
drink Cictttam, is not the fame with that which fhould com* 
mand a fick man to drink fome for a cure. 6. That our J uni- 
fication is continued, on condition of our fincere obedience; 
added to our faith, I mantain with fames. 7. Will you anfwer 
your own obje&i )n, and you rell me what to anfa/er : Faith 35 
a duty of trie moral Law : if we are juftified by faith, then we 
are juftified by a work of the Law. I know you will not eva Je 
asthofethat fay,Fa th is not a work>buc a Paffion nor as thofe 
that fay, we are juftified by it nDt as a work, butasanlnftm* 
merit : for I have heard you difdaim that.If you fay it is notas 
a work, but as a condition by the free Law giver appointed to 
this end, then you fay as I do,both of fauh,and fecondarilyof 
works. For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of 
Salvation, or of the final Justification r'orefourprefent Jufti* 
ficaticn as continued, vtinanamittendi fuftificMtionemjaa^e* 
ceft/tm, as CW. 'Begins faith ; I know but one other evafion 
leftin the world; which I once thought none wouldhava ad* 

Yy 3 ?eoftr 


ventured on ; but lately an acute Difputant (with me) main- 
tains , that faith u not conditio moralis , vol ex volmtate conjh* 
tktntisjbut Conditio phyfica vel ex natter* rts.Bttt I chink I (hall 
cafily and quickly difprove this opinion. 

Rihabs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law 
of Grace, and not of the old Law of works. 

In a word , As there is a twofold Law , fo there is a twofold 
Accufation and Juftification : when we are accufed as breakers 
oftheLawof works,thatis,asjfo/wj in common fort, and fo 
as lyable to the penalty thereof , then we plead only Chrifts 
fatisfadion as our Righteoufnefs , and no work of our own : 
But when we are Accufed of final non- performance of the con- 
ditions of the New Law, that is of being RejeftorsofChriftthc 
UWediator, we are juftified by producing our faith and finccre 
obedience to bim. The former Paul fpeaks of , and James of 
the latter. You may fee Divines of great Name faying as I in 
this, as UWead, Deodtfe on James the a. butmoft fully Tla- 
caw inThef. SalmurienfThef.de fuftific.&c. 

To your third Obje&ion, That Faith, Repentance, Hope and 
Love (as before explained) are diftwguijhed, I eaflly yield you. 
But where youfayf Faith and Love have different Objefts there- 
fore one U no ejfential part of the other ) I anfwer, That faith in 
Chrift, and Love to thcSaints (which your Texts mention ) 
have different Objefts, I foon confefs. But faith in Chrift (as 
it is the firft Ad of the Will) and Ipve to Chrift, have one and 
the fame Objeft,beyond all doubt. 

Your fourth I wholly yield, if you fpeak of faith ftrifily, or 
as it Juftifieth,and not in a large improper fence. 

Your fifth is grounded on the foremen cioned miftake of my 
meaning. And there needs no further anfwer, but only to tell 
you, that though finccre obedience to all Chrifts Lawes be a 
part of the condition of our Juftification a* continued and con- 
fummate at Judgement ; yet it follows not that every particu- 
lar duty mart be dooe.no more then that Adam muft obey eve- 
ry particular Law before he were adually juft. It is fufficfent 
that there be no other defed in our Obedience, but what may 
(land with fincenty. The fame Precept may command , or 
make Duty to one, and not to another, and fo be no Precept 



as to him. A rain that lives bat an hour after his converfion, 1 
is bound fincerely to obey Chr ift according to his Law • bat be 
is not bound to build Churches, nor to do the work of twenty 
years. Chrift may be received as King, (and is) in the fame 
moment in which he is received as J uftiher - 9 and in that recep- 
tion we covenant to obey him, and take him for eair lord to 
, the death ; but not to obey him on earth when we are dead ; 
for w* arc then freed from thefeLawes, and come under the 
Lawes of the Glorified. 

To your fixth I anfwer , The Texts alledged have no (hew 
of contradiding the Point you oppofe. One faith,*/ are ju- 
ftifiid by his Bitot ; But doth it thence follow/* herefore nrtbj 
BtUtving in him or receiving him as King , 4re we m*de part a- 
k?rs of it.) His Blood is the Porchafing caufe , but We enquire 
after the condition on our part. The other Text faitb, {through 
fakh in hu Blood.) But i. it faith notonlj in his Blood. 2»An4 
his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of bis fufti* 
fyingus : for by his blood he bought ail into his own band*: 
For to this end he Died, Rofe and Revrved, that he might be Lord 
ofDeadandLiving.Rom.i4*9+ It may be therefore through 
faith in hie Blooi, as the chief part of the fatisfadion, and yet 
ncccfTarily alfo through faith in himfelf , or the Reception of 
kimfe/fis the Chrift. $. Yec doth the Apoftlcmoft conveni- 
ently fay, {through faith in his blood) rather then (through faith 
in his Dominion or Government,) becaofe when he fpeaks of 
Faith, he fpeaks Relatively : not ( as fome underftand it ) by 
Faith meaning Chrift , but ufing trie name of that Ad which 
fklicft and fulheft relates to its Objed; and fo intending the 
Object more principally then the Ad. And as it is fitter to 
fay, that (we are ?#ftfi>dby Chrift j blood,) then that (we art 
fuft$fiedby his Kingly Power J therefore the Apoftle rather 
fpeaks of faith t* hx bloody asneerlicft relating to the Objcd. 
Yet, as heexdudes not Chrifts obedience, (Tor by hU cbedunce 
many are made Righteous) nm faith in his cbtdience, and in his 
whole humiliation as well as his blood ; and in hir Rrfurrelli* 
en,and Inter cefftou and Exaltation • fo not in his iCfcgly Office. 
Look back on the former Example to make this plain. A poor 
condemned woman is delivered and Dignified by marrying a 



Prince that hath redeemed her on that condition. When ftie 
fpeaksof her Deliver ance^t will fay, [7 am delivered by the 
J$otint)/t Goodnefs or Redemption of my Trince, and fob) marry '. 
ing him that in mercy Redeemed me*"^ rather then [I am deliver- 
ed by marrying a Prince to Rule me.\ Becaufe in the former (he 
more fkly .& fully expreflkh more of the caufc of her Delive- 
rance : Much kfs will (he think it a fit fpecco to fay, / am deli- 
vered by marrying an Avenger of his enemies ', a Condemner, a 
Tttnijher&c.) as you are p'.eafed to fpeak in this our cafe. And 
yet who doubts, but her marrying or taking him for her Huf- 
ba*d hereafter to Rule her, as well as prefently to Deliver her, 
is the very true Condition on her pare of her Deliverance ? Yea, 
and if you fpeak not only of her "Deliverance, but of her Dig- 
nity (being enriched, Honoured and made a Queen, ) it is the 
fittcft phrafe to fay ( tt was by her marrying a ^Prince. ) And 
fo if you freak not only of Pardon and Juftification (which 
import our Deliverance inftatum quo frius t )but alfo of our A- 
doption to be fons,and Kings, and Heirs with Chrift,itisno un- 
fit phrafe to fay, This is by our marrying King Jeftu • or by re- 
ceiving Chrifl as the King by Redemption. 

All the Benefits which we Receive from Chrift(which follow 
Union) fuch as are Pardon, Juftification and Adoption , do 
flow from our Union with bimfelf which precedes them. 'This 
Union is by Faith : We arc united to him as to a Head, Huf- 
band and Prince, and not only as a Juftifier ? therefore from 
him received as a Head, Hufband and Prince, do thefe Benefits 
of Juftification and Adoption flow. 

To your feventh Objection I anfwer , by denying the kttcr 
part of your Antccdent \that Scripture nowhere »M^j(Chrifts 
Dominion you fay,but) jfhriftum r Dommttm (you (hould fay,) 
the Objett 'fjuftifying Faith/] I never thought that thrifts Do- 
minion, nor yet his Redemption was the proper Objedt of the 
chiefeft ad of Juftifying Faith. But Chrift himfelf as Lord and 
as Redeemer is. I prove it, i. Chrift is the proper Objed 
of juftifying Faith (as I (hall anon prove.) But the name Chrift 
(igntfieth asdiredly and fully his Kingly Office as bis Juftify- 
ing. If you include not his being King, you Receive him noc 
as Chrift. 

2. To 


2. To Receive him as Redeemer is to Receive him as King ; 
For his very Redeeming was a Purchafing them into his own 
hands, (Job.i^.l. Manb.i2.iS.fob.iJ V & 3.3*. Luh 10. 
22. Efhef.l. 21,11* 7*6.5.26,27. /fotf.14.9 ehr.) though not 
only fo. 

3. T/f/w 2. *T*/j rfcf Jtfii /*/? 6*4* <^7,&c. Killing, or 
fubmictingto,and Receiving the Son a* King; for fo ; he whole 
Pfalm expounds it) is the condition of efcaping wrath • there 
fore of Pardon ( for Tax* fr Veniafunt advtrfa : ) therefore 
of our Juftification. 

4. Matth. 11.17. Corns unto me ak ye that U hater and are 
heavy laden % f Guilt is the great load : ) But under what Noti- 
on will Cfarift be come to? Take my joke and b**thtn$L<i Learn 
of me fez. and ye JhaQ find reft to year fouls. Reft I from what ? 
from that they were burdened with; and tha was Guilt,among 
other things : and to remove the burden of the Guile of fin or 
curfe of the Law, is to Pardon and Juftifie. ( I hope you will 
not fay, that the only Burden that Chrift offers here to eafc 
thesn of, was the Pharifes rigorous Interpretation of the Law, 
as I was told you expound it. ) 

5. Luke 1 9. 27. Tloefe mine enemies thnt would not I fhcnld 
Reign over themficc. I f Reje&ing Chrift as King be the con* 
demning fin according to the tenor of the New Law ; then Ac- 
cepting him as King is part of the condition of Juftification. 
The Gonfequence is plain, becaufe the faid Rejection con- 
demned!, as it is the non performance of that condition whith 
muft be performed to the avoiding of condemnation. More 
Scriptures might be brought; butthe firft Argument alone is 
fo/ficient, rf there were no more. 

To your eighth Obje&ion I anfwer. TheObje&of justify- 
ing Faith is Chrift himfelf principally ^ and the word as both 
Reveal ng, Offering him. Promifing,Threatning : but it is not 
Chrift commanding^ firft, but Chrift as King to Command. This 
is anfweredinthe former. 

To your ninth Objedion I anfwer; when I fay tfut [Rgcei- 
ving Chrift ** Lord U one part of Juftifying Faith f] I fpeak not 
of the Act morally, as if it had two parts where i: is entire : 
Ilisbut one moral Act to Accept of whole Chrift fir you fpeak 

Zz fimply 


limply of Accepting, as diftinct from preceding Affent and fub- 
fequent Affiance. J But I call it (ptrt ) in reference to the Ob- 
ject.whence you fay arifeththe Difference: Though Chrtfts 
Office of Mediator be but one ; yet from the works of chat of-* 
fice we look on his Governmg,and Pardoning or Juflifying as 
cfiftinct parts : and thence I call this act of faith ( a fart.) For 
that you fay of obedience following faLh and as an effect and 
fign, I eafily yield it. 

But where you fay, that [Trttft is the Genu* tohere the Ob- 
jetlis an incomplex term] I anfwer- if you take faith as it is 
juftifying (or the condition of our Juftificatton ) and not in 
ihe ftri&eft fenfe , foit hath more Ads then one about the 
incomplex term. And Affiance is the Genus of one only. To 
accept ( an offered Saviour, ) is an Ad precedent in order of 
Nature before any other ad of the Willi that is, the elicite 
Ads are before the Imperate : and Truft is not the Genus of 
this. Befides, Truft is no one ad, but many, and that of 
both faculcies,and a Negation of feveral ads befides. A certaia 
Argument that ins no one fingle Ait that juftifieth , even in 
their Judgement that fay Affiance is the juftifying Ad ^ when 
the Scripture fpeaks of faith as Affiance, it includes Accep- 
tance or confent,which go before Affiance in order of nature - 9 
Yea fome of our moft Learned, Accurate Divines, when they 
fay Affiance is the juftifying faith,do either by Affiance mean 
only that elicite ad of the Will, which I call Acceprance.Con- 
fent or Election, or elfe ( rather ) they mean feveral acts, 
whereof this is one. So Ameftus Me Jul. 1. 1 .cap. 5 . $.15, Fides 
iftaqttacredimus non td*tum c 'Deum % dut Deo, fed in Deum % 
eft vera ac propria fiducia : non qua hat: voce tiotatur cert a & 
abfoluta per juafiode bono ftitttro, fed quafigmficat Electionera 
& Apprehenponem ftiffictentu ac idonei med'i, ac in quo perfua- 
fio & expect at io talts fundattsr. Quo fen fa dicuntur homines 
fiduciaw habere in fapientia,votentid,Amicii ac opibusfuis, Pfal. 
78.22. If therefore you underftand by Affiance many Acts, 
of which velle Chriftum obla turn, (called Acceptation jut a 
vol/tmus objetlum set oblatum ; and EletlioA^itiavolHmns me- 
dium hoc > rejeclis alii/ ; or Confisnt, quiavolumut ex alter its s 
Promotione qui prius vohie, ) is the firft and chief • (ofthofe 



of the Will Jas Amefius doth,tben I am of your mind. If you 
fay thai Felle vel Acceptare is not creAtre vel fidem habere ia 
the common notation of the word; I anfwer i. t includes 
Vdle as its principal Act in the common ufe ofthe word, when 
its object is an Incomplex term : but indeed it incluc'eth more 
alfo. 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affec- 
tion we fay : but *T*V/much more. ? . I anfwer in the words 
of Amefius ^A.fedul.\. 1x^.^.2^ Credere vulgo ftgnificat aftum 
intellecttsr Affenfum teftimonio pr&ber.tis : Jed quoviam confe- 
quenter volant as movers folet, G eXtenderefefe a J amplttlendu 
bonum itaprobatum, idcrco fides etiam hunc Voluntatis actum 
deft gnat fa is apte , quomodobocin loco neceffano intelligitur, 
£jl enim receptio bonifub ra'ione bonier inttma unio cum eode t 
John 1. 1 2. Hinc fides fertur in bonum ; quod fer iftamfit no* 
ftrum 9 eft actus Electionis : eft actus Totius hominis ; qu& acini 
Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt.] ohn 6.55. 

Yea further, I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in 
fincerity, there is Juftification certainly confequent : but the 
term Afliar.ce contains fome acts which Divines fay, do only 
follow Juftification: which alfo Amefi. feems to acknowledge, 
ibid. §.21. Quod veto fid net a diet t u r fructus fidei, verum eft de 
fijuaa front refpicit Deum infutnrnm^ eft [pes firm a, fed pre 
ut reJpicitDeumin Chriftoin prarfentia fe ofterentem, 'ft iff* 

Yea the fame Amtfins tells us MeduKHb 2. c ap. 5. That five 
things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divixa ; 
viz 1 ,2(otttia ret a Deo teftata.2 (<ffctlio pia erga Deum qua fa- 
cit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipfms Tefttrtonium* 3, Affevfus 
qui prtbetur veritati teftat<epropttr bare ajfeflionem erga Deum 
qui eft ejtss ttftis.q* Aqmefte*tia in Deum ad illud quod prtpmi- 
tur conjequendum, 5 . Eletlio vel apprehenfio rei ipfius t qnt in 
Teftimonio nobis exhibetur. So that even this faith hath many 
ads. Yea, and he adds, Primum horumefl in irtelleDu : fed 
non c on ft it hit fid em t dec. fecunduw^quartum & quintu^ funt in 
voluntatc.&conflituunt fidem , pr out eft virtus & alius religio- 
nis.Ttrtixm (viz,, ajfenfut) eft in intelletlu y fed prottt movetur a 
vdun'ate; neqae eft proprie fiiei virtus, fed effttlum . So that 
chis DoSrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very 

Z z 2 Wil 


will, 2. and makes the intellectual acts ( even aflent)to b e 
but sntrfect of faich, and not the vertue, is far from your 5 
( chough i fcruple not Co take in P a[Tent wkh the : eft. (or all i c 
is in the Intellect J and if the fe be all in.hu faith which is a 
holy vertue , much moremuft that which juftifies contain as 
much. And indeed to place juftifyirg faith only in the intel- 
lect, is fomewhat ftrange for thofc that make it the principal 
Grace,when Philofophers will not give it the name of a moral 
Vertue. For in the underftanding are only intellectual Habits ; 
but moral vertues are all placed in the Will, or fenfitive appe- 
tite ( for that quarrel I will pafs by i whether they be only in 
the fenfitive as 'BurgtrfMcitiS&c.) if any therefore wonder 
tbatl place faith in fo many acts, and yet make one the chief 
eompleative Act, I have yet further this moft accurate Divine 
faying the very fame as I. VerfeUio autemfidei eft in Etectione 
aut afprehenjione illa^a bonum Propofitttmfit noflrum.Hinc fi- 
del natPtra eptimi explicatur in Scripture cum fideles dicuntur 
aJharere Deo, Jof» 23.6.A&.1 1.23. &viamvorittis cligtre^ 
Pfal. 119 30,31. Where you fee alio that by Affiance and 
Adhtfion, Amefttis principally means the very Elicit act of the 
Will as Election is. And indeed he that obferveth but how 
the Scripture throughout doth hang mans falvatkmor damna- 
tion on his Will mainly, ( (o far as it may be faid to depend on 
our own act^ ) rather then on any acts of the underftanding 
( but only as they refer and lead to thofe of the Will ) might 
well wonder r that juftifying faving faitb,the great rteedfull ad*, 
Should be only intellectual, and not chiefly in or by the Will,as 
well as all the reft. Te W#7/ not come to me that je may have life : 
How oft would I, andj/e would not} Thtfe mine enemies that 
yvouti not 1 fhouU reign over them % &c. Whoever &UI Jet him 
takje or buy freely ,&c. Still akioft all is laid on the Will : and 
yet is not Faith in the Will ? Affentmty be compelled by evi- 
dence of Truth, and fo be uovoluntary. And fo a man may be 
a Behever thus againft his WjJJ.- and if this will ferve,men may 
be feved againft their Wilis, I know fome think it enough that 
the Will commands the underftanding to believe. But even 
thus faith esfmefiw^ \4edul. 1.2. c. they place the firft principle 
mxht Will* £**i ftd**> collocant iu intelltctH x necejfartam tamen 



fatcntur ejfe aliqtum moticnem voluntatis ad affenfum ilium pr<t* 
bendum : quemadmodum i* fide human a volant arium ejfe did' 
tur adhibere fidgm aliCui-,fivtro a voluntatt pendeac fides , neceffe 
eftut primu principium fideifit in voluntaie,) .20 Bin this is on- 
ly commanding the performance^ fo it is thus no elicit act(foc 
Aquinas and others conclude, that Voluntai eft Principium de- 
terrainans aflat humanos quoad exerciuum acisty* intellect us au- 
tern qne-ad actus fpecifcatimem* ) But it is moreover the Wills 
Elicite Ad that I affert. And as I faid, this imperium volun- 
tatis may poffibly be wanting , and belief be involuntary for 
the ratio. Let me add but one more confideration, ( for 
I perceive ray tedioufnefs ) If Infidelity as it is a Privation of 
faving faith ,and fo is the condemning fin ,be in the Will as well 
as in the Intellect, then faith muft be in the Will too : But In- 
fidelity is in both. Ergot &c. That Infidelity which is 
the Privation of meer affent, is rather faid to be willing, then 
m the Will-, but that which is oppofite to juftifying faith, is 
in the Will. Z>*J^. 10.27. T ho j e mi «e enemies th it Would not I 
Should raign over them, bring them father, &c. faith Amefius 
Medul. 1 2.cap.j.§48. Opponunturijia{ Jnfidelitas dec. fides, 
non tantumqua tollunt Affenfum ilium Intellectus qui eft ad 
fidem nectjfarius : fedetiam qua infer unt & includunt privatio- 
nem if litis Electionis & apprehenftonis. fidei qtta eft in Voltin- 

Surely an unwillingnefs to accept Chrift for our Lord and 
Saviour, is no fro all part of the condemning fin , which we 
therefore call the rejecting of Chrift ; The treading him under 
foot •, Neglecting fo great Salvation • Not willing to come to 
Chrift for life • Making light of him, when they are invited 
to the marriage/ Mat. 22.) and making excufes : Not-lejjfiing 
thefon y ( PfaL 2. ) with many the like,which import the Wills 
refufal of Chrift himfelf, and not only its unwillingnefs to 
believe the Truth of the Promife or Declaration of the Gof- 

To your tenth Objection I anlwer by denying the confe- 
quence •, we fpeak of the foul as rational, and not as fenfitive 
or vegetative. When the undemanding & Will receive Chrift, 
the whole foul doth it : that is, every faculty, or the foul by a 

Zz 3 full 


full entire motion in its feveral Agings to thcObjed pa- 
tented, both as true and good. Your Joy, Hope, Fear, are in 
(he fenfieive : And Love as a Patfion, and as commonly ta- 
ken. And for cftfow^take it for an ad of che U nderftand- 
ing ^ or of Unkrftandingand Imagination conjund ; or foe 
a third faculty as pieafe your fclf, it will not breed any difficul- 
ty in the cafe. But whether Fear be properly a Receiving of 
Chrift, or any Objed as Good ,1 much queftion. I take it ra- 
ther for the fhunning of an evil, then the Reception of Good. 
So much for your Oojedions. 

