(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 "Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr T. Blake. And the digression of Mr G. Kendall"








kiifililifrl II 


Againftthe Modcft 


iM' T. "B LA K E. 



M' g, KL E ^l_ T> J L L. 

IvhereMnto is added 


on a late 



Ludiomt6iirS Cohinuf^ alia?, Ludoyiciis Molim/is^ 
M. D-^ O X o N. 


Admonition of M' l^\ Syreo[ Salisbury, 

w I T H 
M' Crandon's Anatomy for farisfadion of M' CaryL \ 

I Phi!.i.i5.i6ji7,i8,it;. Some preach Cbrifi (ven of Envy and Strife, and feme alfo of 
Good i^ill I The one preach Chrift of Contention, not fincerely, fuppofin^ to adde tAffli- 
Sfion to my bonds .- But the other of Love, l^novftng that I am fet for the Defence of the 

I Gdfpcl. IVhat then ? '^otvfitbjijindtng every »j>, whether in pretence or in truth, Chrijt 
ispreiihcd.^ and I thcnin do i{sioycc,yca,andrvill 1{fjoyce. For I lir.ov that thisfljall 
turn to my [alvation through your Pnyer, and thefupply of the Spirit offefus Chriji. 

LoHdon, Printed by -A.iM. fer Tbomai Vtiderbill, at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls 
1 Church-yard, and Francii Tyton at the three Daggers in Flectftreec. 16)4. 

« > 


Honourable CommifTary General 



^Jjgr^ ^&fcD Qf^'^?^ ^^ Hough ^'eaknifs nnd difiance have prchihited me 
U^P ^^l f^^H^ f/j^r converfe "A'ith jtu Which fometime I did 
««^:i-^5 l.rX^^' c^joj) jef have they not excti^cd jour former 
Kindemfs «ut of my Remembrance, Received 
Benefits (hotildr.of Die before us : if the Do- 
nor kill them not by Ret ration, the Receiver 
mttfi notfuffocate them bj Oblivion ; nor prove 
their Grave , Who Woi intended for a Store- 
houfe, if not a Garden Where tJjej may be Root' 
tdandbe fruitfulL In thofe hearts Where Benefits Live, the Benefa- 
^or Liveth. t/fnd thofe that Live in our Efiimation and AffeEiion, We 
defire their Names may be infcribed on our Alonaments, and furvive 
With ours. When We are Dead. JVhile We live alfo Wc more regard their 
^ndgementf of us, then other mens- and are more ambit iom of flan d- 
ing right in their efleem ; and therefore are Willing that our jujl ty^po- 
logie's may be in their hands, to hinder mifafprehenfions , and reffi un- 
jufi Accnfers. May thefe Reafons e.xcuje my prefixing jcur Name to 
thffe Papers, anddireElingthemfirft to jeur Hand: (Cuftom having 
led me into that Road, Wherein J do not unypiliintrlj fol/crv.) It is net 

Q-* 2]' for 

for ProtcWion $r Patronage of tkj Ofmions : For tktt I referre thenu 
Whokj to the Father of Light s^ the HtHwiKating Spirit, and the Light 
of that Truth Which thej CMtai*i and Vindicate. Nor do I deftre that 
joujhould make thefe things y cur Studies ; thej being more fitted to the 
ufe cf thofe Students, that can laj out much of their time onfuch things. 
J confefs I had rather fee in jour Hands, the Holj Scriptures, and 
Books of Trallical Divinity , then thefe Controverfies : and had ra- 
ther hearfuch Praitical Dijcourfes from yeur Mouth. So farre am I 
fiomfo/icitingjou to any fingu/ar Opinion of mine , that } fo licit y oh 
not once to reaci thefe "Bookj ; fave enely When any Opinion in therfu 
jhall be AccuJed,to turn to the Words, and fee What ts faid.It u the Pra^ 
Bical Chrijlian that holds fafi the Truth, Which muny eager Dijputers 
foon loje. Doting about ^mfiions that engender ft rife, u not the Reli- 
gioufne/s that Cod approves ; jvhat ever the Prcfeffours of tht.< Age 
may imagine. It is the moft Practical Teachers and People in Etig- 
Jand commonly that are the moft Orthodox. I have oft noted many men} 
Prayers to be much freer ftom Libert inifm , then their Sermons ; and 
their Sermons then their fVritings and Dijputes. That's a mam 
Judgement indeed. Which he dare reduce to Praitice, and own before 