I will next, as impartially as f can, consider your Anfwers to 
what 1 laid down for the proof of the Point in Queftion. But 
firft I muft acknowledge , that I have given you and others 
great advantage again ft the Doctrine of that ftook,by the ira- 
methodicalnefs,and neglect of ArRand not giving the Argu- 
ments in form , which I then thought not lo neccflary as 
now I perceive it is : ( for I was ready to yield wholly to Gir>. 
becufs reafons againft formal arguing, Prafa. Ante lib. z. de Li* 
bertate.) The prefent expectation of death caufed me to make 
that hafte, which I now repent .yet, though I fee fome over- 
fights in the manner of expreflion, I fee no caufe to change my 
mind in the Doctrine of it. 

Alfo I muft defire you to remember here , that the proof ly- 
cth on your part,and not on mine : *A§,rm<wti inevmbit pro- 
bath. It is acknowledged by almoft all, that fides qn* Juftifi- 
c*t, yuftifjiig faith is a Receiving of Chrift as Lord, and not 
only as Saviour or Juftifier : And you and I are agreed on it, 
that Faith juftifieth not as an Inftrument, but as a Condition ; 
fo that they who will go further here, and maintain that yet 
Faith juftirleth only As it Receiveth Chrift as Juftifier,or as Sa- 
viour, and not as King, muft prove what they fay. If I prove 
i. that Faith juftifiech as the Condition , on performance 
whereof the Gift is conferred. 2. And that this Faith which 
rs the Condition, is the Accepting of Chrift as Chrift, or the 
Anointed King and Saviour : ( both which are yielded me ; ) 
I muft needs think that I have proved that the Receiving Chrift 
as King, doth as truly Juftifie, as the Receiving him as Prieft 
or Juftifier : ( Yet I had rather not fay that either Juftifies, 



(becaufc i. it is no Scripture phrafe, 2. and feemcth ro import 
an Efficiency ») but rather, chat [we are jvjitfied by i>,1 which 
imports here but a conditionally, and is the Scripture phrafe.) 
Till you have proved your exclufion of faith in one refpece 
from the Juftifying Office, and your confinement of it to the 
other, my proof (lands good .- J give you the entire condition : 
and Ptbi Lex non diftir.guit^ non eft dijiinquendum ; multo minus 
dividend™. And though thofe that afTert the proper Inftru- 
mentalityof faith in Juftifying, or elfe the meer natural condi- 
tionally , may have fomething to fay for their Divilion ; 
(though with foul abfurdiries ) Yet what you can fay, (who 
have efcaped thofe conceits^ 1 cannot imagine. Me thinks, if 
faith J uftirie, as the condition of rhe Grant or Covenant , and 
this condition be the Receiving of Chrift as Lord and Saviour, 
it fhouid be impoffible to exclude the receiving Chrift as King, 
from Juftifying, till you firft exclude it from the faid conditio- 
nally, ex* J$H*texuj ad omne valet cen r tque'tia. To Juftifie 
therefore As the condition (on which the Promife gives Chrift, 
and with him Juftiflcation, ) muft needs infer that we are jufti- 
fkd by all whatf ever hath fuch a conditionally. Yet (as I 
(aid before ) when we intend toexprefs, not only or principal- 
ly the Ad of the Receiver, but alfo, or principally, the Grace 
of the Giver, then it is a fitter phrafe to fay, we are Juftified 
by fa ; th in his Blood, or by Receiving Chrift the Saviour and 
Juflifier: becaofeitfullieftand fulieft expreffeth that Grace 
which we intend, (and thus Paul oh doth. ) So that they who 
diftinguifli between fides qu* Juflificat , and Fides qua Juftift- 
cat and admit that Ad into the former, which they exclude 
from the latter, muft prove what they fay. ( Files qua pftift- 
cat % non Recipit Chriftum vel ttt Regent vel facer detent, fed tan- 
turn fuftificat. i. e. Qua eft Conditio^ non eft Receptio : Nee 
qua Recipit fuftificat ; i.e. jQu* Receftio.non eft Conditio : Ma- 
teria & forma non f**tconfunde*da. Act*- ft lei eft qua ft ma- 
teria, vel Aptitudo tantum ad offtcium conaitionalitatis : Difttn- 
tlio iptur ipfa eft inepta. ) Now to your Anfoers : (Pardon this 

Firft I rauft tell you, that by that phrafe [ the fthole foul J 
I mean the entire motion oj the foal by Underftanding and Wil- 

C 3 *o) 

ftng to it* Objed both as True and Good : For I know the 
whole foul may be laid to underftand in every Jnteiledual 
Adion , and to will in every ad of wilting. But when it on- 
ly underftands or A {Tents, and not wiileth,it doth not Ad fully 
according to its Power, nor according ro the nature of itsOb- 
jed, when the Goodnefs is negleded, and the Tru h only ap- 
prehended, And it is not a compleat motion, feeing (he Ads 
of the underftand ing.are but introdudory or preparatory to 
thofeof the Will, where the motion of the Rational foul « 
compleat. And fo my Argument ftandsthus : If Justifying faith 
be the Ad both of the underftanding and the Wvll, then it is 
not one Angle act only : But &c. Ergo. &c. Proh. Amend. 
juftifying faith i> the Receiving of Cbrift ; but Chnft is Recei- 
ved by the Underftanding and Will ; ( by the former incom- 
pfeatly, by the latter compleatly : ) therefore Juftifying faith 
is the Acting both of the Underftanding and Will. Prob«t*r 
Minor. Chrift mud be Received as Good , and not only his 
Word (or himfelf ) as true : therefore he muft be Received by 
the Will as well as the Underftanding : for Goodnefs is the ob- 
ject of the Will. 

Here you anfwer i . by confe fling, that Faith is called a Re- 
ceiving of Chriit : 2. by interpreting that fpcech [He is Re- 
ceived by the receiving his Word, which is received by AiTent.] 
This is worth a fuller enquiry ,becaufe the difcovery of the pro- 
per Object of Faith, will (hew the proper Act. The Intellec- 
tual Act [AfTenfJ hath for its ohjtBum formalt the Veracity 
of God, or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Teftifying : 
This is not it that we enquire after. The material Object (for 
we muft ufe the Schools oermes in this diftinction, though per- 
haps fitter might be found,) is 2 . Proximixs •, that is,the moral 
Verity of the Teftimony or Word. 2. Vlttriw, the Metaphy- 
seal Verity of the Things fignified ( as Chrifts Pcrfop, God- 
head, Incarnation, Refurrection,^.) The former is but the 
means to the latter, and for its fake, and not for its felf. In re- 
gard of this act of AiTent, you may fay as you do, that Chrrft 
is Received by receiving his Word : becaufe the Belief of the 
Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the 
truth of the Thing propounded. But then 1. Thefe are yet 



two diftinct Acts, as the Objects are diftinct. 2. And this 
Intellectual Act iscalkd a Receiving of the Truth believed but 
imperfectly , becaufe it Jcads to that Act of the Will which (in 
woralityjis more fitly and fully called a Receiving: and there- 
fore if Affent produce not that Acceptation or confenc of the 
Will, it cannot fitly it felf be called a Receiving of Chrift. (For 
of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Specks, [ fuppofe 
we neither of us fpzakj The material Object of Juftifying 
faith asitts in the Will, is 1. Principal, and Adaequate, which 
h Chrift himfelf. 2. Subfervienc or Inftrumental, which is the 
Covenant,Proroife,or teftamentary Gifr,in & by which Chrift 
is offered and Given. Thefe are two diftinct Acts, as the Ac- 
cepting of a Teftamenr,and of the Legacy : • of a Pardon writ- 
ten, and the real Pardon thereby fignified : or of the Oath of 
Allegiance ,«nd of the Prince to whom we fwear. But becaufe 
of the Relation between the one and the other , Faith may be 
called a receiving of Chrift, or a receiving of the Gofpel, Yet 
fo, as ftill the proper principal Object is Chrift, and the Gofpel 
but mediate, as to hicn. Thefe are ray thoughts. Now fif I am 
able to underftand you)your words import,that in your Judge- 
ment, Chrift is received two wayes s 1. by Faith, and that fs 
only by Affent : and this is only by receiving his Word : that 
is,in Believing it to be True. 2. By other Graces ; and thofe 
I think ,you refer to the Wills receiving. Againft this opinion 
I further aliedge, 1. Almoft all Proteftant Divines acknow- 
ledge faith co be the Act ( or rather Acts ) of both faculties , 
even Dr. Downtime not excepted (and Camera himfelf fpeaks 
fometime darkly) infomuch that AUlanblhon, Joan. Cncitu 
and many more make it the judgement of Proteftan f s in oppo- 
fi tion to Popery. And fo doth •Amefi suin Be Harm. Entry. 
though he judge it (as Corner ) not accurate, in AfedaU.i.c.3. 
feSi*. Yea be that though it muft be but in one faculty, 
choofeth co place it only in the Will, and excludes Affent , as 
being called faith ^tmparit fidtnt. Excellent Dtvenaxt faith, 
in-altufidci jifiifoantts Tohi Animafe csnveriii adcai*fr<m ju- 
jhficantefrt.Deteimin. Q^.38. pag.174. And again, Fides Ma 
fjitam firivtnr*. j*(Iific*xtem agn'afeit, hubtt in fe complicatum 
*&*m¥clant*iu & ln\tilell*s. Deterrain. Q^ 37'pag- 1 ^, 

Aaa Again 

G* 2 ) 

A gain , N*% nobU abfurdnm fed valde confentaneum videtur* 
aflu/a ilium quo tot a anima purificatur & Juftificatur , ad 2V 
tarn animam pertinere : it a nt in nudo intellettu babeat inxtium ; 
in Volttnt at ecomplementum ibidem. Again, Quod Pbitofophan*- 
tnr Voluntaten & Utettetlnm e(fe duos potential • reipfa diftin* 
ft as, dogma pbrfofopbicum eft , ab omnibus bandreceptum ; & 
Theologies \dogmattbui firmandu ant infirm tndu fundamertnm 
minime idoneum ' Idem ibid. 

2. Affent is not any full moral Receiving of Chrift : But 

faith (whicji Juftifieth) is a full moral Receivingof Chrift, 

(fob 1.12.) therefore A (Tent alone is not the faith that julti- 

rietb. 1 know there is a Mctonymie in the word Receive (be- 

caufe fn ftrict fpeech in Phyficks, Reapere eft pati) But it is fo 

ufual and near, that in morality it is taken for a proper fpeecb^ 

to call the Acceptation of an offered good £ A Receiving, ] 

3 Ther e is fuch a thing as the proper accenting of Chrift,requi- 

red as of flat neceflity to Juftification and Salvation : But this 

acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other 

Grace; therefore it is taken for an Act of faith, The Maj.I hope 

no Chriftian will deny. For when Chrift is offered to the world 

as their Saviour,Redeemer,Teacher a King,Husband ; who can 

think that the accepting of him is not required,yea evenin the 

offer? Not a phyfkal Reception which fome abfurdly and dan- 

geroufly dream of , but a moral; as when a people take a 

man for their King or Teacher ; or a woman takes a man for 

her Husband. And for the Minor : Receiving Chrift offered is 

not ufually cxpreffed in the term, Hope, Joy,Charity,Repen- 

tance ; therefore it t> included in the word Faith ( unlefs 

you can name fome other Grace which it is ufually expreffed 

byi j 

4. The Grace by which we are united to Chrift is Faitb; 
But it is receiving Chrift by which we are fo united to him; 
therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Chrift. I fup- 
pofe none will deny that it is Chrift himfelf that we muftbe 
united to by believing, and not the Word or Promife ; and 
that it is receiving Chrift which unites us to him, is obvious 
both from the language of Scripture, and the nature of the 
thing. A People is united Co their Prince, as the head of the 



Republique, and a Church to their Teacher, and a woman to 
her Husband, by the Wills confent or acceptance,and not pro- 
perly ( but only initially, preparatorily, imperfectly and im- 
properly,and if it be alone.not at all)by believing the Truth of 
their word?. *y4mefttu faith , c34W»/.l.i.c.;.$. 18 Tiiesetiam 
cum fit primus actus vita noftra^ qua. Deo in Cbr ftovivimus t 
confiftat necefe eft in umone cum Deo ^ exunn nullomodoficert 
foteft Affenfns adWxbitns veriuti qua eft dt Deo. 

5. By faith it is that we give up our felves to be Chrifts Di- 
fciples,Subjects,Members ; ( For Scrpture afcribes not this to 
other Graces ufually or chiefly. And to take him for our Sa- 
viour 2nd Head,and give up our felves as his redeemed and 
Member?, is all one work. ) But it is not by AfTent only,chief- 
ly or fully at all, that we give up our felves to Chrift as Difci- 
p!es,Members, &c. Therefore it is not by AfTent properly or 
fully that we receive Chriit. So Amefius ubi /upra, }. 19. Cre- 
diturus etiam porro cum ex miferiafenfu, & cmnimoc.a liberati- 
ons, cum wje y turn inaliis defeflu % necejfe htbeat fededere 
Deo in ^Jeriftotanquam Servatori fnfflcienti & fideli , Dedi.i- 
onem iftam facer e non pot eft ullo modo per ^jfetifum Jntelletlus, 
fed per Confenfum Voluntatis. And indeed I think this Dediti- 
on or ftJf delivery to be part of Faith ; and that the covenant- 
ing in heart with God in Chrift, is the very juftifying faith, 
taking him for ours.and giving up our felves to him as his : and 
the external Covenanting is the profeflion of Fa th .• and that 
Baptifm is the rmrriage-lolemnzation, and engsgTigfignand 

6.Thac Ad which cannot be difecrned in a Saint (hit felf) 
from what may be in the wicked, is not the receiving of Chrift 
( fully or properly ) which juftifies: But the Ad of AlT'n: 
to the Truth of the Gofpel, as it is in a Saint, cannot in it felf 
be difcerned from what may be in the wrked. Therefore 
the A3 of AfTent is not the Receiving of Chriftwh certi- 

The Major is hence evident ; In that ju(Vf\inp fairh fce'ng 
the condition of our Juft-ficstion, muft needs b theg'en 
Mark to know by, whether we are jufrified or no : But if c 
could not be known to be fincere it felf, in vain is it nude a 

Aaa 2 Mirk 


Mark to know our ftate by : yea or a Condition, almoft I 
when a roan can never tell when he performeth it. The Minor 
1 have endeavoured co prove in an Additional Chap, to the 
third part. of rp, Book of Reft, to which for brevity, I refer 
you.X)t.Stoughto»,\ have there (hewed you,faithas h Ameftns 
iitih,MtdHL\.l.Z. ' .§'4« quavU fides prafttpptnat femper notitid 
EvangtliifiHlla tamtn datur in qnqtta cognitio falt4tifera,& ah 
ilia qit* in qmb#f:<'am nonfalvandisreperitvr, diver fa t ni(i con fe- 
qtiwter adaftftm iflii voluntatis, & ab ipfo dependent. J .oh. 7.17. 
and8. 31.32. ifobni.^, I doubt not but/ in the Intenf- 
vefs of Degree ) there is a difference between the Intellectual 
a&s (as Knowledge and Affent J in a Saint and a wicked man : 
but if any think that they are in themfelvcs difcerhabie,I would 
foe would tell roe one Mark of the d flference. In their diffe- 
rent Effects on the Will,! know they arc difcernable, 

7. If you acknowledge that other Graces receive Chrift 
as well as Faith, and receiving of Chrift doth make him ours, 
andfo juftifie ; then youmuft acknowledge that other Graces 
juftifie as well as faith/yea not fecondarilyonly, but as Prin- 
cipally as Faith \) But that you will be loth to do. Thccon- 
fequence will not be avoided , but by (hewing thac there is a 
twofold receiving of Chrilt, and that one juftifieth, and the 
other not : which when you have proved from Scripture, I will 
yield : but then at leaft I fhali gain this , that receiving Chrift 
juftifics not properly ex natura aftnsjed ex volmtate Ordinan- 
tis\ and if I get that,I get the main part of thecaufein contrq- 

8. Affiance is judged by Divines to be an Aft of the Will .° 
But Affiance is judged by the fame Divines to be the juftifying 5 
Aft : Therefore they judge that the juftifying Aft ( and con- 
sequently the Reception of Cbrift ) belongs to the Will. 

9. The Velle or Elicite aft of the Will which I infift on, fa- 
ihe very firft Act, and goes before Affiance ( as it denotes anyy 
other Act of the. Wity: ) Therefore either this Velle muft be - 
the juftifying Faith and Reception of Chrift, or elfe they_ 
muft (ay, that there s a faving reception of Chrift that goes be- 
fore the juftifyang faith or Reception : which fure they will not 
granuhat make that Faith the uttus primus viu/piritvatit. 

10, Laftly, 


io.taftly,The opinion fceras to rac fo Improbable,without and 
againftreafon, and fo dangerous £ that God doth aflfign one 
only Act of the foul to the Office of juftifying, efpecially the 
ad ofaffent^tbat I dare not entertain it wichour proof I: is im- 
probible that in a Moral, Political, Theological Matter, the 
Holy tjhoft (hould fpeak,as if ic were in the flricceftdifcourfeof 
Ph } ficksJt is improbable that God fhould fpeak to man in fuch 
a Moral difcourfe, fo as no men ufe to fpeak, and therefore fo 
as'men could not, without a further explication underfhnd. 
Doth he thatfpeaks of receiving a man to be our Husband, 
? King.Maiier, &c. mean it of one only Act ? ( though I know 
Confent is the chief. ) Or he that gives any gteit matter on 
Condition of fuch Receiving, Doth he- mean that anyone 
fingle Act is that Condition ? Much lefs AfTent. 
Oris there anylikelyhood, that when other Acts do receive 
the fame Object, Chrift, in a way of as high honouring mm, 
that yet God fhould confine Juftificanon to one Act, fetting 
by all the reft ? Yea when the reft are acknowledged to be 
part of the Cond ; tion ? ( and Receiving as Lord , to ba 
the fides qui ? ) I know God is net bound to give man a Rea- 
fon of his Laws: but yet he ufually doth it ; and we mu ; t take 
heed of aflerting that to be Gods Law, which appears unrca- 
fomble,tlU we can prove what we fay. Yea what a dangerous 
lofs will Chrhlians then be tt, who will hardly eferbeable 
to find out this fingle Act, whatitis c and when they have it ? 
And he.that knows how quck Spi its are in their acting?; and 
wkhall how little able we are to obferve and difcern them , 
- perhaps many doubt,whether you can find a name for any fin- 
gle act of a foul, or know when it is one Acr,tnd/when many. 
In the foreroentioned Inftance , A woman is condemned for 
Trcafon • the Prince writeth toher , that hehatb dearly paid- 
her Ranfom, & will not only deliver her,but alfo make ner his 
Queen, if (he will Believe thir, and Receive hrm accordingly ; 
If now the Lawyers fhould difpute the cafe, what fingle ad it 
vrjts that (he was Delivered and Dignified by, whether an ad: 
ofthc Intellect only, or of the Will only ? whether Aflent on- 
ly, or Affiance? Yea whether agtnA* vcl patiemi»(i$ many here 
do.) would not men think that learning made themxlote ? 
And I would entreat you to confidcr, whether it were Gods 
Aaa 3 Defigo. 


Defignin the Gofpel, to advance sny one AS of mans foul 
above the reft, and fo to honour it ? or rather to advance the 
Lcrdfe/tu whom raith Receiveth ? as Mr. Gather c Is Salt- 
■ Mt<r[b , Mm] fpeak^dangeroufl) in over-magnifying their own 
fauh t when they fbould magmfie Chr'fi whom it relates to* I 
know the great thing that Kicks with fome , is that the Scrip- 
ture ofc feemsto defcribe faith bv the Act of Ajfenting. But 
coiifider f< it doth in other places by 7 ruftwgiRefting y Taking % 
RaceiAvg) Comings Sating&nd Driving. ( which LMetapbors 
muft needs fignifie acts of the fVill,) &c which (hew that it is 
not any fingle A&. Again, as I faid, the "tohole is denomina- 
ted from the firft leading and moft difficult Ad; the Language 
of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the pcr- 
fons co whom it was fpoken. Now the Jews did generally and 
gladly acknowledge that the Meflias or Mediator muft be Re- 
ceived, Welcomed, Honoured, Loved , fubmitted to ; but they 
could not Believe that Chrijf was lot ; And this was fooliflincfs 
to the Gentiles alfo, as well as a ftumbling-block to the Jews • 
that one that lived and walked among them , and feemed a 
poor contemptible man, and at laft was crucified, fhould be 
God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world. I tremble 
fometimes to think, if we had lived our felves in thofe times, 
how hard it would have been even to us to believe ; fo that 
when the great Difficult act is named , the other ( Confcnt and 
Affiance; are ftill implyed,and included. I will end with Ame- 
fiw true obfervation to this purpofe,^^«/. /. i. e. 3. fguam- 
vis in fcriptmis aliquando Afcenfm veritatiaua eft de Deo & 
Cbriftoi Joh. 1.50. hubetftr fro vera fide ; induditHr tamen 
femper fpiciafo fiducia : at£ adeo omnibtu in I eels ubi fermo eft 
de faint art fide, vel prafupponitar fiducia in Mefftam, & indica- 
te 1 ant uw determination velapplicAtio ejtu adperfonam Cbrifti ; 
vil per Afitnfum ilium dejignatur, tanquam effttlum per [nam 
cau/amjoh.i 1.25,26,27* ( §. 20. ) 

The fecond Argument which you anfwer, Iyeth thus. If 
Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart, then it is 
notonlyintheUndcrftanding, but in the Will alfo. But the 
former is the words of Scripture, Att. 8. 37. Rem. 1.0. 10. 
Ergo, &c. 
\ Here 


Here you anfwer that [jhe whole heart nous not every inward 
faculty but (as often) fincentj. ] To which I Reply, i. The 
word [ypbole] I yield to Illyriau fignifies the finceritj, which 
is ufually exprcfTed by Integrity , but the word [_Hean~] figni- 
fies the fubjeti; and is commonly taken for the trill 9 andofc 
for the whole foul , Vndtr [landing and Will, ( as moft Fathers, 
Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point , though the two 
former placed too much of it in the Aflent : ) buc where and 
how oft do you find the word [He*rt~] ufed for the fole Intel- 
lect? I pray (hew the place, 2. The proverbial fpeech ,£ with 
all the Hearrt is not ufed in Rom, 10. iO. but only the fubjecc 
barely cxprefted : w'jh the Heart man believeth to Righteonf- 

My third Argument (as you place it) was to another ufe, 
which is of lefs moment. As I judge Faith to be taken, i.fome- 
times more ftrictly for meer AfTent to a Teftimory : (fo fames 
takes it when he faith, the Devils believe J 2. And fometimes 
more fully for AfTent and Acceptance, or Confent : (fo Paul 
takes it; and foitjuftifieth.) So 3. I fuppofe it is fometime 
taken moft largely and improperly, for the full performance of 
theconditionsoftheNew Covenant. If any deny this,! have 
no mind to contend for it, becaufe it is but about a word and 
not the thing. Your anfwer is twofold : 1. that Heb. 5 9. 
ffeakj &f obeying Chrift) but doth not call faith obeying Ch?ift. 
I Reply. That Obedience which containeth the Condit on of 
falvation by Chrift ( whereof Juftification is a partj mult needs 
include Faith : But the word Obedience Heb.% 9 contakieth 
the condition of falvation by Chrift; ther fore it includes faith. 
He i6 become toe Author of Eternal falvation to all them that 
obe) him. 

Your fecond anfwer is, [It may be obedience by sljfent, that 
Chrift id the Mtffu\ died.rofe.&cc.'] RepL 1. If Obedience 
of meer AfTent be not made the condition of Eternal falvati- 
on in Scripture , then it is not that obedience which is here 
mentioned: But the former is true : therefore the latter. 2.The 
% firft AfTent to thefe Gofpel Truths is not in a full proper fence 
* called Obedience to Chrift at all : therefore not here to be fo 
imderftood. As fubjection, fo obedience is a term of Relati- 
on .1 

on fupptffing the Authority of a Superior, the acknowledge- 
ment of that Authority, A command from thac r *uperior,and 
that the a&.on be therefore done becaufe fo com ma tided .Now 
the ftrft Affent to,or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Of- 
fice and Soveraignty,mult needs in order of Nature precede all 
obedience to him as a .S'pveraign. I confefs improperly a man 
may befaid to obey , when be yields to the Reafon and pcrfwa- 
fion of another; but this wants the very form of obedience pro ■ 
perly fo called. If it be true that the firft Acceptance of Chrift 
for our Soveraign as Redeemer, by the Wills confent, may be 
both the Reception of bita for King, and Obedience to him ; 
Yet in order of Nature it is respectively a Reception firft ; 
though in time it is both at once. But the firft Affent to Chrtfts 
Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign. And for 
the undemanding the Text, when I find Chrift give the world, 
a fyfteme of Precepts, and tell them that he is become the Au- 
thor of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him, I dare 
notwithout Reafon reftrain thac obedience (in the fence of it) 
to fome one or two acts : Efpecially when I find that he hath 
made the like promife on condition of other acts of ours be- 
fides Believing : as in many Text I have (hewed in thofe A- 
phor. Take my yoke and burden, &c. Learn of me to be mttk. 
and lowly y 6cc. and I Will eafe Jou t and ye (ball 'find rift : For. 
give and ye /ball be forgiven . He that eonfejfeth and forfakjth 
hi* fin /ball have mercy, with multitudes of the like. And Rom. 
f o. that is called Faith, vcr. 14,17. which is called obeying the 
tjotfeli ver.16. And if the Gofpel do as directly and urgent- 
ly command Qonfent as j4fent;yca. if it command love to Chrift 
as of eqaal neceilicy with both, I have reafon to think that in 
this large fence, Faith inclades it. Why (h6nld obeying the 
tjoffel, and obeying the Trmh % be made /Synonima's with Belie- 
ving as it is one (ingle Act* when the Gofpel commands many 
other Acts as of aequal ncceffiry and excellency ? Let me ar- 
gue thus exconcejfis, from your felf and others. Moft Divines 
affirm that the proper Reafon why Faith juftifleth, is \t$ Rela- 
tion to Chrift ; becaufe it is a Receiving of him (it juftifie*/?*- 
lativeLe. A Chrift received Jnftifies : ) but Mr. Tombes con- 
feffetb that other Graces receive Chrift as well as Faith : there- 


fore other Graces juftifie as well as Fakh. The Confequence 
is a Q*Atert*j aaOmtte. 

What : mport in their firft fign'fica-Ti- 

on, is nottoourbufinefs fo much as in what fenfe the 
mfcmty uicd : No doubt they may figmfle properly oar 

d Obeying; but cba: 
tnty it proper Obeying ufuaily in Scripture, moft In- 

: -ay therefore as weH draw to 
purp lit (jufifiob a- 

Inde> to a Teacher ( z r to Chrift and bis Mi- 

riifter< 2 and of Scholars to theiv Matter ) who ufeth both Ar- 
-\ is fully and- fitly expreffed in thoi'c 
fc. Tfte wer* r i principally fpokeuof the Doc- 

of Good tidirgs o*t Mercy by Cfcrift ( bat fare no: 
of rfc? Hiftoricri or D / part, but alfo, yea principally 

omife or Off r : ) but the whole New Covenant or 
of Chrift ( for f d fo the Ancients uniminoufly 

I Precepts and Tbreatnings alfo, i? called his 
Teft lant, Gofpel, being fo denomi»ia:edfrom 

tr>c more excellent p;rr, ^£.7.18,19,22; TbeTefttwe 
Jeftts \s oppofed.to the Commandments of the Law, and called 
Better: therefore it comprizeth Chrfts Commands, proper 
to him. And is it not Chrifts whole Law which is of force 
when he is dead, and called his Tefl*ment I H.b.9. 17. And 
wher aith, They sere rr,de able iMmijktrs of the 

JYrw Vejixmeit, doth he mean only of thcHiflerj, or the 
nd not of Love 9 Hope x ;Kepentznce y &c. Lfet 
hrs preaching wirnefs, as the Expofitors, ( 1 Or 3 .6.) Or 
let C m their Comn.iffion teUyoap--h.it 

NtwTeft ti.tS.GvDiftiplj \&~ fetch- 

ing th i at! tkingiVehfit ever I commA*&* AtvJ" not 

to ftrive abou: words, you know that N?w Lawot Cbnft, 
d hisTcftament, royenant,Gofpel,Grr. bath all 
the Precepts fa it which you menton. "sit not Precepts as 
well 5 which Mat ^ c lis rhe Cjofpel^ Mar. 1.1. ? 

If not & 1 which Chrift* and the Ap cach- 

ed? And they preached Hefininne* and Faiths *» J fo om- 
Jcd Duty : If a Aran loofe his Ufe for publishing or obey. 

B b b ing 




ing Chrifts Precepts, doth not the Prornife belong to him, 
J^r.8.35. and id 29? Or is that Promife to them only that 
fuffer for t e Declarative part only ? (sthe Gofpei that muft 
bepublifhed mong all Nations, the Hiflory only ? CMar.15. 
10. Was the Precept of Accepting Chrifts loving him in fin- 
cerity and obeying him &c. no part of that Gofpei to which 
Paul was feparated ?/?ow.i.i .in which he ferved in Spiritist. 
9. of which he was not afhimed, ver. 16. and which he was 
pHtintruft With, i The \f 2.2^. Was it only the "Declaration 
of Chrifts Deat^Refurrection,^. which is the Gofpei ac- 
cording to which mensfecrets muft be judged} Rom.2.16. or 
accotding to whiihthe^wj are enemies , Rom,u. 28. com- 
pared with £«t- T 9-27. Is not it larfclyer taken,i Cor.%. 18 fr 
And fubjection to the Gofpei implies it preceptive, 2 Or. p. 
i?« Tetert withdrawing and feparating from the uncircum- 
cifion, and fearing the Jews,and diffembling, and 'Barnabas 
With him, was A not wilkw% according to theTruth of the Qof- 
pel, GW.2.14. The falfe Apoftlcs preached another Gofpei, 
and the Galath'ans turned to another Gofpei, when the former 
preached* and the later received the Doctrine of the Necefii- 
ty of being circumcifed, and keeping Mofes Larv, Gal, 1.6,7. 
fo that the word [ Teftament ] and [ Gofpei J includes Laws or 
Precepts of Duty. 

4. Tothatof chefenfeof Qal.i. 1223. about the largeft 
extent of the word Faith, it being as I faid, of fofmall mo- 
ment, I intend not to infift on it. My meaning is but this ; 
that fome other Graces arc intended rcdu&ively,and the chief 
named for all. But by your anfwer I underftand, 1. That 
you take not faith to be the whole fulfilling of the condition 
of the New Covenant .• which conceflion (hall fatisfieme, 
what ever you think of the fenfe of the Word, or thefe Texts. 
2.but the reft of your Anf.l am unfatisfied in. You fay[£/ Faith 
onlj the condition of the Covenant concerning fuftificatton in thu 
Life it fulfilled : not concerning every benefit of the ltie)fr Cove- 
nant : Repentance is the condition of Remiffion of ftns : forgive- 
ing others, doing good to the Saints , of entering into Life. ] Rfpl. 
i /You know that not Wotton ind many great Divines of 
> E ngjand only, but of the moft famous Tranfmarine, do take 


fuftificAticn and Remffiw to be one and the fame thing 1 have 
received Animadverdons from divers learned Divines lately 
onthefe Aphorifms, and three or four of them blame rae for 
making any difference between Juftification and Remifiion ; 
though I make as little as may be. And can you think then 
that Remiffion and juftification havefeveral conditions? If 
they are not wholly the fame, yet doubclefs the difference is 
exceeding fmall, and rather notional then real. The fame 
ComminationoftheLaw doth both condemn and oblige to 
pjnifhment Remiflion is a difcharge from the o Dn g atlon to 
Punifhmenr,and Juftification is a difcharge from the condem- 
nation. So much then as that Obligation .to Punifhmenc , 
differs from the Laws condemnation, ( which is nothing,or fo 
little as it is not obvious to bedifcerned,) fo much doth Re- 
miflion differ from Juftificatibn. Yea even thofe Divines 
that in pleading for thcintereftof the active Righteoufnefs to 
Juftification, do to that end make Juftification to have two 
parts ; yet one of them, they fay, is Remifsion of fin ; as the 
other is the Imputation of Rtgloteoufrefs. And I pray how 
then can thefe two parts of the fame Juftification have two di - 
vers conditions, fo as one is appropriated to one, and excluded 
from the other? I remember no reformed Divines, but they 
either make Juftification and Remifsion to be all one ; or 
Reraifsion to be part of Juftification, orclfe to be two Rela- 
tions ( or other effe&s ) immediately and at once ( in order 
of time, if not of nuure ) refusing or proceeding from the 
fame foundation ( materially ) or other caufe. Though Gar 
taker and Bradjha* make them to differ, it is but in this nar- 
row ( and almoft unconceivable way ) but in time to concur. 
I muft therfore di Fer from you in this) thattbey have divers 
conditions : and wait for your proof of it. But it feems you 
will give us leave to fay, A man it not pardoned by faith only; 
And ye: he it j* fit fiedhy faith only 1 and that as a condition I 
Faith then it feemscando the whole, but not one half (as 
fome j jdge)or can do,and not do the fame thing'as others. ) 
2. But do you think that Repentance is not heceffiriij 
Antecedent to fttflificatian, as well as to Remffton > If yon fay 
No ^ -the current of the Gofpel- Doctrine wilt confute you: 

B b b z which 


which ufually putteth Repentance before Faith : and thofc 
Divines that fay it followeth after it, do yet make them con- 
cur in order of time. But if Repentance do ncceflariiy pre- 
cede Juftification, ( as I doubt no- but you will yield ) then 
let me know to what purpofe,or under what notion or refped, 
if not as a Condition? Can you find any lower place to give 
it ? 3. But if you fliould mean that Faith and Repentance 
are the condition of our.firft Juftification an&Remifrlon, but 
afterwards only of ourReraifsion. I Anfwer, 1. According 
to your Judgement (who take Juftification to be one ad tran- 
sient, once only performed, and neither a continried Ad , nor 
renewed* or repeated, J neither Faith nor Repentance after- 
wards performed /arc any conditions of our juftification in this 
Life* This may feem a heavy charge, but it is a plain Truth. 
For that juftification which we receive upon our firft believing 
hath only that firft Ad of faith for its condition ( or as others 
fpeak, its Inftrumcntal caufe ) We arc not juftificd to day by 
that ad of Fairb, which we 'frail perform to Morrow, or a 
Twelvemonth hence jfo that according to your opinion,and all 
that go that way, it is only one (the firft) Adof Faith which 
juftifies ; and all the following Ads through our whole life, 
do no more to our Juftification 5 then the works of the Law-do. 
I would many other Divines that go your way ( for it is com- 
mon as to the difpatching of Juftification by one Ad ) would 
think of this foul abfurdity. ( You may add tfiis alfo to 
what is faid before, againft your opinion herein, ) Where then 
is the Old Dodrine of the juft living hj faith , as to fuftifka* 
mn ? I may bear with thefe men ( or at leaft, need not won- 
der, ) for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be 
conditions of Juftification as continued, when they will not 
admit faith i t fclf. Who fpeaks more againft faith,they or I ? 
When I admit as neceffary that firft ad, and maintain the ne- 
cefsity of repeated ads, to our continued Juftification f and 
they exclude all fave one Inftantancous ad? 2. And what rea- 
fon can any man give, why Repentance ihould be admitted 
as a condition of our firft juftification, and yet be no condi- 
tion of the continuance of it ? or what proof is therefrom 
Scripture for this ? I (hall prove that the continuance of our 


6 ? 3> 

Juftihcation hath more to its condition then the bf ginning; 
( though learned men, I know gain-fay it : ) but furely lefs it 
cannot have. 

4. Bat why do you fay only of Repentance that Q> U the 
condition of Remi/fion'] and of forgiving others* that \jt is the 
condition of entring into lifts* ] Have you not Chrifts exprefs 
words, thiz forgiving ethers is a condition of our Remiffton . ? if 
ye forgive men t heir trtfpajfes,your heavenly Father will forgive 
you ; but if jou forgive not men^&c. Nay, is not Reformation 
and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgivexefs * 1 
refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorifms : tVafhyeu, make 
jou clean : put away the evil of your doings fin: then if your fins be 
as crimfcn 9 &c. He that conftjfeth andfarfaktih hu fin^fhall hive 
mercy. And I would, have it confidered, if Remiftion and j u- 
ftificacion be either the fame, or fo neer as all Divines make 
them, whether it be poflible, that forgiving others , and Re- 
format on or new Obedience ftiould be a condition of the con- 
tinuance or renewal of a pardoning Ad, and not of Juftifica- 
tion c Doub;lefs,the general Juftification muft be continued, 
as well as the general pardon : and a particular Juftification I 
think after particular fins, is needfull as well as particular par- 
don : or if the name (liould be thought improper , the thing 
cannot be denyed. Judicious Ball faith as much as I (yet men 
were not fo angry with him,) Treat, of Covenant, pag. 20,21. 
\A difpofitionto good.^ 'orks U neceffary to fufiification^ being the 
qualification of an atlive lively faith. Good worlds of all forts 
are neceffary to our continuance in the ft ate of J unification , and 
fo to our final Abfolutioai/ 6od give opportunity : bu thiy are 
not the ciufe of but only a precedent qualification or condition to 
final for givenefs and Etemalblifs.'^ And pag. 21. [This walk* 
ing in the light as he is in th : light, u that qualification whereby 
we become msmekiatly capable ofChrifis Righteoufnefs^ or acluat 
participants of his propitiation^ Vrhich u the fole immediate canfe 
of our J unification^ taken for Remijjlon of fins or a final . 
(ratio* with God. ] And pag. 7$. [ tVcrkj then, or a purpofc to 
walk with Q°^9 jufiifis as the pxffive qualification of 1 
capable of Juftification, cr at the qualficaiion ofth 
juflifietb.J So he. 

Bbb 1 5 How 


T 5. How will you ever prove.that out Entering into Life^nd 
our continued rem ffion or Juftification have not the famecon- 
ditions?that chofe Graces are excluded from one which belong 
to the other.Indeed the men that are for Faiths Inftrumcnta- 
lity,fay fomewhac to it •, but what you can lay , I know not. 
And for them, if they could prove Faith Inftrumental in jufH- 
fying eo nomine, becaufe it receives Chrift by whom we are ju- 
ftified ; they would alfo prove it the Inftrument of Glorify- 
ing, becaufe it Receives Chrift by and for whom we are faved 
and Glorified. And fo if the Inftrumentality of Faith muft 
exclude obedience from juftifyingus, it muft alfo exclude it 
from Glorifying us. And I marvel that they are f j loofe and 
eafie in admitting obedience into the work of faving, and yet 
not of continuing or confummacing Juftification,when the A- 
poftle faith, By Grace je are faved^ by Faith % dec ; and fo ex- 
cludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he 
any where doth from Juftification in particular. 

6. But laftly, I take what you grant me in this Sedion, and 
profefs that I chink in effe& you grant me the main of the caufe 
that I ftandupon. For, as you grant, 1. That faith is not 
the whole condition of the Covenant. 2. That Repentance alfo is 
the condition of RemiJJion (which is near the fame with Juftifica- 
tion ) 3 , That obedience u the condition of glorification (which 
bath the fame conditions with final and continued Juftificati- 
on. J 4. So you feem to yield all this , as to our full juftifi- 
cation at judgement. For you purpofely limit the conditiona- 
lity of meer faith to our Juftification in this Life, But if you 
yield all chat I defire (as you do, if I underftand you ) as to 
the laft juftification at Judgement , then we are not much dif- 
fering in this bufinef. For I take ( as Mr. Burges doth, Lett. 
ofJuftificAtion 29. jour compleateft and moft perftd juftifica-' 
tion to be that at Judgement. Yea, and that it is fo eminent 
and confiderable here, that I think all other Juftification is fo 
called chiefly as referring to that. And me thinks above all men, 
you fhould fay fo too, who make Juftification to lie only in 
fententit)udicu y and not in fententia Legts \ And foall that go 
your way (as many that I meet with do.) If then we are jufti- 
fied at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement , by obedience as 


07 n 

the fecondery part of the condition of the Covenant (which 
yonfeemtoyieldj i. We are agreed in the main. 2. lean- 
not yet believe that our Juftification at that Bar bath one con- 
dition, and our Justification in Law (or in this Life , as conti- 
nued) another. He that dyeth juftihed, was fo juftified in the 
hour of dying, on the fame conditions as he muft be at Judge- 
ment. For 1 . 1 here are no conditions to be performed after 
death. 2. Senttntia Legit & (ertentia jttdicu do juftifie on 
the fame terms. Add to ali this what I grant to you, [that cur 
J unification Vvhen firft begun htre, is by faith (fvpptfng Repen- 
tance) before ana" without the fraftice ofobeditnee,] and then fee 
how near we are. 

The fifth Argument which you mentionjs grounded on the 
common Maxim, 2^0» eft diftinguendum ubi Lex non diftingwt, 
and runs thus : If the Scripture in propounding to man the 
adaequate Objed of juftifying Faith, (Thrift) do not divide 
Chrift, and fay, [/* believing him to be a Prieft , jour faith us 
juftifying'* but not in believing him to be King , or Prophet, or 
Head^] but propoundeth Chrift undivided as this Objed ^ 
then muft not we diftinguifh or divide, but take Chrift entire- 
ly for the objed of juftifying Faith. But the Scripture doth 
not divide or diftinguifh in this cafe-, therefore we muft not. It 
is Chrift that muft be Received, and believed in : but a Saviour 
and not a King,is not Chrift. It is Chrilt as Chrift. Hit very 
Name fignifieth as diredly his Kingly office at leaft , as his 
Pricftly. And if you confefs that the fame ad of Faith at the 
fame inftant Receives Chrift both as Prieft and King , then I 
(hall ftay my afTent to your opinion till you bring me the Scri- 
pture that faith, it is faith in this notion ; and not in that wh'ch 
jufttfies. God fpeaks plainly that Vrhofoever believeth [hall be 
juftified from all things &c. And you confefs this Relieving is 
the Receiving Ckri/lfor Kifigand Priefi ; and that it juftifies as 
a condition ; and doth not your (unproved,) diftindion over- 
throw this again ? 

The fixth Argument which you mention, runs thus : If 
Scripture particularly propound Chrift as King, as the Objed 
of juftifying Faith, rhen Chrift as King is the objed of it: But 
Scripture doth fo : Ergo &c. I have named you tome places 
where it fo doth , a little before. The 


Thefeventhis to the fame purpofe with the Cfth. You 
name two Texts as proving that Scripture tyerh Juftification 
to the Receipt of Chrift asPrieft only : But there is not a word 
in the Texts to that cnd.Rom^.z^. (peaks of Faith in Chrifts 
blood, bat not a word for excluding Faith in his Obedience, 
Refurre<3ioo,Intercefiion or Power, much left excluding our 
confent to his full Authoricy or Office. The word L CU/}] is 
not in the Text- You may as well fay,tha? it is \jnly ] by faith 
in his N.me % and fo not whs* ■ b!ooi t becaufe other Texts fay, 
it is by faith ink-* A 7 .? we. Se€ AUti 1 3 .1 £. The other Text, 
Rcm.%.9. fpeaks neither a word of fa th, nor excludes Chrifts 
obedence { by which mmy are made Righecm J nor Rtfimm&i- 
on( for he Rofc again fir our feftjfitatiw. ) nor his Inttrctffiun, 
( for who Jhall condemn m ? it u Chnft that a ed , yea rather 
that Rofe again, ani is even at theri^hthmdof Qod . frho alfi 
waketh Int tree Jfion for us\ Rom. 8 34.) And all thefe parts of 
Chrifts Prteftly Office muft be excluded, if you will affix the 
word [_On/y2 to the Tjtxc, which &irh , T»e are j«j}ifi*d by his 
bUoi. Indeed you make fo a quick difpatch in the Controver- 
iie about the a&ive and paflive Righteoufnefs. 

The fame anfwer ferves to what you fay in the eighth, and 
ninth,and tenth,being the fame with that you fay here. I mar- 
vail how you would form an Argument from 2 CV.5 21 .Gal. 
2.21 1 Where you fay , Obedience is not an effent id part of 
Faith, I yield st willingly, taxing raith properly and ftridiy, 
and not in the largeft improper fenfe, But rhat it juitifies as 
immediatly as it Receiveth him as King,as it doth in Receiving 
him asPrieft, I (hall take for proved , till you prove che law- 
fulnefs here of dividing Chrift ,and Faith s or diftinguiiliiig^and 
impropriating juftifying to one refpe&, and excluding an >cher« 
in- the fame a& of Believing, and the fame Objed 1 -r-fr. And 
to whic is faid before, let me yet add this, 1, If Chr jit be not 
received as a true compleat Saviour, except he be Received as 
King, then Faith juftifies not as it Receiveth him i 
only : (for you here confefs that he juflifies as he is Received 
as a Saviour. ) But the Antecedent is evident : for as King he 
faveth his people from fm~-and Satan % and all their- enemies. 
8reo s & j c. 
& 2. If 


2. If Chrift as Kingcto juftifie usi then he muft be Received 
as King to JuftifTcation. But the former is undcnyable, * 
25. &c. Ergo, &c, The Conference ts ratfed on your own 

The eleventh Argument fas you number J doth fuppofe-fe- 
veral points ( very weighty with me , which I undertake to 
make gocdj which do overthrow the unfound grounds which 
the contrary minded go upon. 1. I fuppofe that Faith ju- 
ftifieth principally ex Vofantate ordnantit, and not ex nauir* 
*Ehu ; though it have Aptitudmem ad officium %* ipfa ret »*- 
tur a . 2.I fuppofe Chrift is firft received by Faith # and his 
Benefits come with him , and in order of nature are after 
the Receiving of him. Thcfe things being fuppofedjt Wrong- 
ly perfwades me, that the entertainment of Chnft as King,was 
never /ntended by God to be excluded from the conditional 
Intereft in Juftification, when I find in Scripture that his own 
Dominion was an end of his Death .Refurre&ion and Revi- 
ving , and that God doth fo infift on this point , to bring 
the world tofubje&ion :o Chrift, Tfdlm 2. &c. And thac 
the honouring and advancing of God the Fa:her, and the Me- 
diator God -man, is the rnoft Nvble excellent ufe of our faith. 
Is it then any whit probable that it is Gods meaning to exclude 
this refped of the ad from any conditionally herein } Shall 
I again tell you the true ground of mens m.flake fas I tb 
in this Point? They look on Faith as if it were a natural Re- 
ception, and did make the thing received theirs hnmediatly 
aud formally, as it is fuch a Receiving ex naturtirei % and not 
as it is Receptio mor*lU whofe effect depends wholly on, and 
its efficacy or Intereft is derived directly from the \V 11. £ 
ftitution or Ordination of the Leg^flator and Donor . ?r.d fe 
doth what it doth as a condition in Law- fence. And I pray 
fearch, whether in this Queftion, you do not confound your 
Notions ex pzrte ebjtEli, and ex parte . Let me 

elude ail by the Hluftration of my former fimilitude. A **'o- 
man condemned forTreafon, is Ranfomed by the P ince, who 
Decreeth.thatif (he will Believe chat he is her Redeemer, and 
will take him as her Matter, Redeemer and Husband, fhe ft.a'i 
beDelivered and made his Princefs; elfe w>r. New 

Ccc qu eft ion, 


ueftion is, what is the condition of thi* womans deliverance 
a nd Dignity? Is the condition of her beliverance and Par- 
don, the taking him only under the Notion of a Pardoner or 
Deliverer ? And is the condition of her Dignity, only the 
Taking him as a Prince who is Rich and Honourable ? No : 
The condition on her part , is the Taking him entirely to all 
thefe ufes, or in all thefe Refpe&s,and more : even the marry- 
ing him, and covenanting to be his, as a faithfuil fpoufe and' 
Subjeft ; and firft acknowledging what he hath done for her 
freedom and advancement, then to take him for her Husband 
and Lord, that bath done this to advance and free her. And 
while (he is faithfuil to this marriage covenant, in the perform- 
ance, (he (hall enjoy thefe Benefits : but if (he forfake him 
and choofe another, as with him (he received her Dignity, fo 
with him (h: (hall lofe them all. So that tx parte attus here 
is no room for your quatenw and diflinguifhing* But now if 
the Queftion be intended not ex f*rte dttus, or, what is the 
condition on her part, but only what is it in him that (he re- 
•eives for her Husband,which doth deliver her ? Why then we 
fay, it is his Ranfom , his love and free mercy, &c. And if the 
Queftion be,what is it in him that dignifieth her ? Why I fay, 
it is his Dignity and Riches of which (he participateth ; toge- 
ther with the fame his free mercy as the Jmpulfive caufe.* And 
fo (he is Dignified by Receiving or marrying him quatenm a 
Prince ,rich and Honourable, and not quatentu z. Redeemer on- 
ly: and (he is delivered by taking him as a Deliverer or Re- 
deemer, and not as an honourable Prince. The meaning of 
all this is no more,but that he doth not redeem her as a Prince, 
oordignirle her under the notion of a Redeemer.- and fo on 
his part you may difttnguifk. But yet as to the conditionally 
on her part,, there is no room for dtftinguijbing at all. For 
is not this all that Paul ayms at in fpeaking fo oft of Faith in 
Relation to Chrifts death and Righteoufnefs , rather then to 
his Government ? to note [what in Chrifl received doth jtifti- 
fie"] rather then [Xvhatrefpettofour aEtef fa : th is the conditi- 
on f ] And may not this tend to an accommodation between us 
in this Point? efpccially with thofe Divines that fay, Faith 
« taken R*latively,when we arc faid to be Juftified by, it ;, and 


it is faid, to be lm pu ted to us for RighteoEfnefs ? The Lord 
enlighten our dark underft and mgs , and give us love to the 
Truth and one another. 


tXAving done with this, I proceed to your Additional Pa- 
1 per, which I lately received , and for which I am alfo 
really thankfull to you. But the Anfwer needs not be long. 
i . You think the 66.Tkef hardly reconcilable with the words 
cited out of ^,191 . of that of 3ap:ifm,fo»». 3 .25 & 5.9-But 
1 fee not the leaft appearance of a contradiction. Chrift whom 
juftifying Faith receives,doth Redeem us by bis blood,and not 
chiefly by his Principality ; and he favesus as a Saviour , and 
ruieth us as a Ruler,e^. But that faith which on our part is 
the condition of our intcreft in him & his Benefits,is the Belie- 
ving in, or receiving Chrift as Cbrlft , or as he is offered to us 
in the Gofpelf as the AiTerably in their Catechifm well exprefs 
it. Davenant ^CulverVcell \ Throgmorton^lAt, T^orton of New 
England (Catech/pjg.19.) and many more fay as I in this : but 
I will not weary you with citations having been fo tedious al- 
ready. But I am glad to feel you yielding to the Truth, (for it 
is a wcigtty Point) a9 you fcem in the next words, where you 
fay, that Cbrifis Death is the fole or chief ob)eU of Faith as Jn» 
fltfjing. • If you yield once that it and his Prieftly Office is 
not the fole Obje&, I will never contend with you about their 
Precedency, which u chief I have confeffed to you, that it is 
a fuller (and ordinarily fi ter) phrafe , to fay , we arejuftified 
bj faith in his blood, then to fay, Vte arejsflifiedbj faith in h't 
Government, becaufeit pointeth out Relatively the caufality 
in the Object, and not only the conditionally in the A&. But 
I think when you re fpe A the faid condition efpecially , that 
then itisthefi:teftfpeechtofay , W* *re jufl/fird by faith ift 

2. Vf Out next are all of other Subjects. The fecond is, r*he- 

X. ther Luke 1 2.24 import not a denial of Title in Chrift to 

Judge. The anfwer is obvious, 1. He had not that deri- 

Ccc 2 red 


ved Title from men, which was neccffary to him that fhbuld* 
exercife the place of. a Magiftrate. 2. Chrift fpeaks not of 
Sovereignty (that he had: J but M*giftracy (which is diftindk 
from Soveraignty,. as being the Executioner of Lawes, which 
Soveraignty makes, and being under the Law , when the So- 
veraiga^f^^/^ is above them.) 3; His Interrogation may 
perhaps be no Negation. 4. But the plain anfwer which I 
ftick to is this. Chrift had not then a Title or Right to the 
a&ualexercifeof his power, as to divide Inheritances; The 
General of an Army to ranfom a Souidier that fhoukl dye for 
Treafon* doth agree with the Kmg, tha- he will put himfelf in 
the place of that common fouldier for a months time, and will 
dp alibis duty, and will venture his life in fome defperate fer* 
vice. Now during this time while he is in the fouldiers place, 
the Geaejralhath not title to the AttualRulefiuz, as before he 
had : not becaufe he hath loft it , but becaufe it will not (Jand 
with the ftate and duty of a fouldter which he bath volunta- 
rily put himfelf in. Yet at the fame time, his Lieutemnt Ge- 
neral and other Officers that have their Commiflions all from 
him do Govern. So here : will it follow that becaufe Chrift 
had not Title by himfelf to exercife the place of a Ruler and 
Judge , being then in the ftate of a fervant , that therefore now 
he hath npt the Soveraignty } 

3. \/Our third 1 is from C0L1.14. I fuppofc you mean the 
I thirteenth. But little know I how you would thence 
argue with any feeming ftrength. Chrift hath a threefold King*, 
dpml The firft (where he moft fully Rulcth ) is the fouls of 
Believers, It follows not,* that a man that is not of this King- 
dom, is not of Chrifts Kingdom at all. The KfngdomofGod 
is thus within us, . The fecond is, The Ch^^hrVifible. This 
the Apoflle here fpeaks of, and of this Heathens are no mem- 
bers, The third is, The whole world of mankind, whom he hath 
bought under his Dominion, and to be at his Difpofal (Rom. 
24.9. &c \), who are4elivered into his hands , and over-ru- 
led by him, ,and he is-. their Rightful King,and will Judge them 
as their King,, and give them the reward of Rebellious Sub- 


je&s that would not confcnc to his a&uil Rule, ( Dike 19.17* 
&c.) and not only as Rebels againft God as Creator. If h« 
be not their King, the/ cannot be judged Rebeis againft him. 
Yea the Law of Nature is now his Law , by which he in part 
Ruteth them though they know him no:, (many know not the 
true God, who yet are partly Ruled by that his Law • ) The 
jews crucified their King, though they werelnfidels,and knew 
him not to be their King. To conclude this Subject, I defire 
you but to confider, whether there be any inconvenience ap- 
pearing in the acknowledgement of Chrifts General Domini • 
on?and whether ic be not the plain and frequent fpeech of Scri- 
pture } And on the other fide, whether it may not bs of dan- 
gerous confequehce, as injurious to Chrii, to deny fo great a 
part of his Dominion ? and excufe not Infidels from the guilt 
&f Rebellkm againft the Redeemer ?■ And whether it be not 
Introduced by Pious Divines meerly in heat of Difputation , 
whicn ufually carryeth men into extreams > efpecially lead 
ttu-y (hould yield to univerfal Redemption in any kind ? and 
!eaft they ihouki yield totheMagiftrates power in Religion. 

4.. Your laft.Queftion is about Univerfal Redemption 
it he affirmed that Ghrijl djedfo* every child of Adam conditio > 
nalh) it Would bt well proved from Scripture that the procuring 
of [uch* conditional Law or £$i&mmt\ was tketndor-effsfk of 
Chrifts death: and Whether the fo inter pret'mgText s that fpe 1'^ 
of his dyingfor al/ y will net fervefor evifiens to put by the Ar- 
guments draVrn fromthem to prove Chnfts fattrf*ftio>j aid r,n- 
rit proper t9ths Elecl; &c. ] Anfwer. 1. Though I do 
not doubt much of the point, yet I have no mind to meddle 
with the queftion,as it concerns thofe Pagans that never heard 
of Chrift. Not for fear of any difadvantage thence to the 
xaufe, but k Becaufe ifindGod fpeaks-fparingly of thofc 
to whom he fpeak*not ; it concerns not us fo much to know 
his Counfel concerning o:her?. 2. Becaufe it is an t!l wav • f 
arguing to lay the ftrefs ofati on the molt obfeure poir? ; ( as 
men do, that ftudy more how to filence anadverfary, then 
Co fee trie Truth ) and to prove <ob cur urn per abf $ 
h a point that I cannot give you rnv thoughts of in 
words: there needs fo much for Explication; and therefore 

Ccc 3 be- 


being -but here touched, -I (ball forbear, g. I doubt not but 
to prove abundantly from Scripture with much evidence,whac 
1 afTert in-chii. 4. Ic was not the only, nor the .firft effed of 
his Death, that Chrift was [ Satisfafthn-to Gods fujtice for the 
Vivldthn of the LaW. ] 5. That fuch a conditional Law or 
Covenant is granted , and exftant in Scripture, is as plain as 
moft points in the Gofpel : and fare no fach thing can be but 
upon Chrifts death as the meritorious eaufe. 6. So interpret- 
ing the fe Texts which are fo to be interpreted, isnoevafion: 
And no Text will prove Chrifts .fatisfa&ion and Merit wholly 
proper co the Eled. Much lefs thofe which fay, He died for 
all men. That God intcndeth only theEleft to be certainly 
hw^d by Chrifts death, Icaneafily prove from many other 
Texts : But if I (hould prove ic by thek^ it were ftrange. 
It is an ill confequence Q Chrift died for nil wen -, therefor* 
hisfatijfttthn u proper to the Efetl. J 7. Tn point of Law the 
Eleft have no more Title to Chrift and his Benefits, then any 
others ( as EleS before they believe. ; But Gods Decree hath 
from Eternity appropriated Salvation by Chrift only to the 
Eled in point of Event. He that determined <de eventu y that 
only the Eled (hould be faved by Chrift , did yet :hinkitthe 
fitceft way to his glorious ends to make Chrifts Death zfuffiei- 
ent fatisfa&ionfor all.Sc to make in his new Law a free deed of 
Gift of Chrift, and all his Benefits to alithatAvill receive him 
as he is offered .* yet not engaging himfelf co publifh this Law 
to every particular man •, though it be of univerfal extent in 
the Tenor. The Promifc names none as included j nor ex- 
cluded any,but who do wilfully exclude chemfelves. But thefe 
things require fuller opening. 

8. Laftly, [ Chrift djing loco noflro ] as you fay, is a term 
that needs as great caution for the true underftandihg it , as 
moft that we make ufe of. The right underftanding of it , is the 
main Ground of our fafety and comfort : The wrong under, 
ftandingit, is the vety turning point to Antinoraisnifm, and 
the very Primam vivens &. ultmum mwiens^ the Heart of 
the whole Syftem of their Doitrine. That Chrift in the per- 
fon of Mediator , did fuffer upon his voluntary undertaking 
what we (hould have elfe fuffered,and thereby made fatisfa#i- 



on to Gods Juftice for the breach of his law, both Father 
and Son ( whofc Willis one J agreeing or refolving, that yet 
no man fhouldbave a&ual Reroiffion or Salvation hereby, but 
on condition of receiving the Redeemer for their Lord and 
Saviour : and thus Cbriftdied loco omnium : this is found 
Doctrine That at the fame time it was-thefceret Will or 
Eternal Decree of the Father - y and the Will of the Mediator 
de eventu, to give erTe&ually Grace to belie vq to his Chofen 
only-, and confequexuly that they only fhoujd be actually 
( ived and thus he died only loco Eleftortim,ha\(& found Doc- 
trine/ But that Chrift in dying did ftndly rcprefent the per- 
fonof the finner, foas either naturally, or morally in Law- 
fenfe we may be faid to have fatisfied then^ in or by him.as the 
Law calls that thea&ionof the Principal, which is done per 
^DeUgatum, Dtputaium ,P'\carium.&c. this is the foul of 
Antinomianifm , and dire&ly and unavoidably introduceth 
Juftiflca". before Faith,or before we are born 5 the non-necefli- 
ty of any other Juftifkation,but inforoconfeientia-, it certainly 
ovcrthrowrth all pardon of fin at all- and foall Petition for 
Pardon,and all tbaoksgivingfor it,with the reft of their errors: 
yea makes man his own Redeemer, But I have been too long 
already. I fenfibly acknowledge the truth of what you fay 
That this is a matter of great moment, and needs great confi- 
dcration. I have beftowed more consideration about it, then 
about any other point in Divinity. 

YOUR unfeigned Friend and Brother ( who doubt* 

not ere long to meet you in our Center and Reft % 

where all our Difference in Judgement 

and Affection will be healed,) 

Richard Baxter, 

JCcderminfteri* June £.. 

.^<$>i£^ £«$>$»<£«£ c; i .j^vjuj*vj^ ■^^♦♦*-{ iW J- ♦♦♦^^-♦ c $» t$«fcj* 

\Sm% 71^ multitude of my Employments 
caufed me to delay the returning you 
my thoughts of jour favourable Ani* 
madyer/ionSytil I received jour Addi^ 
tional paper y which made me fo.very 
fenfibleofymrl^indnefs^ that I could 
not but [hatch the next opportunity 7 
thus truly to give you my further 
Thoughts, as an account of the accept 
tance andfuccejs of your Tains. 

June 20. 
\7 Efterday I received your third Paper dated fane 17. to 
\ which I thought beft to give you this fhort Anfwer toge- 
ther, feeing the former were not gone out of ray hands. 

You here touch (very eafily ) on two Subjects. I will begin 
with the lawr, viz,. Your four Arguments againft my Doc- 
tr>ne of Juftification by the Gofpel Grant or flslevv Law. Your 
firft is , that This is per refultAxtiam ; but f unification is an aft 
cf Will ; but no Aft of Will is by nrcejf«ty Rtfultancj ] 
Anfwer. As it proceedeth fram the lnftrumen{ or Foundati- 
on, it is by Refultancj : As by that Inftrumeat iVis the Ad of 
the Leg* fitter Ot 'Principal Agent , fo it is an A& eFi&lk h 



uashisWiH atthe enacting of the Grant, andftiUishs 
that this his Qrant, or Deed of Gtft fhould m or +1 iter agert & 
fffecuu hot *eltliost»cd*cere, at fucb a dtftance upon fuch and 
iucb conditions. The Ad and Effect ot the law. 
menr, is the Act and Effcd of the Legiflacor and reitator, 
whofe Intruroent it is : But the laid Law orTefhment dorh 
not ejficAcittr agere, or produce thefc effects, till the time tb3t 
the conditions are performed: (fork is the Nature of a Moral 
condition to be aided for the fufpenfion of the Effect or evrnc 
of the < ^ranr, &c. till it be performed. ) Therefore the 
Rector, Donor or Teftator doth r\6i*efficuc iter agere till then. 
And therefore he acteth by Itbat his It.ft.ument then, or not 
at all. If you give by Deed or by Will, fuch and fuch porti- 
ons to fome Children at fuch a term of Age, and to others 
when they marry •, The full actual Right is by a meer Reful- 
rancy, as from the Inflrument. but by an Act of Will > as 
from you , but really from neither before the Term, or conditi- 
on performed. This is a moft obvious Truth. \ 

2. And as eafic is^N Anfwerto yourfecond. [ // the 
Covenant juftifi* without any other Att , tht* it adoftr, 
ftn&ijiethCf lorifieth », without any other, ] Anfwer. In the 
Propofitions againft Mr. Bedford, you might have fcen this 
difpelied. For Adoption, I yield the whole. But know you 
nor that as there is great difference between changes Relative 
and Qualitative 5 fo the later refults not from a meer Tunda- 
nre>.tum f &c. but is effected by a Phyfical Operation? It is 
ft* ad rem, it is R<ght or *Du»efs, which is the proper imme- 
diate product, or v q**fi) effect refulting from, and given by 
the Law, or the like luftrumen: ; and not the natural thing 
it feif. Now in thefe Relations,either the Right and the thing 
it f elf arc the fame; or elfe the difference fo fma 11, that it is 
next to undifcernable, and muft needs both in eodem inflanti 
refulr, as afore faid. But in Pbyfic#i changes,thete is a greater 
difference between the Right and the Benefit : The r Be>e$t 
cannor, as \he Right doth, proceed ptr nHdimrefultaitijirAt 
you gtte your Son ico. 1. by a Ltetd of Gift, this giveih 
him the R:ght immediately, butnot the Thing. There muft 
be a Phyfical Act to chic. But Pardon to a Malefactor ijs 

D d d given 


given by a written 7>*rdsn or grant, from whence the Right 
10 ir, and the Benefit it felf, do immediately rcfult ( being 
indeed but one thing, except myunderftandingbetoo grofs 
todiftinguifhthem. ) If therefore you had faid as you fhould, 
rhat Right to Glory, and to sanctity ( fo far as that Cove* 
nant givcth ic ) are beftowed without any other Act, ( except 
iinaii Judgement, which is necefTary to full Juiiification as well 
as GloryJI fhould yield you all. 

3 . To your third, £ That the Covenant }u fit fie s but conditi- 
onally, therefore not finally. ] 2 anfwered before .• for it was 
one of your former Arguments. Conditio eft Lex addit/i nc- 
gotio qua donee pr aft etur event urn fufpendit , faith Cujaciw . 
And as Myn finger faith, Neq; atito, neq; obligatio ttlla eft an- 
tequam conditio eveniat : quia quod eft in conditioner non eft in 
obligation : ( Schol. in fnfttt. p,s 2$ . ) So that it Is the Na- 
ture of the condition to fufpend the effect, but not to make 
the caufe to be no caufe. Indeed if the Condition be never 
performed, then it deftroyes or prevents the effect, and fo the 
Inftrument doth not agere : And w^? but becaufe it was the 
Will of the Agent that ti fhould act fo, and on fuch terms,or 
elfe not: fo that the non-performance doth not nndo what the 
Inftrument did,nor doth it difoblige the Author , but it mani- 
fefleth that he was never obliged: ("they arc Grotiuswords.) I 
conclude therefore that when the condition is performed, then 
the Inftrument or conditional Grant doth begin vere agere & 
donare ; and the Agent by it: but till then it doth not pro- 
perly aet or effect at all. Is not your Teftament that gives your 
Legacy , becaufe it gives conditionally ? Or muft there be 
fome other Act, to make ic an abfolute proper Gift. 

4. Your fourth alfo is one of thofe which you have in the 
Beginning, where I have anfwered it. The Covenant you fay, 
ie an All paft ; and fo not continued, andfo the J unification bj it 
paft, and not continued, &c. ] Anfwer. The Phy fie a I Act of 
Legiflation or Covenant granting is paft • but this only makes 
it an Inftrument, able and fit co produce fuch and fuch effect?, 
and not actually to produce them at that prefent, when ic is 
conditional. Bnt the Moral action of this Law or Covenant 
is not paft, but continued. The Law or Covenant is not 



one of Date. And therefore it contiuueth ftiii to juftifie. The 
making of our Laws, are Acts paft by Parliaments long ago, 
and fo not continued. Will you therefore conclude rh; . the 
Moral Agency or Efficiency or thefe Laws is parf, and there- 
fore they do not condemn or jufbfie ? I know no grouud chat 
can beai your concufion*, except with Rijbvrcrth ( DU/og) 
and fuch other of the more impudent Papitts, one fhr.uld v.li- 
He the Scripture, and fay, that chey were only MifceJlaneous 
©ccaiional writings , and never intended to be C/ods La& y or 
our Rule of Faith andLfi : but I believe you will never come 
to that. Surely Dtvict frequently ftilerh the old Scriptures 
that were in his Times Gctis Laft : And why many Div nes 
(hould ftrike in with fome Lutherans Error in denying the 
Gofpel or New Scripture to be properly \_ Ckrifls Law, "] and 
fo inveigh againft thofe that call it the i\ew Law % I know no 
Reafon ; but that the ignis fatuus of contention and preju- 
dice mifleadeth them. O happy Difputers that are not car- 
ried head- long into extreams by the fpirit of Contrad &ion ! 
What more proper to $he reformed Religion, as fHch,then to 
honour the Scriptures'? And how do thefe men vilifie them, 
and rob them of their higheft honor, that deny them to be 
the Laws of God ? yea deny this to the Gofpel it felf ? Is not 
Chift the Law-giver > //*. 33. iz.pfal. 60.7. and^ioS. 8. 
and the King? Muft not the Law go out of Zion % lfa.2.3. 
And is not that the Law and Teftimony to which we muft 
feek ? Multitudes of v crip;ures, and meft of the Fathersf that 
ever I readjdo call the Gofpel Chrifts Law^ or thef new law.] 
2 .To your fecond Exception, againft my app r ovmg a fpeech 
ofDr.tfVIanf.i.DoIneed to tell ycu how unlke this faying 
ofDr. Wards is tothst of tie Council of 7rot } Ycukncw 
by f unification they mean principally SancTification ? Tut the 
Dr. faith not that thefe are preparatives to Jufti fiction. Sure 
you could not feriouflv fufpect me to join with the Papifts 
when they' fpeak of one Subject, and I of anorhcr. The ads 
of that Scflionwili rel you more differences between them and 
me, then is worth the while to repeat: and you know how 
largely Ckemmitint endeavours to prove that by Difpofirians 
and PreviradonSy The Councill mean xJMtritt . and that 

Ddd 2 they 


they would fabdoloufly introduce the Thmg;( Merita ie con* 
gruo ) by changing the name; as out of Oft 'us words. and 
others he gathers. 2. And know you not that Chemnititu pro- 
feflfeth to yield to the foundnefs of tfm very fixth Chapter, 
which you aJ'cdge, were it n >t for thefe guiles that they ufe, 
and cheir evil fenie to advance Merit > For faith he, Omnino 
certm eft five ma da* five or do in v^bo Dei nobis defignnttu & 
prajcriftutt <jho Dens utitur cfx*tndo vult hominem ad juftifica- 
ticnemdeductre, &C. El qmaamodum five ordv:em illumdi- 
vintus prafcriptum^ non volunt ft ductu fp ritus accemmodare, 
fed ntgligunt & conculcxnt ilium , hi md Juflifuationem non pro- 
veniunt. Vult e»'m D e us a ?{jtitia & ^ffenfu verbi fui no 5 
ordiri : & ante ^(tfjttficMicKem Qportet praeedere contritionem, 
hoc eft> feritm agmtionem peccntorum^ pavores confckntU ag- 
nofcenti* iram Dei adverfus no fir a pucata , & dolentU propter 
peccatum : in qua contrite one nm retinet ur y fed *bychw prapo- 
fitum per fever Andi & pergendi infederibus. ss4d hot vero ter- 
tores necejfe eft accederefidem, qu e agnitione & $ duel a miferi- 
cor did Deipromijftc propter filium me d Mar em ^ rwfui erigzx & 
cwfoletur an* mum , ne opprtjfi defpef* ione ruamus in dternum 
exitium* Sed fides accedat ad Dium^ quarat, defideretjetat, 
apprtbendat & accipitt Remiffionem peccatirttrn. Et hoc modo 
feu or dine in verba Dei deft gnato viam ptrari Domino : ut w ipfo y 
per &propttripfum fideconfequamur & accipiamus fuftfica- 
tionem, ipfa fcriptara tra<Ut % &c. this aifo he (hews Luther ap- 
proved of. 

Now I pray y®u teii me whether here be not full as much as 
Dr. Ward or I fay ? And do you think Chemnttms did join 
with thePapiftsof Trent y when he confuted them? 

?. And if Dr.W. hadfpoak of San&ificajcion, arc there 
not multitudes of our ownbeft: approved Divines, that make 
all thefe ads to be found in men by way of preparation before 
San edification ? Mr. Rcgers of Dtdham in his Treat, of faith : 
Mr. Hooker in his Epift. before that book, snd oft in his own 
booJc,arlirme?h not only a common preparatory contrition, 
Hungring and thi-rH-ng, Hop: Love Joy, but even effe dual 
fpecial Vocation it ielf,and fo faith to go before San&ification 
and Juftification. And indeed what mandenyeth it ? excert 



Mr. FembU and a very few that with him make Samftjficttion 
and Vocation to be ail one ? which how far I approve my 
fclf, I have (hewed m Treat, of Reft, Part, i Chap. 8. fecr. 

2. 3.4, 

4. But look into the words, and find out what error you 
can ! Which of thofe acts do you think goes not before Jufti- 
fication? And if they go before, fare you will not deny but 
they do fome way or other d;ipofe or fit a man for pardon : . 
or elfe God would notliave prefcribed them before ft. 1 . Ca« 
iholick faith is the Belief of the Cathol.ck Dcftr inc. I am fate 
you take that to go before Juitificaton. 2. If Hope of par- 
don go not before, then Affiance ( to which Hope isefTentia! ) 
gees not before : Yea, then B Jievers do defpair iu the A& of 
Sieving to Judication, 3. 1 never knew the man that 
doubted whether fear of Funfhment went before. 4. The 
fame I may fay of grief for lira. j. And if all the doubt be 
ofTxtpo/e agtinft fin, and far Amendment, I . Sure they that 
fay Repentance is pre-rcquifite to juftification, will not exclude 
*Pu>pife of Amendment. 2. And fare thofe that faySancti- 
fication and Vocation are all one, and go before Juftification 
will hardly exclude ir. 3 . They that take a turning from Idols 
to the true God, as the end, to be in order before a Turning 
from Infidelity to the Mediator as the way , which is by Faith ; 
thefc muft needs think that fo much of Atlual Amendment 
goes before Juftifica ion (ye believe in God, believe alfo inner.) 
4- They that ky, Fa:ib alone jufl -fin b t but not the faith tobich 
u alene % will furely include this Parpofe as Antecedent. Dave- 
«^r,Mr.^rf//&c.|esprefs it.and infifton jr. Dr. Twift cal- 
kth works Ulfedia &tc*ufddifpofitiv& : Cut it were endlefs to 
cite Authors in this Point. 5 But I tell you my mind. I take 
tbisPurpofeof obeying Chrift de futuro to be very Fait 
Jelf. For faith is a Covenant reception of Chrift, 2nd to take 
him for Cbrift and King-Redeemer, and to Purp fe,yea Cove- 
nant to orey him, are but one thing. And therefore a Giving 
up our felves as Redeemed- fiibjects, and Co a purpofe or" 3 
actually Object, are faith it felf. And then they rauft needs be 
prerequ. fite to Juftification. So that wheth r you ta 
Acts for common or fpecial, fcely they go before Juftifica: 

D d d 3 as 

a sDr. Ward faith. Dare you tell any man of yout Hearers 
that though tie have not f > much as a Purpofe to mend, yet he 
is juftified by Faith ? Truly fuch paffages bauc embittered the 
minds of Papifts, and many weak ones againft our Doctrine of 
JuOification : and given great advantage to the %s€ntino- 

For what you fay of contradiding Dr. Dotoname and Mr. 
*Pemble; Ianfwer, i. Though they differ between them- 
felvcs in the point of j unification, and one hath wrote a con- 
futation of the others Dodrine , yet you will never (hew me 
wherein this fpeech of Dr. Ward doth contradict eithet of 
them. Indeed if Dr. Ward had determined Whether he meant 
common Difpofitionsor fpecial, perhaps he might have con- 
tradicted one of them, they do fo far differ themfelves. For 
you know Mr. Temble not only in his V indie. Grat. but even 
in the place you cite (rdg.42.43.) takes thofe Ads to be of 
fpecial Grace,or a part of Sandification, which moft Divines 
do judge to be preparatory thereto. And for my part, I judge 
as Mr. Pemble,\£ you take but that point in to qualifte it,which 
I have afferted Treat, of Reft, fecond Edit, part 3. cap.i i.that 
the finccritv of Grace as faving, Iveth not in the bare nature 
of the Ad, but in the prevailing degree which Morality may 
fpecifie.then I fay as Mr. Tenths pag.45. that thefe Vertues 
which are (many of them by our Div nes) reckoned as Difpo- 
fitions to Regeneration, are if they betrue,the main parts and 
fruits of Regeneration. 

2. But I admrehowyouftiould think that fpeech of Dr. 
Wards fhould be a joining with the Papifts againft Dr. Dow- 
name and Mr. Temble, when Dorrxdwe tells you that the Pa- 
pifts difpute of another fubjed then we do; while they mean 
one thing by ir, v ■'* Sandification,and we another : (upon 
which ground Mr. Wotton is ready to throw out the Difpute, 
as being abiout one Term, but different fubjeets. ) And Mr. 
Pemble anfaers [that the Argument of Bellarmine from that 
chapter of the Councils Jixth fejf. is framed on the €r>o* fthich 
puts out of frame the whole Difpute^ viz. that Regeneration 
dud Sanclification is all one thing with Juftification, aid thai to 
juftifie a jinner is nothing elfe but. to do aWay inherent corrup- 


tion by infujion of inherent Righteoufncfs. J And fo Mr. Pern- 
bis riifputesagainftitonly as thus meant : And Calvin Mo 
in his Antidot. on this 6 Seff. 6. chap, never once finds fault 
with them here, but only for afcribing that to free Will which 
they fhould afcribe to effedual Grace ; and for making Jufti- 
fication to be Sanctification, but not a word for making thefe 
Acts to be preparatory to Juftification , ( Tratlat. Theo/ogic. 
pag.387 388.) PtL etiam tsfrticufot faCttltat. Parifienf. ,4rt. 
4. defenfti Papifiito. Every man that makes Faith to contain 
many ads (moft Divines fay , Notitiam, Affenfum & fiduci- 
am, A>mfius names five J muft needs make all thofe Ads to be 
prc-requifice to Juftificacion, bt fides Repentanccand befides 
preparatory 1 As of common Grace. No man that I know 
doth fcem to come nearer you then Dr. Downame in placing 
juftifying faith in Aflent, and fo not taking it to contain fo 
many ads : And yet even he tells you, that \jhe aft of the Will 
doth concur to Faiih, and th*t faith which is a habit cfthe mind s 
is feat e das well in the Will as in the Under ft anding : and this is 
confeffedby Fathers, Schoolmen , and the modern Dotlorj of the 
Romifb Church. ~] Treat. of]uft>f. pag. 358. 359- Yea for 
ought I can underftand he extended faith as far as I, and meant 
as 1 do herein, pag. 348. 349. 352. he faith , £2?? the former 
which is a bare Affent, Vvc ao after a fart Credere Chriftum, ac- 
knowledge him to be the Saviour of thofe that believe in him -" By 
the Utter, whxh is the lively and effetlual AJfent working on the 
Hearty Vve do credere in Chriftum, and receive him to be our Sa- 
viour, thereupon ntcejfarily followeth Affiance in Chrift , and 
,'cve of him at a Sav our. Thus then by a true Belief Vee receive 
and Embrace Qhrift , in our judgement by a lively AJfent : m 
our Hearts, de firing earneftly to be partakers of him ( which De- 
fire we exprefs by our Prayer, ) and in our Wills refitv>ng to ac- 
knowledge and Profefs him to be our only Saviour , and to reft 
upon him alone for Salvation. So that a true lively and tffetlu- 
al faith is the WrorJ^of the whole foul ; thst is to fay, a* Well of 
the Heart as of the Mi*d ,Rom 10.10 Ad 16.14. Ad. 8. 37. ] 
fo far Dr. 'Downame. Is not this as much as I fay t and the 
very fame ? I only mention him (having many more at hand ) 
becaufe 1 . you urge him, and 2. I conjecture, you think you 



go his way about the nature of Faith. If this be not as much 
as I fay. do but add what he faith^g. 15. and I think you have 
as much : (in this particular. ) Q The true mtur.ing (faith he) 
of the Qtie/iiort ; ' whether we are jufi I fit* by Faith or by Warksf\ 
is net asopjfdfjxg the int&ltrd Grace of Faith to the om^a^d all's 
of Obedience, which indeed a?e the fruit • of Faith ; But as op- 
po fingt he Right eoufnefs cfChrifl app-ebended b) Faith , to the 
righteoujnejs Wkuh U Inherent in our felvtr^ aniperfrmed by 
cptr ft Ives, 

And truly Sir,I ufe to charge my conference to enquire what 
may be the plain meaning of a Tey ? and to embrace that,and 
not againft Light to be carryed by 1 ' prejudice : and this confei- 
ence tells me that this Refolution of Dr. Downamebcing fo 
plainly agreeable to Fattl y is not to be rejected. When I im- 
partially confider what P<i*/driveth at, my Judgement tells roe 
that it was never his intent to advance any one fimplc Acl of 
the foul into the office of juftifying,excluding all the reft ; but 
to. advance Chrifl againft mens own works which flood up then 
in competition with him : And that Paul never m^ant that Af- 
fent juftifies, but not Velle % Accipi*Ye^Coyifemire, Eligtre x Fidu* 
ciam habere, &C 

Suppofe there be a mortal Difeafe that hath feized on a Ci- 
ty, which no mm can cure but one only Phyfitian : nor he but 
by a Medicine that will coft him as much as the lives of the Ci- 
tizens are worth : This Phyfitian comes and fends to them,and 
offers them ail without exception, that if they will but take 
him for their phyfitian and truft him with their Jives , he will 
not only manfeft his skill, that he is able to cure them, but he 
will do ir, and pay for the Phyfick, and not put them to pay a 
penny. Hereupon fome that are his enemies, and fome that 
are miftakenin the man upon fa If? reports, and fome that 
judge of him b. hisoucward appearance,do all conclude, [this 
is fome Deceive:' he is not able to do any fuch matter -, none 
but fooh will truft him,and venture their lives in bis h^nd .• Lee 
u. ftir about and labour and we fhall overcome ft, and q*o well 
enough.] On the contrary the Phyfitian, having great com- 
panion on the poor deluded people, knowing ct.eir cafe better 
then themfeives, and having already bought the remedy for 



them, doth fend to them ?ga?n, to tell them aIJ,ttat thofe thst 
will believe him and truft bim, he will certainly cure , and the 
reft (hall dye every man of them, for all they think to hbour it 
away. I pray you now put our Queftions here impartially: 
i . ]s believing and tmft ing the Phyfitjan fbme one (ingle ad", 
excluding all others ? Or was it ever his intent to advance fome 
oneadoftheir-s? 2. Would it not be a learned madnefs to 
dilute whether thePbyfitian make the ad of AfTent,or the aft 
of Willing only : ©r Accepting,^, or Affiance, or Recum- 
bency to be the Healing ad • and of what faculty that ad was 
which muft heal them? 3. /sit theTrufting and Receiving 
him only 1. as one that hath brought 1 Remedy : 2.0rasone 
chat can and will cure u* by it : or 3. Alfoasone that rauft 
be obeyed in the ufe of that remedy for the effeding the cure ; 
which of tbefe is it that he intends cuuft be the Ob jed of their 
Act ? 4. Doth £Trufting him and Believing him exclude a 
RefoJution to obey his Diredions and the future actual obe- 
dience ? Surely no : it includeth both : But it exdudeth borh 
their trufting any other Phy Titian, and their thinking to work 
away the Difeafe and cure themfelves. 5 Doth T rufting or 
Believing him cure thefe men as the Inftrument ? or is it only 
a condition without which be will not cure them? But this 
Queftioa with you I may fpare. 

Laftly, Youqueftion, [_HoV? I will avoid Tompfons opinion 
of the Jnttrcifion of Jujiification upon the committing a fin that 
Wafts the conscience, when 1 make J ufl if cation a continued A& 
ufon condition of obedience.? J AnJVc. 1. Do you not difcern 
that the Queftion concerneth you and every man, as much as 
me ? and that it is of aequal difficulty upon your own and 
others opinion, as upon mine ? Dr. Dewname will teH you as 
well is I, that J unification is a continued Act. So will Dr. 
Twift\ and all that with him do take it for an Immanent Act. 
Yoar fclf, who take it for a tranficnt act but once performed, 
do yet judge (> doubt nor J that our Juftified eftate which is 
the effect of it is permanent : and the relations of Reconciled, 
Pardoned,Adopted,are continued. Alfo you and they,! hope, 
willconfefs, that Juftifkation paflive is continued on the con- 
dition of continued faith. Now I would Know how you will 

E c c avoid 


Avoid Tcm^fons Do&rince of Imcrciiion, upon every notable 
defed of a Chriifrans faith , when unbelief gives him a foyL 
whicb is too common ? as you anfwer,fo will I. If you fay his 
faith « not overcome habitually, when unbelief h prevalent in 
the prefent A3, I will fiy fo of his obedience. 2. You 
know maft Divines fay as much as I, chat obedience is a condi- 
tion of the continuance of Juftificacion, (only they fay that 
faith only is the Inftrument of jufti'-ying, ) and how will 
they^anfweryour 3. You know thic all fay, that obedience 
ka condirion of Salvation, and fo of our prefent Title to Sal- 
vation. Now how will they avoid Tompfom Doctrine of Inter- 
ctfion of that Title to Salvation, upon the committing of 
fuchfins? 4, It is not perfeft obedience which I fay is the 
€ondition,but fincere .• A nd by fincere I mean fo much as may 
cxprefsthat we unfeigned ly take Chrift ftdl for our Lord and 
Saviour : And fo it is not every fin that I fay wrll forfeit or 
interrupt our Juftification and caufe ic to difcontinue,(ttoat is> 
lofe our Title , or change our Relation in Law : ) no nor 
every grofs fin : but only that.fi n which is mconffftent with 
the continued Accepting Chriit for our Soveraign : that (in 
which breaks the main Covenant, (of which fee Dr. Pnfton&t 
large,) as Adultery or Defertion doth in marriage : A deny- 
ing God to be our God, or Chriit to be our Chrift, by our 
works, while we confefs him in word : An a&ual explicate or 
implicite Renunciation of Chrift, and taking the fie (h for our 
mailer, and the pleafingof it for our happinefs; or as the 
CMtborqetAns following a falfe Chrift. Now, I hope that no 
juftified perfon doth ev r commit this fin • much lefs any 
elect and juftified man, of whom Tompfon fpeaks.You may fee 
through his ninth cb*p. fart 2 . that Tompfon erred through 
mifunderftanding wheren the fincerity of Faith as Juftifying 
dothconfift: (I wifli many more do not fo. ) He thought 
that Juftification did fo'low every act of undiffembled Faith ; 
but only rooted Faith would certainly pcrfevere; and there- 
fore the unrooted (Though true Believers ) mightlofe their 
Juftification, if they were Reprobates ( Pr^fciti as he calls 
(tftem^ or have it interrupted, if they were elect. But if he 
had fcnown(wbar I have affeteedia the aforcfaidc^.i i.part 3. 



of Reft, Edit.2.) thst the very fincerity of faith as juflifying, 
lyeth not in the natural being of the act nueeily, but the pre- 
valent Degree and moral J pacification tbvn be would hav* 
known,that his **r<w/^ ones were never juttiiied, & iherefoce 
never loft it. A nd if in aiTercing juftification by the only act 
of Faith, he had not over- looked the ufe of the hab t,hehad 
not fpokc fo much of Intercifionof Justification, through in- 
terruption of the acts, where the Habits remain. ( Of this L 
muft further explain my felf, where it is more fealonablc.) His 
Objections pig.z i. cap. 5. part. 1. I have anfwered in the place 
before cited. Yet even Tompfin denyeth that ever fins once 
pardoned do return, or fuftificationem dpeccatis femelremtjfit 
amitti. ( pag. 1 i.part. 1 cap.2.) ftd jtrUnam ($u& nhqu^da 
jtefta fmt)poJ[i contrakere, & aliquandoaQu contr there \*r no- 
va ftccata % novum reatum ir& Vivint & mortis iter** : So that 
it is not the lofs of the firft justification that he aflerteth. I 
conclude then that as you and others anfwer Timpfon, juft fo 
will J, ( if you do it well : ) for it concerncth my caufe no more 
then yours, or other mens. 

But Sir, you have drawn me fo neer the difficulty which per- 
plexetb me, that I will now open it to you. How to avoid the 
Intercifion of juftification, is a queftion that hath long trou- 
bled me : not on any of thefe terms proper to my own judge- 
ment ; but how on your Grounds ? or any Orthodox Divines 
it will be avoided. I would know 1. whether we are Guilty 
(not only/atf*, [ed poena) of every fin we commit ? or of fucb 
fins as Davi's, before Repentance / if not guilty : then what 
need of Pardon, of daily praying Forgive us our Debts, or of 
a Chrift to procure our Pardon r> If we are Guiky , how can 
that confift with a juftified ftate r Reatm eft obUgatio ad l>m- 
nam. The lead (in unpardoned v makes obnoxious to condem- 
nation and Hell : He that is obnoxious to them, is not at pre- 
fent juftified Here I am much puzled, and in the dark. In 
my Avhor. I { ave lightly touched it , but fo as doth not quie- 
t re i^ulleUuw. I deny the Intercifion of univerfal Juftificati- 
on. Yet I dare not fay but that a Believers fins may be un- 
pardoned till he R ^penc, Believe and fcek pardon. And I dare 
notthink, that Chrift teaoheth us to pray only for pardon in 

Eee % J** 


foro cenfcientia, or only of the temporal punifhmcnt, nor only 
for continuance of what we had before. Buc how to make . 
perfonalun.verfel unincerrupred Judication confiftwirh the 
Guilt of one fin, or with one fin unpardoned, here is the knot, 
Oar Britifh Divines in Uartfynod.AziAe Per fever. Tbefj.pag. 
266. fay, that 'Believers bjfuchpns Rcatum mortis incnrrunt, 
PriJeaux Ltcl.6 de verftv. /ug.8o.faith, they do reattsmdam- 
nabilem contrahtre , ftc m fatten* aemerttone , licet non effetli- 
ve.fus adregnttm ctlorum yenitm amittavt : ( This diftinction 
doth no good : for we pray not. Forgive us our trefpaffes,/.* . 
that they may not deferve Death ) Mr. Barges of Juftif Lett. 
27. pag.241. thinks, They have an oftttai Cjmlt obliging them to 
eternal wrath not abfoltstely , but conditionally till they take the 
means appointed of God for their pardon : for God dotkpot Veill ta 
them fahation while they abide m that ft ate. Mr. Rejno/ds (Life 
of€brift y pag.404..Mit4±l>496.) faith, that they certainly 
incur Gods dtfp lea fur e and ere ate a merit cf Death , anddeferve 
Damnation^ but de fac:o bring it not. Now all this openeth 
not mine underftandmg to fee, How a man is Reus mortis, and 
yet perfectly juftified (and fo, non^condemnandus etitm in [en- 
tentiaLegis) at the fame moment of time. And were it a 
thing that fhould be futurism, ( which we may fufpofe ) that 
he (hould dye in that itate, whether he fhould be juftified at 
Judgement, and fo be faved,or not ? Sir, though 1 refufe not 
to accept your further Animadverfions on the former Point?, 
ytt (being indeed fatisfied pretty weH in tbem^I chiefly intreat 
that you would communicate to me your thoughts of this one 
Point as foon as you can, if you have any clear way to untye 
the knot : and if your Grounds conduce to it more then mine, 
I (halMike them better. 

Sir y pardon the prolix ty here, aud Acrimony elfwhere of 

TV ttr unfeigned well- Vfiilt r % 

Richard Baxter. 


H E Reader wnft underftand that fine* the. 
Writing tf this , / have endeavour 
e'eir tbu pom: tnm* e Direclions for Peace 
efCoxfcitnce. To which nsw I add but this, 
that befides a Plenary Guilt or Remifficn, 
there firms to be a Guilt and Remiffion that 
are both but imptrfetl and of a middle feart : 
that U , that at in Peters aft of fim % the habit of faith remained, 
fo with hu Guilty tfftate cf Juftipcation remained: As none of 
his old fins returned on him, fo the (fovtnant of Grace upon hit 
Habitual Faith did kinder the Guilt from being Plenary .rjixe^ 
by beginning a Remiffion -, ^ fear not to call it an imptrfetl Rt~ 
miffton : The Law doth pronounce Death on a man for every fin^ 
ffritis fofir in force as to determine that Death is both deferved 
and due to this nran for this fin. B*t at the fame inftant, though 
after in trder of nature, the Gofptlthatfiveth parJon to 'Belie- 
vers, doth give an Imptrfetl pardon to David, Peftr and fu<h 
Habitual Believers as foon as they fin, before Faith and Rsper." 
taucefor that ftn be atlua/l ; and their Pardon will become ple- 
nary w h * n they aVtu ally Repent and Believe. The 'i- Sin is like 
the fault of a Kings Son or Subjtcljhat & a P affion fbouid fink* 
the King, ftbenjet Hab.tuaily he h*th a loving Loyal heart to 
him* He deferveth Dtatb, and by Law it may te his due ; but 
he it a SonftiH, and the King wUi net take this advantage again]} 
him, though he will not fully pardon htm, t:R he fubmit and la- 
ment his Fault . We are fl ill the Crtiaren cf Gcd,notwiihfi add- 
ing thofifms that go ag*inft the Habitual btnt c -our Heart: 
thats theTryal\ ) but m*ft have actual Faith and Repentance 
before we fball have full pardon: ivhether yen will call thai Par- 
don fthich the Promife givtth upon metr habitual Repent ance y e\ 
vcrtua! Pardon, and that Which it givethon actual Repentance, 
an a&ual Pardon ; or what nameycu will give >>, S leave t§ 
confederation ; but cempieat it it net tnacafe tf htjntus 
zAftual Repentant : Though it may be iu J ome *x- 

E e e 3 kfttwm t 


known, unobferved or forgotten infirmities. For tkt full condi- 
tion it nee e [far j to a full 'Pardon. He is near the cafe of a matt 
that bath a Pardon granted him for Marder, but for W*ntof 
feme action to be performedihe hath not jet pofejjlon ofit y and can- 
not yet plead it. If Jon ask. we What fhould become of fuck a 
man, if kefo die before Repentance ; I anfwer. i , / thinkjt 
is a cafe t hit will never fall out : For i. God is as it were en- 
gaged by Love and^Promife* and by giving his indwelling Spirit 
to Believers , to bring them to Repentance. 2. The. new Nature 
or Diffofition of fuch a man Will not fufer him to be long with' 
out Actual Repentance ^t leaft infome mtafure ; efpeciauy When 
'Death {ball loohjoim in the face. I doubt not but David did re* 
pent before Nathan fpoa\ to him; but God Would not take up 
With jo (bort and Jecret a Repentance for Jo great and odious a 
Crime. 2: But if fou can frove it profitable for fucha man 
to be fuddenly cut of kef ore Repentance* and that fuch a thing 
villbe % 1 [kmld incline to thinkjhat he Will be full) pardoned at 
the infant of Death, and fofaved; becaufe the Lord knoweth 
that he repented Habitually andverty&lly , and Would have done 
it actually , tf he had had time for confederation. 3. Or if we 
fhould conclude thzt god hath purpofel) left men of fuch a mid' 
die condition , without any certainty hew he Will deal With them t 
that fo no man may be encouraged to fin , of din Imfudency, / 
think, it no dangerous Doctrine, nor injurious to the Body of fa* 
ving Truth. And thus f have noW ( many years fince the Wri- 
ting of the foregoing Papers ) told you in brief What fatit fieth 
mo concerning this difficult point, for the reconciling of the guilt 
of every particular [in , ejpeciallj the more haynous 9 with the 
DoBrine of perfevering, uninterrupted'] unification. Somewhat 
ktfo 1 have f*id of it iu my Papers expreffing my Judgement 
about Perfevera nee % Ut ely publijhed. 

Jan. 5. 1657. 



Qu. Whether the Fa ith which 
Paul oppofeth to Works in 
the Point o£ fufiification ^ be 
one only Phyfical A5t of 
the foul ? Nee* 

o . 


Whether all Humane <&rf£ls> except 

one Phyfical <iAB of Faith, be the 

Works which are excluded by 

Taul in the Point of purification 1 

*0g- - 

By Richard 'Baxter o 


m ■ 

Printed by it. w. for Nevil Simmons , Book- feller ia Ke- 
dermwfter, and are to be fold by him there , and by Nath*- 
»i*l Eki*s attht Gun in TmIs Church-yard. i6$8. 

(4-° i ) 

Que/Hon. Whether the Faith which 

l^aul oppofeth to Wor^s in the 

Point of fu/liftcation, be one only 

Phyfical Ac5l of the SouU^Qg. 

0R y Whether all Human© A&s, except one 
Phyfical AcSt of Faith, be the Works which 
are excluded by Taut in the Point of Ju- 
ftification < Keg. 

PUT thefe two Queftions together for 
brevity and Elucidation of the Matter 
in doubt ; for fo in effecl they are but 
One. avoiding all anneceflary Ex- 
plication of terms concerning which 
we are agreed -it is but little that I have 
need to fay for your underfianding of 
the fenfe of the Qaeftion. 

i. It is here fuppofed that Paul doth 
maintain Juftification by Faith, and oppofeth it to JuftinVation 

Fff by 


by the works of the Law: and fo oppofeth Salvation by Grace 
and by works. 2. It is fuppofed that non datur terttum, there is 
no middle way of Justification befidcs thefc two, by faith , or 
by Work} : and therefore whatfoever Acts we are here juftified 
by, it mult needs follow, that thofe Acts are none of the 
[ Works "} that Paul here fpeaketh of as excluded : and what- 
soever Acts are excluded arc none of the Faith, by which 
Paul telleth us here that we are juftified. This we are agreed on, 
and foit is often prefTcd by my Opponents that there is no 
third way ; which I grant them. But note t^iat I do not there- 
fore grant them that there is no tertium % or other act either im- 
plyed in Faith , or fubfervient to it in that way of J uftification 
that is by Fuith : It was never Pauls meaning to exclude all 
other Gracious Acts relating to Chrift, no not from this bufi* 
nefs of Justification, as attendants on Ftith,or modifications of 
it, implycd in it, or fubfervient to it, And therefore it will 
not follow that any third thing by which we are thus juftified, 
is either Faith or Works ; but only that is not Works, becaufe 
they are excluded. 

3 . I put the Phyfical Act whofe Unity we fpeak of, in con- 
tradiftinction to one moral Fact } which may contain many Phy- 
fical Acts : fuch as Marriage, which is one in a civil or moral 
fenfe,but many Phyfical Acts : and fuch as almoft all Contracts 
be ; as taking a man to be my Prmce ; my Commander,my Tu- 
tor,my Phyfician,my CounceIlor,e£r.wh!ch every one of them 
contain many Phyfical acrs. 

4. There is a fourfold Unit y here to be difcerned,that the 
term [_ One ] may be underftood. 1. A genera! Unity, and 
this is not it in queftion.We are agreed that ingenere alius ^vA 
in genereaUm fecundi, and in genere aHus immanent is. Faith 
!sbut0#f # 2. A Unity of the lowed Genus, and the fu peri 
or fpecies. 3 . A Unity of the fpecies fpecialiffima. 4. A 
Numerical Vnitj. Our Queftion is of thethircf : but yet be- 
caufe the fecond and fourth are alfo controverted, I fhall fpeak 
cf them before I come to the Queftion. And concerning the 
feurth I AfTerr, that £ The Faith which Paul cppofeth to works 
in the Point of f unification, is not only one numerical AH of the 


(+ G 

My Opponents in this { though they are unwilling to ap- 
pear in theoppofition ) rnuft needs be all thofc that fay Justifi- 
cation is fimul & fetnel, at once and but once, and that it is 
a good Argument againft any ads or works after Faith that 
[ They txifi not till we art juftified therefore they are no condiu- 
ens of our fnfiification : ] and all thofe that deny and fcorn 
thediftinition between i. Our Juftification at the firft for 
putting us into a juftified ftate ) 2. And our daily Judication 
by the continuation of that ftate. 3 . And our frequently re- 
iterated particular Juftification from the Guilt of particular 
fins. 4. And our final Juftification by the fentencc of the 
Judge. Efpecially by denying the fecond,they muft needs de- 
ny my AiTenion, as (hali be &ew?d anon, 

Argum. I. If Paul peakjiot only cf fuftif cation as begun, 
but as continued, then the F.tith which he oppofeth to Work* is not 
only one numerical ABTf K For thete muft needs go forae other 
Numerical A & before it, or el'e the perfon could not be jufti- 
jfied by faith before) But the Antecedent is true \ as I prove 
from Rota. 4. 1 8, 1 9. and Gal.i . If Paul prove Juftification by 
faith , from the inftance of Abrahams believing after that he 
was juftified,then he fpeaketh not only of Juftification as begun 
( or of our ft ft Being juftified; But the Antecedent is plain in 
the Text compared with Gen. 1 2. and 13 and 14 andi$>Abra- 
ham was a juftified man before he believed the Promife of Sa- 
ra's having a Son. 

zArgum. 2 If a true ^Believer have a juftifying Faith af- 
ter his fir ft Juftification, even as long as he liveth % then the Fa.th 
Vehich Paul opp ifeth tdworkj it not only one numerical Aft ( be- 
caufe that firft Numerical Ad doth not continue with us. ) 
But the Antecedent is true , as appeareth 1. from the faec* 
mentioned Inftarce of Abraham- 2, From the netej.tyof 
a continued Aftive juftification: For the Psffwe clft would 
ceafe, and we fhould be anjuftified. If God drd not continue 
to forgive us, and ftill actively reput : us juft,and accept us as 
juft and impute llighteoufnefs to us, and his oofpel Grant 
did not continually juftifleus, ( as every Fundamentum conti- 
nually caufeth the Relation J weftiould ceafe to be juftified ; 
And Gods active Juftification continueth not without the con- 

Fff 2 tinuancc 


tinuance of mans Adual or Habitual Faith : Otherwife lie 
fhould juftifiean Infidel , and he fhould juftifie afterwards 
ia another way,and on other terms then he did at firft.3.Frofn 
the continued Efficacy of Chrifts Merits, Inerceffion and Co- 
venant, which daily juftirle us. So that he that faith, that he 
was never juftified but once atone moment,snd by one nuirje- 
rrierical Ad of Faith, muft fay that Chrift was his Juftifier actu- 
ally but f >.r a moment,and that he will not be beholden to him 
to jufti fie him any more. 

Ad yet that no man may have a pretence of quarrelling 
about meer word?, that hath a mind to it,tet it ftill be remem- 
bred, that as the word f Juftification "} is ufed ro fignifie the 
firft making a man juft that was unjuft (relatively or qualita- 
tively ,) So I confefs that God, that Chrift, that the Covenant 
do juftifie us U liverfally but once (though particularly from 
particular fins often ) And thus it is but one Ad of Faith by 
which we are juftified Relatively, and not the Habit at all. 
But as Juftification is taken for the fame Ad continued 
( though the mutation on us be not abeodem ttrmmo)fowe 
are juftified every moment, and have a juftifying faith conti- 
nually, and sre juftified by the Habit, at lead as much as by 
the Act, and in fome refped more. The Sun doth as truly 
Illuminate our part of the world all day after,as atSunrifing, 
and by the fame Action or Emanation in kind : But as Illumi- 
nating is taken for turning night into day , or illuminating the 
dark world from its darknefs,fo it doth only illuminate it from 
break of day to Sun rifing. Your Leafe of your houfe or Land 
dor.h firft make you a Tenant of no-Tenant at the firft fealing 
and delivering : but it may by the fame fort of adion conti- 
nue your Right till it expire , and fo continue you a Tenant ; 
And thus we are continually juftified by God, by Chrift, by the 
Covenant and by Faith. 

Now as to the fecond kind or matter- of Unity ( of an Infe- 
rior Genus and Superior fpecief ; ) this is two* fold. j. As 
the Acts of mans foul are fpeeified and denominated from the 
Farutf'es or Powers : or ( if any deny that realdiftinctionof 
faculties) from the Objects of Intellection, Volition, ^.ge- 
nerally confidered. 2. As the acts of the foul are fpeeified 



by their fpeciaJObjeQs ( though not fpeciei fticialijfima. ) As 
to the former, the queflion is one of thefe v.vo ( which you 
wiil in terms, for they are one in fenfe ) whether the aft of 
Faith *hich Paul oppofetb to ^orksinjttftification^be only an aU 
of tbr lntilieci.or omj an att of the Will ? Or, Whether it have 
on!) Entity and Verity , or only Goodnefsfor its ObjeEl ? And in 
the fecond cafe the Qtuftion is this, Whether Gcd *W, or 
Chrifia<o*e, or tbe'Prooufi alone, or Par fan r F.irh r onft •// 
alone, or Heaven alone &c. bepbe Qtjefi of t 
VSL\l\oypofith to rvorkj m *}"'* fic:t: 

Bat the thing intended in our Quett-.on is 
fima ) Ifhethtr it be but one fpai o 

mrkj in j unification. Here are tjh:ec nuvc Pi •) ac 

I fhall bardie m orJer, though the Lift only be!pcce:firy co 

* Proposition 2. The Faith rvbichVzah oppofeth to worl^tin 
Juftification t u not only an Act of the Jntellect t nor ok I) of the 

\ (hill fay hut little of this, becaufe I have among Prote- 
ftants* but fewAaWfaries. The Papifts indeed fea-ut in the 
Intellccl only : Add fpdotk£\«w*n> (calling k a Perfwafion ) 
and fome fiw Proteilants : fome few orhers ( as Amefius 
fometimes) place it only in the Wify and take Aflent to he 
but a prefuppofed Acl : and they call it Affiance, or (fas 
Amefi**)a\fo EltBUn, Acceptsnce^ or C4;^»r,o^mbracir.g > or 
Recumbency, or fuch like. Pemble taking Truth and Good- 
nefs to be all oae,and the Underftaniing and Will for all one, 
takes atfo Aflenr and Affiince for all one^ but I fliall £0 on the 
ftippoficion that &* Angular -opinion iscemmoniy difallowed ; 
however the Scatifis, and many other, deny the realDiftin- 
dion of Faculties. The common Vote of Proreftant D:- 
vinesis,that Faith is in both Faculties, thelnteUed and Will, 
and hath for its object the Entity of Chrifts pcrfon, an J the 
Verity of the Gofpcl,and the goodnefs of Chrift and his bene- 
fi:s olered, which Fakh accepteth. Btverunts Word* ire 
plain and true, Ibtgrm. Qu.38.pag.174. Jnacttt fJei jtsfofi- 
cantis totaanima fe convertit ad caufam jafnificixtun : And 
qu. 37. p2g. 166. Fidit UU futm Scriptura ftnefcit. ka- 

Fff 3 itt 


bet in ft complication aUum Voluntatis & Intefle&u*-—' N e £ 
nobis abfurdumfed valde confentzneum videtur attnm ilium quo 
tota anima pftnfcatvr & juftifiratur adtetam animam pertine- 
re\ it a ut in nudo intelkttu habeat iuitium ; in voluntate com- 

Argument I. The Objeft of this Faith is both Truth and 
goodnefs : Therefore it is the ad both of the Intellect and 
the Will. That Tru:h is the Object of it is evident, i. In 
that the Metaphy Ileal Verity of Chrifts perfon is the Object 
of it, or elfe Chrift were not the Ob je& of it. 2 . I n that the 
moral Verity of the Gofpel, 1 -. as revealing Chrift, 2. as pro- 
railing pardon, is the object of it,as is confeft,and the Scripture 
doth fo plentifully declare, that it were fuperfluous to cite the 

That goodnefs is the object of it,appearcth,i.In that Chrift 
as Redeemer ,Mediator,Saviour,is the object of it , and that is, 
Chriit as neceffary and good to us. It is Chrift for our for- 
givenefs Juftification and Salvation : and fo under the formal 
notion of good. 2. In that it is a Proraife as a Promife(Tefta ( - 
ment,Grant,or Deed of Gift) that is the Object by h t And it 
is Effential to thefe to be good to us as well as True : and the 
Truth is but for the good. 3 . In that it is Pardon, Juftificati- 
on and Life eternal finally, thai are the object of it J which as 
fuch, and as offered to us, are good. If I thought thefe things 
needed proof, I would give you more. 

Argument 2. The Scripture revealeth to us that this F&th is 
the Ati both of the IntelleU and the fVill, therefore it isfo. That 
it is the actoftheIntellect,isfoplaininScripturc,thatI (houid 
accufe my felf of wearying you with necdiefs work, if I ftiould 
go about to prove it. ThePapiftsare right enough in thus 
much: and Dr. Dovrnawe de fttjfijic. and againft i emblem 
Append* to Covenant of grace, hath proved it ar large- That it 
is an act of the Williour Divines have fully proved againft the 
Papifts in many a full Difcourfe ; i . From the fenfe of mtiv** 

«V 3sb', x) eit 'Iwstkk Xp/r^, & *i§?J h> t« a/^r/, which figni- 

fie Affiance, and fuch an Affiance as is the act of the Will as 
well as of the Intellect. 2. Becaufe the Scripture ofcen putteth 



\jViUing\ as equipollent to Bettering-, in Revel.22.17. whofot* 
v*rWill> lit him ta\gt hi water of Life freely"} where Willing 
and 7*^ ; «g are both acts of che Will," and the faich in quefti- 
on^ fo in other places. 3. The Scripture calleth it by the name 
of RiaivingChn&Jih.i .12. CA.2.6. which is tbe Accep- 
tance or confent of the Will. 4- 1 he Scripture often makes 
Faith to be the Internal covenanting and clofure of the heart 
with Chrift, which is the ace of the Will ; and therefore it per- 
fwadeth wi;b the Will to this end ; and accufeth menasui- 
willing,and calleth them Refufers,NegIectcrs,Slighters,R 
ters,D«:fpifersof Chrift, thac^are Unbelievers ( privative ly. ) 
I trouble you not to cite the Texts as being needlefs. and done 
by many. Befides that ( as in the former Argument ) the Pro- 
mife,Chrift,PardonJJfe and orber good things, as good, are 
frequently made the Object of Faith. 

Argument 3. The Veracity of God is tbe formal Object 
of Faith. Hut the Veracit) of Gid U hU Goodnefs ( or partici- 
pate that leaf} as much of his Goodnefs as of his IVifdom and his 
PoVver : ) therefore the Goodnefs of God is the formal Object of 
Faith : and consequently it is an act of the Will. God cannot 
he, becanfe he is perfectly good \mfe and ? 0^0 sr full. 

Objetl. But (fay fome Papifts ) AH theft acts that you mention 
here, are Love and not Faith'. Faith doth but affent^and Love con' 
fenteth or accepteth. 

Anfx*. 1 . Do you not your felves call it fides formata 
charitate ? And why then may not we call k faith ? 2. The 
Scripture calleth it Faith in the phrafes formentioned, ar& ** 
r$ cu(mlti Tnri'Jav Hfygi^v, &c. and therefore it is Faitb. 
3. Though fometimes in other cafes the Apoftle diftingutfh 
Faith, Hope and Love ; yet when be fpeaksth of Faith as ju- 
stifying, and as the form of a Chriftian, he comprehendeth 
Love to Ghrift as Saviour in it, and a confidence in him , fuch 
as in common Language we call Hope. As Love iignifieth 
the Paflionof the foul, it may be a confequent ; but as it is but 
thevelleChriftttm,& beneficiaoblata , fo it is faith it felf , as 
MaccoviHi and Cbamier have truly told the Tapitts. It was a 
faith in Chrift (though beginning to finkjthats exprefled Luk- 



24.11. [ H'/a«* $ nhmStpiv on avive Istv o pthXai kVTtf&iu tov 
!*&»*• ] [ fit* "to* trttfted that H had been hi (hit Jhould have 
redeemed Ifratl. ] Our 1 ranflators have put We T>ufted for 
We Hoped, becaufe they thought the (ignification r he fame, 
or elfe they would not furc have done it* M .nd when the 
Apoftlefaith,thatE v 57^t$7f h^ouUmt i/*5«t5i*, Heb. 1 1. 1. If 
we may denominate the a& from the Object , we may fee that 
he there ma&^aith and Hope to be co-eflential. And when 
Chrift is called Xf*f& h &*»* fowv y Chrift our Hopejt feems hope 
there is but an ad of Faith. And fo 2O-.u0. iTim-4* 
10. To Hope in God or (*hrift, or pat our Hope ia him y feem- 
eth to me all one as to put our Tru/t in him for future Mercy, 
which is Faith. To which is oppofed 1 Tim 6 a 7. pmingour 
Hope in riches, fo 1 Cor. 15.19. to have Hope in Chrift tfo the 
Septuagint, Pfal. 42. 26. ihrno-ov \m -n\ ®ifo : £ Hope in God^\ 
is a Complication of Faith and Hope in one word, and tran- 
flatcdbyus, Trunin God. 

4. Though the Willing, Gonfcnt or Acceptance of an of- 
fered Benefit, have truly fomewhat of Love ink, yet Love is 
not the proper name of that Act.E very Volition is not ufually 
called Love. 

Prop. 3 . his not not only God the Father , nor only Chrift the 
Redeemer ; nor only the Tromife , nor only pardon, or Right eouf- 
nefs, or Heaven , that is the ob jet? of that faith Which Paul oppo- 
feth to works in fuftification. 

ArgumentiM many or ail thefe art fo linked together, rhat 
to believe one of them as revealed in Scripture , is to believe 
more or all, then it is not any one of them alone that is the 
objed of that Faith which Paul oppofeth to works. But the 
Antecedent is true,as is evident, e. g: To believe in Chrift js to 
believe the promife of the Gofpel concerning Chrift. For there 
is no £f/*tf/without a Word of revelation to believe.So that here 
Chrift and the Promife are neceflarily conjunct,and Chriit and 
the Gofpel Hiftory. And to believe the Gofyel with a Divine 
Faith, is to 'Believe Cjods veracity , and to believe the Gofpel 
becaufe of Gods Veracity : For this is the ObjsBum formale 
without which there isno faith. So that Believing in God is 

e Hernial 


eflencial to all Divine faith. Alfo materially . to Ttlievt in 
Chri;}, is to Believe to him as our Saviour , to fave tss from the 
Quilt of fin i even as tobtbeve in a Fhyfitian is to Truft on him 
ro cure us of our Difeafes. So forgivenefs of 'fin ; being an end 
etfenrial to Chnfts Office, it is effencul to our Faith in C 
So alfo to belif vein Chriftasa Saviour, is to beievi n h 
one that U \ng to reconcile #/,aud bring us tc the/4- 

vour of God : And io Qoi and bis favour and Recjnciii.ition 
with him are ends eflential to the otSce of a Saviour fas health 
isto the Payfuians and therefore they areeflentiaf to onr Be- 
lief in a Saviour . The fame may be faid of eternal Life : fo 
that you may feethacthefe have eiTential refpe&s to one ano- 
ther, and Chriftcarrno: be believed in alone wirhouc the reft 
asco-eflVatials refpe&iveiy in the ebjed of our faith. Nor can 
the Promife be believed without believing in the Promifer and 

Argument 2. Tise Scripture mofl exprefif makftk many fueh 
Objefr faith which Paul oppo.etb to worlds in fwj}ific*i I 

therefore :ve. 

Rom.;. 2 2, 24,25*26. There are exprefl»' mentioned all 
thefe Objects of justifying faith. 1 . The Right eoufnefs of God. 
2, The Perfn ofjefus Chrt,r f $ . Redemption by Chnfi , and 
hii pr y blood. 4. Rem ffiu of fins paft. 5. God as a 

fuftspir.of Belteven • fee the Tex:. 

Rom.4 3,5.6,7.8,17 20,21,24,25. There are all thefe ob- 
jects of Juftifying faith exprefTed, even when the work of Ju- 
ftification is defcribed. 1. Godot Rcve«Lr and true : 2. God 
as fufi . Righteoufntfs \ imputation of tt 3 ftrgivtneft of 

fm\nottmi 4. G das Omni /cent. 5. God as Om*\po- 

tin:. 6 \efm t 7. T he death of Chnft for our offences. 

8. TheRefurreclionofChrijlforoHr ttion. ■ 9. God as 

theratfo ofChrifi from the Dead. Read the words, and you 
fhali find them all exprefly mentioned. I think it fuperfluous 
ro ci:e more Tests. 

Prop.4. utk .x'r.iih Paul opTofetbtt worlejinthe hi fine fs 

of fuji hcjticn t !s*ot any one jingle Pkj"ical a3 in Specie fpc- 
cialhTima: Nor Vras it ever the meaning of Paul to exclude aS 
a3t exeept fome fuch one, from ftsjiificatim , under tht name of 
*<rk/. Ggg for 


For the proof of tins, it is done already, if any one of the 
three former Propofitions be proved. To which I add Argu- 
ment I. from aninftance of fome other particulars. If any or 
all the following particular Acts be fuch as are not to be recko- 
ned with works, then it is no one act alone that Paul oppofetb 
to works* But all or fomeof the following acts are fuch as 
are not to be reckoned with works excluded. Ergoj&c. 

Eg. i . An Aflent to the truth of the Gofpcl in general as 
the Word of God. i* A belief on Gods Veracity in this expreft. 

5. An Aflent to the Truth of the Word that tellcth us that 
Chrift is God.4. An Aflent to the truth of the Article of Cbrifts 
Manhood. 5. An Aflent to the Truth of the Article of his 
conception by the Holy Ghoft, and being born of a Virgin < 

6. And to the Article of his being born without original fin in 
himfelf. 7. And to the Article of his finlefs holy life. 8.Andto 
the Article of his aftual death. 9. And that this death was for 
ourfini. 10. And that God hath accepted it as a fufficient 
Ranfora/acrifice or Attonement. 1 1 . And that he actually 
rofe again from the deadend overcame death. 1 2. And that he 
is the Lord and King of the Church. 1 •*. And that he is the 
Prophet and Teacher of the Church. 14. And that he is a- 
fcended into Heaven and Glorified, God and man. 1 5. And that 
be is now our Interceflbr & Mediator with the Father. 16. And 
that he bath purchafed by his Ranfom and given or offered in 
the Gofpcl,the free pardon of fin. 17. And that he hath alfo 
purchafed & offered us eternal life in Glory with God. 18. And 
that its the members of Chrift , and of the Holy Catholick 
Cburch,that (hall partake of pardon and life by Chrift. 1 9 And 
that he will give us the Refurre&ion of life at 1 aft. 20. And that 
he will judge the world. I have omitted our fpecial Belief in 
God the Father as Creator,and in the Holy Ghoft , and have 
given you in thefc twenty A&s,no more then what is contained 
in this one word, Q/ believe in Chrift as Chrift'] I think there is 
if any, but few that are not elTemial to Faith in Jefus Chrift as 
the Saviour. And all thefc ads of aflent are pares of the faith 
that is the means of our Juftification ;. and none of tfyero part of 
the excluded works. And befides allthefe thereireas many 
a&$ of the -Will: as of the Intellect; concurring; in or to this vc- 


Ty affent, fo that there's twenty more. For its plain, that feeing 
the objeds of all thefe arc Good as well as True , they being 
all Truths concerning our benefit and Sahration , the Willie 
felf in the Intellects aflfenting, doth command it to affent, and 
alfo dotb place a certain Affiance in the Revealcr, which we call 
in En glith crediting or Giving crtdit to one, vnerefi our felves 
upon his Truth. As I fa id before .Veracity is Gods Goodneft^nd 
Veracity is the formal Objed in every one of the other Acts 
about the material Object; and therefore the Will muftact 
upon Veracity ^vA fo have a part in affent it felf : not as affent, 
but as a Voluntary ajftnt, and as an affent to Premifes or Reve - 
lotions of good to us. There is goodnefs in the word of Revela- 
tion fubordinate, or in order to the good Revealed. And fo 
there is an act of the tvill upon the good in the Word, compli- 
cated with the Intellects AlTenr, be fides the following fuller act 
ofthe Will,uponChriftandche benefits themft Ives. And there- 
fore there is a twofold Affiance, i . An Affiance in Gods V$rx-> 
city ae the Revealer. 2. An Affiance in Cbrifl the OMcdUtor t 
as the beftomr , accoospli[ber andattual Saviour or Deliverer 
according to his Office aud Covenant. The firft is an act of 
the W'H concurring with AfTent. And of this Pembles opinion 
is ncer Truth,though not fully ic- For here A ffi^nce is as.clofc- 
ly joyned wich Alfcnt as Heat in the Sun with Light, thrush 
they are not the fame. But then the fecond fon of Affiance 
followeth Affent, and ha h another ace of the W1I inurce- 
ding,which;s Confentor accep anceof the Ptnttit crTe'cd* 
which alfo is clofely conjunct with the h"; ft act of the Will. And 
then followeth lad of all affiance in Chnft for the performance 
ofthe undertaken acts. And thefe latter are alfo many parti- 
cular Phyfical acts, as the objects <n [fecit (fecial Jfima are ma- 
ny. And yet all thefe make but one object in a moral fenfe,md 
fo but one acr,and are done in a few moments of time of which 
after. Would it not be too tedious, I fliould ftay to cite feve- 
ral Texts, to prove that never a one of all thefe acts is exclu- 
ded as works by Pan!. But of divers of them its before proved 
from Romr. and 4 andofmorcinH/£.u, and in (7*>. 3.1,5, 
7*8,9, 13,14,1*, 16, 18 20,21,23. Thereare at leaft thefe 
Objects of Juftifying faith ex prefTcd. i.Chrijfs Perfo* ,2.tha 


tie ttw the feed pftmifed. 3 . That he Was trucifieJ. 4.That this 
was for mr jhs. 5 . That be was made a eurfe fir us in thu his 
death. 6 . That hereby he Redeemed us from the curfe. 7. That 
he is the Afedtator, %.<~jod as the Party With Whom In is Media* 
ion 9. God m Relieved in his Promife. 1 0. God as Juftifier, 
1 1 . The gosjelfreached^nd the Promife made. 12, 'Bleffidnefs 
by Chrift, 13. The confirmed Covenant. 1 4.7 hi Inheritance* 
15 Rigkteo&fnefs. 16. Adoption. 17. Thn Beliefs the means* 
and believers the fubje6ts ofthefe benefits. All thefe objects of 
Faith you will find in the Text. 

1 Argument 2. Exnaturarei. If other aces of faith in Chrift' 
are no more works then that one (whatfoever it be) which you 
will fay Paul oppofeth to works, then P^w/doth not f#//&em 
works, or number them with works. Bu: the Antecedents 
tr ue, therefore fo is the Confequent. Dqribtlefs the Scripture 
caih them as they are : and therefore if they arc net works, \t 
calls them not works. And for the Antecedent , 1. If by 'mr\t 
you mean the Keeping of the fit "ft Covenant byfinlefs pbedi- 
e'ncejfo neither the one or the other are works. \% ffyou mean 
the keeping of Mofes Law, fo neither 0? them are "mrfy? 3 . If 
you mean the performance of an act of Obedience to any Pre- 
cept of God, fo the feveral acts are works', but juftifie-nor a9 
an? of obedience to the command fthatsbut their^tnatter ) 
but as the condition of the Promife. 4. Jfyou'me arnica? they 
are- A bis ofthefoulof man, fo every act 6F faith'is a-wbrft, 


'uftifymg act ; wftac reafon can you give-why our P^ievingfin 
Chrift incarnate, 'm Chrift obeying the L a w > in Chrift 'fifing 
r'gain, and Glorified and Interceding, inChrift actually now 
giving out the pardon of fin 2nd Adoption, &c. f 
retted vrtr\s any more then our Believing in Chrift as cWgft- 
rd ?• No reafon at all; nor any Scripture can-be brought Y 
Yea what reafon hafve you that our Believing in Chri'Tas the 
Phyfitian ofour fouls, to cure us of our (ins , and-clemfe our 
rs, and fancttfie our Natures, and in Chrift as the Teacher 
and Guide of our fouls to life eternal, flhould be called works 



any more then the other ? Or that believing m Chnfts blood 
for everlaftirvg Life and happinefs, fhould be any more called 
works then believing ip his blood for jpftificat on ? Yea that 
Believing in htmas the King, and Head , and Captain of his 
Church to fubduc tbeir enemies., and by his Government con- 
dud them to perfeverance and to Glory, (hould any more be 
called nW^then believing on hira as crucified in crder to for- 

Argttme»t 3. All ads Eflential to fai:h in Thrift as Chrift, 
are oppofed to works by Paul in the point of Juftification,and 
are not the works opposed fo Faith, But duny acts are cfFen - 
till rofaitbin<iiteftas.Ghrift ^ therefore they are many ads 
ireoppofeito works ; and no or. fe acts is the 

works escluuid. 

The Mi'prA% proved thus : If faith in. Cbiift as fuch, be it 
thatPww/oppofeth to Works, then every eflential part of it is 
by T aul oppofed to works (for it is not faith- in Cbrift if it 

want an\*efTentul part ) But the;.^#«rc^«Mstru<r. .^r^. • 

b ive proved in the ficft.Difputarion : Though 
fomecime it is. feid to .h«. Zh f**&i* fa bfcul'] the we fcave 
remifiion of fto ; "*nd fometime that we are jaftified 
Iteve in him that raifed Ciorift from the dead , &C. Yet moft 
frequently it is faid to be by faith in Qmfi \ by hi n the 

Lad Cbtift fffmtht Ltrd &C. Bdi%>e in the 

. anirhe#-Jb\ih-fa f*ved« wr.s-tbe GorpeA j>re#«bed 
totfc jayk>r, But this is fuffkiently pr 

marry acts areetftmialtofaith in Chrift as fuch, iftiifo 
proved : and particularly, that believing in him as our Tea- 
cher, Lord, ^nisp 'nterceding, and Justifying feytftfN* 
weal as believing in Mm as dying for our ju- 
fbfication. 'AsChoft'isnoj!CbiftV(«stohubfrlLcsnd'r.-ork) 
without thefe EiTentia!s,fofaitij»mKtheCrjriltiaii fettVtfith*; 

rnough I fa? theferds of -fawn iff 
•orks whkh Parti excluded!,. J (peak of them as they are n 
: :.: thev are mt fvniklrftfd : tor if any ~uld 

imagine that Believing in Chrift is a ^Legal -fcjieritarji 
and that can fuftifie him of or for it feif 

Ggg 1 ' ha 

(4- r 4) 

he may To make another thing of faith, and fo bring it among 
excluded works (if it be poflible for him to believe contracts 
dories : ) But then, this is as true of one act of Faith as ano- 
ther : If a man imagine that its thus Meritorious to Believe in 
Chrift as purchaling him Juftification, it is as much the exclud- 
ed works, as to think it Meritorious to Believe in him as our 
Teacher, or King and Judge, that will lead us to final Abfolu- 
tion, and actually juftifie us by his Sentence at that Judge- 

Argument 4. Thofe afts of Faith that are ncceiTary to Ju- 
ftification, are none of the works that Paul excludeth from Ju- 
stification (unlcfs changed by mifunderftanding, as aforefaid.^ 
But other acts of faith as well as one are neceftary to Justifi- 
cation : Srgo — 

The CMUor ( which only is worthy the labour of a proof) 
I* is proved before, and in the firft Difputatton. 2. And it is 
confeffed by my Opponents, that fay £ Faith in Chrift as Tea- 
cher y K*ng&c. istht tides quae Juftificat, ant the condition of 
Juft tfication , as Repentance alfo is , thoughit h not the Inftrsi* 
mtntdcaujc, as they thinly fome other A3 is. Paul iot\\ not ex- 
clude that which he makes necefTary, 

Argument 5. That which makes not the Reward to be of 
Debt and not of Grace, is none of the works that 7W fets 
faith a gainft. But ether acts of faith in Chrift do not make the 
reward to be of Debt and not of Grace any more then the one 
act which you will choofe (E.g. Believing in Chrift as King 
and Teacher, any more then believing in him as a Ranfora : ) 
therefore they are not the works that 'Pauls fets faith againft. 
The LMapr is proved from the Description of the excluded 
works,#*jw.4.4. The Minor is evident. 

Argument 6. All a&s of Faith in Chrift as our fuftifer, are 
fuch as are oppofed to works by Paul % and are none of the 
works which faith is oppofed to. But they are more then one 
or two that are A&s o^ teth in Chrift as Juftifier:£rg*. 

The Major 1 think will be granted: the Minor is plain ; For 

1. Chrift 


. i.Ctmft juftifiethus meritorioufly as a Sacrifice. 2. And at Of 
bey ing and fulfilling the Law. 3 . As tbe complement of hi 
fatisfa&ion, and the entrance upon his following execution' 
bis Refurtection juftifleth us. 4. As the Heavenly Pricft a* 
Gods right hand, he juftifleth us by his Incercefiion. 5. A s 
King aodHead, he juftifiethus by his Covenant or Law o^ 
Grace. 6. As King and Judge he juftifieth us byfentcncc 
7, As Prophet he tcacbeth us the Doctrine of Justification* 
and how to attain to Juftification by fentencc. So that ac 
lead, none of tbefe are the excluded works. 

~ Argum. 7. If the whole Eflence of Chriftian faith be op- 
pofed to works, and fo be none of the oppofed works in the 
matter of Salvation, then its fo alfo in the matter of Jaftifica- 
tion. But the Antecedent is true ; therefore fo is the Confe- 

The Minor is confefled by my Opponents. The confe- 
rence of the Major I prove. 1. Becaufe Salvation is as 
free as Juftification, and no more of works which Z'**/ exclud- 
ed. 2. Salvation comprehendcth Juftification .• and Glo- 
rification hath the fame conditions as final Juftification at 
Judgement , it being part of Juftification to adjudge that 
Glory. 3. The exprefs Scripture excludes works as much 
from Salvation as from Juftification : Epb. 2. 8,9. For by 
Qrace ye art faved throngh faith ; and that not of jour felves, 
it is the gift of God: not of works, left any man Jhould haft. 
Tit. 3.5,6,7. [ T^ot by works of Right eoufnefs which Vrebavt 
done, bnt according to Ins CMercy he faved hs % by the Vtajbing of 
Regeneration* and the renting of the Holy Ghoft, which he fitd 
en tu abundant I } j , through fefiu Chrijl our Saviour % that being 
jssftified by his Grace, we fhould be made Heirs according u the 
hope of eternal Life. ] Many fuch places are obvious to any 
diligent Reader. For the Minor alfo read 1 Cor. i5.i,*>3,4, 

A gum. 8. If no man can name any one A& of faith that 
"♦oppofed to z\\the reftz%works r . or oppofed to wor&s when 


the refrare not, then no Inch thingitto be afferted. Bat m. 
taan can name the Ad that is thus oppofed alone to works, i. It 
is not yet done that I know of. We cannot get them to tell 
us what Ad: it is, »"• And if they do, others will make as 
good a claim to the Prerogative. 

Argum. 9- They that oppofe us, and a$rm the Queftion, 
do feign God to have a ftrange partiality to one Ad of faith 
above all the reft, without any reafon or aptitude in that ad 
to be To exalted. But this is not to be feigned ( and proved 
it cannot be J that God fhould annex our Juftificadon to the 
Belief in Chrift as a facrifice only- and to oppofe this.ro belief in 
him as Rifing Interceding, Teaching, Promising or ludging , 
is a fidion contrary to Scripture.Examme any Text you pleafe, 
and fee whether it will run well with fuch an Expofition, Rom. 
4.4,5. [NoTvtohimthatVVQrksthJ.e. Believeth in Chrifl as 
Teacher ^judge, Inter cejj or ,&c. is the reward not reckoned of 
grace but of Debt. 'But to him that workjstb not i that is, belie* 
veth not on Chrift as King and Teacher^ &c. but Believtth on 
him that juftifieth the ungodly (an ad of his Kingly office) &c\ 
~ — Doth this run well ? I will not trouble you wi:h fo unfa- 
voury a Paraphrafe upon the like Scriptures : you may try at 
pleafure on Rom.-$> & 4. and Gal 3. Eph.z. Phils, or any fuch 

Argument 10. If the Dodrine of the Opponents'^ holding 
the Affirmative) were true,then no man can tell Whether he be 
a condemned Legalift,or not : yea more , if it be not faith in 
Chrift as fuch {containing the whole Effencej by which we are 
juftifled,as oppofed to works, or which is none of the exclu- 
ded works ; then no man can tell but he is a condemned Le- 
gafiffc But ihtConfequentishlfc', therefore fo is the sArtu- 

The Reafon of the Confequence is, becaufe no man is able 
to tell you which is the fole justifying Act , or which are the 
only acts, if it be not faith Effentially that is it ; for among all 
theicts before mentioned , if a man' miftake and think one 


other ( E. g. faith in Chrifts Re&rreclioi) , in Chnft as King* 
Judge, Teacher, &c.) is irby w'hkh he rauft be juitifad, then 
he falls upon J unification by Works, and To falls fhorc of 
Grace .• for if it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace : 
elfc Works were no Works. And fo no man can tell but he 
deftroycth Grace,and expecteth Juftification by works : much 
Iefs can weak Chriftians teil. I never yet fawor heard from 
any Divine a juft Nomination ( with proof) of the one ju- 
ftifying act , or a juft Enumeration of the many acts, if all 
rouft not be taken in that are Effential. Some fay Affiance is 
the only act : butasthatsconfuted by themoft that take in 
Affentalfo > fo there are many and many acts of Affiance in 
Chrrft that are neceffary.and they fhould tell us which of thefe 
it is. 

Object. An d do you thinks that fte can any better tell when we 
have all that are EJfential . ? Or doth every weak C^tf*™ &*' 
lieve all the twenty Articles that you mentioned atfirfi * 

A fifty, i, We can better know what is Revealed then whats 
unreveaied. The Scripture tells us what faith in Chrift is • but 
not what one or two acls do Juftifie , excluding all other as 
Works. Divines have often defined Faith • but I know not 
that any hath defined my fuch one.act, as thus exalted above 
the reft of the Effence of Faith. If we covld not tell what is 
efemial to Faith, we could not tell what faith is. 2. The twen- 
ty Objects of Affent before mentioned are not all Articles 
or materia! Objects; the fecondisthc formal Object. And 
of the ref , unlefs the fifth | Believing that Chrifi tyat concei- 
vedby the Ho/y Ghfi, and ben: of a Virgin ] may be excepted 
(wbtch'Idarenoratrrm ) I know not of one thats not eflen- 
tial to Ghriftranity. And I think if we had Hereticks among 
us that denyed Chrift to be conceived by the Holy Ghoft, we 
fhould fcarce take them for Chriitians. But that man that 
ftnildeny or rrorbeheve that Guift is God, that be is Man, 
that he was no finner, that he dyed, and that for our fins,and 
that he was a Sacrifice or Ranfom for us, and that he Rofe 

Hhh again, 


again, is Glorified, and will judge us : that he hath offered us 
a pardon of fin • that there will be a Refurrection of the bo- 
dy, and Hfe Everlafting by this our Redeemer i I cannot fee 
how he can be a Chriftian. And for the number of Ar- 
ticles, 1 left out much of the ancient Creed ic felf, (the Belief 
in God the Father, Creator, &c ; in the Holy Ghoft * the Ar- 
ticle of the Catholick Church , the Communion of Saints^ 
of Chrifts burial, Defcent into Hell , and more. ) And 
yet do you think this too big to be effential to Chriftian ■, 
Faich ? I f To, txll not any Heretick that denyeth any one of 
thefe, that hedenyeth an Effential Article of our faith. 

Butfqrthe ignorant weak Chriftian, I fay , i. He know- 
eth all thefe Articles that I have named ; but 2. perhaps not 
with fo ripe a manner of apprehenfien asis formed into men* 
tal words) or which he can exprefs in words to others : I find 
my felf in ray ftudies, that I have fomtimes an apprehenfion 
of a Truth before I have ripened that conception for an ex* 
preflion. }, And perhaps they arenot Methodical atid Di- 
ftmct in their conceptions, and cannot fay tbat there are juft 
To many Articles. Every fick man can underftand what it is 
to defire and accept of fuch a man to be hiv Phyfitian • , and 
herein he firft verily defireth health, and fecondly, defireth 
Phyfick as a^cans to Health, and thirdly, defireth the Phy> 
fi'tian in order ^0 the ufe of that means, and fourthly , there- 
in doth take him to be a Phyfitian, and fifthly, to have comr 
petent skill, and fixchly, to be Inforae meafure faithful, to be 
trufted,and feventhly, doth place Tome confidence in him,^» 
aU this and more is truly in his mind ; and yet perhaps they 
are not ripened and meafured into fuch diftinct conceptions/ 
as that he can distinctly tell you all this in tolerable Language, 
or doth obferve then as diftinct Conceptions in bimfclf (ana 
whether uno intuitu the eye and the Intellect may not fee ma^ 
ny Objects , chough abobjettis , the acts muft be called mar' 
nyand divers, is a Controverfie among Philofophers • and 
as I remember Pet.Httrtai. de MtniozM afifirmeth it. ) But 
if you your feiveswiil form all thefe into diftinct concepti- 
ons, and ask your Catechift his judgement of them , its like 

\ he 


'be can mak you perccnre at leaf* by a Tta or Nay ] that he 
underftands them all. The new formed body of che Infant 
in the Womb hath all the Integral parts of a man • and yet 
fo fmall that you cannot foeafilydifcern them as you may 
do the fame parts when he is grown up to manhood. So the 
knowledge of every particular Effential Article of faith is 
truly in the weakeft Chriftianin the very moment of his con- 
version • but perhaps it maybe but by a more crude imper- 
fect Conception , that obferveth not every Article distinctly, 
nor any of them very dearly, but his knowledge is both too 
dim and too confufed. And yet I muftfay that it is not on- 
ly fuch as fome Papifts call a Virtual or Implicite Faith or 
knowledge, As to believe only the Gcoeral Revelation and the 
formal Object ; as that the Scripture is Gods Word, and God 
is true : or that whatever the Church propounds as an Article 
of faith is true; while they know not what the Church or 
Scripture doth propound : for tfiis is not actual Chriftian faith, 
but fuch a part as a man may have that is no Chriftian. And 
yet fome Papifts would perfwade us that where this much if, 
there is faving faith , though the perfon believe not ( yea, or 
deny by the probable Doctrine of feducing Doctors) fome 
of the forefaid Effential Articles. 

Argum. 1 1 . If the terms [ Faith in Chrififtceivi»g Ckri/}, 
Refting on C^rift, &c. ] are to be underftood as CivUJeli- 
tical and Ethical ttrms in a moral fenfe, then mud we fuppofe 
that they (ignifie many Phyfical a cb, and not any one only. 

But thefe terms arc to be thus morally underftood. Ergo. ■ 

The Antecedent is proved thus. Terms are to be underftood 
according to the nature of the Subjed and Doclrine : But the 
Subject and Doctrine of the Gofpel which ufeth thefe terms, 
is Moral Political t therefore the terms are agreeably to be in- 
terpreted. The fame term in Phyfick, Law, Mathematickf, 
Soldiery , Navigation, Husbandry, e£*r. hath various figaifica*. 
tions : but ftill it muft be interpreted according to the nature 
and ufe of the doctrine , Art or Science that maketh ufe of 
k. The confequence or the Major is proved, becaufe it is the 
ufe of Ethicks and Politicks thus to interpret fuch phrafes as 
Hhh i containing 

C4 i0 ) 

eonteinwig divers Phyikal Acts. Marriage is one Civil act •' 
but it is many r4iy(ical Ads : it containctbi divetsads of the 
underftandmg concerning the Eflentiafs of the Relation : and 
divers ads of the Will in consenting thereunto- and the out? 
ward words or ftgns of Confent, for making the Contract. So 
taking a rmn to be my Kmgmy General, my Tutor,Teacber, 
Puftor, Phy fician, Mafter, dHri'aU tignifte the acts of the Un- 
demanding, Will and expreffing Powers, which the feverai 
parts of the Objects do require. 

Argument i*. If there be many Ads itfides Faith »* 
Cbrift, attendant on it, and [ukftrvient to it, which ar$ 
none of the works which /Wexcludetto, and oppofeth faith 
to- then the Effential Aclsof faith itfelf arenoneof thofe 
works. But the Antecedent is true,as I prove in feme inftan* 
ces : 

For a man to repent of fin, to confefiit , to believe ind 
confefs that we are unworthy of any Mercy , and unable 
to juftifie our felves , or make fatisfadion for our fias.and 
that we are in abfolute neceflity of Chrift, having no Rjghte- 
oufnefs, Sandification or Sufficiency of ouroWn, to take 
God- for oar Father reconciled in Chrift , and to Love him 
accordingly : to forgive our Brethren from the fenfe of 
CbEffe forgiving us- to (hew our Faith by fruitful worfa 
and words. WhenTW faith, Rom. 44,$. £ To him that 
vtorkjith the Reward is not of Grace ] the meaning is not [ To 
him that rtpenteth,to him that denieth himfelfandhis own Righ* 
teoufhtfs to hit J unification , to him that confejfeth hid fin, that 
lovethGod at a rtconci/ed Father in Chrift, &q, 1 and when he 
faith, [To him that ^orktsh not, but bdieveth^ the meaning 
hnot^tohimtbat lovtthmt Qod, to him that repentethnot , 
that for giveth not others £tc.but believeth. 

Objt&.'Bvt jet it majbe [ to him that thin\tth not to bejufti- 
fied by or for theft , but by Faith.'} Anfwer 1. Concomtanfls 
and Subordinates may not be fet in oppofition,faith fuppofeth 
the Concomitancy anb Subferviency of thefe in and to Jufti* 


fication. 2. Believing in Chrifts Ranfom,may as well be ex- 
cluded coo, if men thin* to be juftified for fo doing meritori- 
eofly. 3 . He that chinkcth to be juftified by any work in 
that way which is oppofed to Juftification by Grace and 
Faith, muft chink to be juftified by the Merit of them, or 
without a Saviour, which all tb$fe Graces forementioned con- 
tradict. 4. God fakh exprefty, that we rouft [ Rtptnt and be 
converted^ tb«t W pis ma) be blottuL out '• and repent that \~e 
ma) be forgiven : and if we confefs our fins, be is faithfull and 
juft to forgive H4 our fin*: andsf vt forgive } WeJb4tt be forgiven; 
and that by worJy W* a^e juftified and not by faith onlj : and that 
hj our words Vnfiall bejuftifiid 1 So that PanJ.x works which he 
oppofeth fakh to,are nektarjUa^'s workj&W any ofthefe par- 
ticulars mentioned : for thefe arc made ncceflary conditions 
or means of pardon, and of fome fort of Juftification , fuch 
as Pauls works could not contribute to,whkb were falfly ima- 
gined by the doers to make the Rewacd to be not of Grace 
but Debt. 

Objc&. There is but one faith, Eph>4*i. Anfwer. But 
that One faith hath many Pbyfical Acts or Articles. There is 
but one true Religion, but it hath many parts. There is 
but one Gofpel , but that one contanieth many particular 

Hhb 3 Confect. 


r^Onfeft. i. To be juftified bj Paitb, is to be juftified 
^ by Faith in Chrifi as Chrift 9 and not by any one part 
of that Faith, excluding any of its Effcntial parts. 

2. To be juftified by Faith in Chrift as Chrifi , and fo as 
Riling, Teaching, Pardoning, Ruling, Judging, as well 
as fatisfying, i.e .as the Saviour that hath undertaken all this, 
is not in "Pauls fenfc to be juftified by works : therefore it 
is the true Juftification by Faith. 

3. It if therefore unfound to make any one Act or part 
of Faith the fides qua Juftificans, and the other Eflen- 
tial parts 00 be the fides qua juftificat , when no more 
can be faid of any but that it is fidts ex qua jujiificamur, 
and that may be laid of all. 

4. Though Faith be an Acceptance of Chrift and Life 
as offered in the Gofpel , fo that its very Nature 
or Effence is morally Receptive , which may tolerab- 
ly be called its Metaphorical Pafilve Inftrumentality • 
yet are we not juftified by it qua talis, that isjuafide j,and 
fo not quattnus Inftrumentum tale Met#phoricum> vei 
Accept atto, vel Receptio moralis , but qua conditio Tefiamenti 
vtlptdtrit fraftita. 

5. There- 

. (4 2 

j. Therefore it is not only the Acceptance of Right€- 
oufhefs by which we are juftified, much lefs the Affiance in 
Chrift as dying only ; but the Belief in Chrift as the Pur- 
chafer of Salvation,and as the Sanctifier,Guide and Teach- 
er of our fouls in order thereunto, hath as ttue an Intereft 
in our justification as the believing in him for Pardon. And 
fo far as any other holy act doth modifie and fubferve faith, 
and is part of the Condition of Juftification with it, fo far by 
it alfo we are juftified.