The fVorkjf thefe Papers haveheen to my minde fomervhat like thofe 
fad Employments Wherein J attended you : ofthemfelves, grievous and 
ungrate full ; exajperating others, and not pleaftng my felf (be fides tht 
ruinating of my bodily health) And as the Remembrance of thofe years 
ufo little delight full to me, that I lookbackjtpon them as the faddeft part 
of my life ; Jo the Review of this Apologie, vs but the renewing of my 
trouble: tothinkjof our Common frailty and darknefs, and What Reve- 
rend and much valued Brethren I contradi^ j but ejpecially for fear left 
men (houldmake this CoHifion an oceafton of Divifton^ and by receiving 
the JJf arks into Combuftible Ajfe^ions, Jhouldturn that to a Conflagrati- 
on which I intended but for Illumination. If you fay , I Jhould then havi 
let it alone : The fame anfwer muft ferve , 04 in the former Caufe Wi 
Were Wont to ufe. Some fay, that I Who pretend fo much for Peace, [houU 
not Write of Controverfies. For my felf it is not much Matter : but 
muf} Gods Truth (for fuch I take it) ft and as a Butt for every man to 
Jhoot at ? Aiuft there be fuch Liberty of c^poftng it, and none of T)e- 
f ending ? One party cannot have Pc'ace Without the others Confent. To 
be Buffeted and A (faulted, and Commanded to Deliver up the Truth of 
God, and called Vnpeaceable if I defend it and reftft, thts is fuch Equi- 

fj at '^'e^ere^^ont to finde. In a W'erd, both ^"orhj ^'ere ungratefnll to 
me, and are fo In the preview ; ^ut in both, as Providence and mens ow» 
fet iwfoJeda-NeceJfitj, and drove mc te that fir att, that I muft Defend 
ordo\\>urfe; jo did the fame -'providence fo c/ear rny tt'*y, and draw me 
on, andfweeten Hnttfnal Troubles W'ith nnnfual Adercies, and Jjfue aH 
in Tefilrr:orAes cf Grace, that ai I had great mixtures of Comfort ^'ith 
Sorrcv in the Performance y Jo have J in the Review : And as I had more 
emiyient Deliverances and other (JMercies in thofe years and ^ajes of 
Blond and Dolour, then in mofi of mj Life beftde ; fo have I had more 
encouraging Light ft nee I W^w engaged in thefe Controverjies. ( For I 
(heakjtot of thejefew Papers onely, but of many more of the like Nature 
that have taken up my time.) And ai Ifiill retain d a Hope, that th& 
End of ail our Calamities andfirange Dijfoftngs of Providence^ Would 
befomewhat 'Better then Wa^s Threatned of late : fo Experience hath 
taught me to think., that the Ijfiieef my mofi ungratefull Labours fhall 
not be vain \ but that Providence Which extra^ed them hath fome ufe to 
make of them, better then J am y et aware of i if not in this Age, yet tn 
times to come. The befi is, We now draw no bloud : and honefi hearts 
Will not take themfelves Wounded, With that blow Which is given onely to 
their Err ours. How ever, God mufi beferved When he calsfor it, though 
by the harfhefi and mofi nnpleaftng Work^ Onely the Lord teach m to 
Watch carefully over our Dcceitfull Hearts , leafi We fijould ferve 
Our [elves While We thinks and fay, ive are ftrving him; and Icfi we 
pjould ALilitate for our own Honour and Interefi, when we pretend to do 
it for his Truth and Glory ! 

J hope. Sir, the Diverftty of Opinions in thefe dayes, will not dimi- 
ni/hyour Bfiimation of Chrifiianity, nor make yon (us'pcU that all it 
Doubt full, becaufefo much n Doubted of. Though the Tempter feems 
to be playing fuch a Game in the world, God will go beyond him, and turn 
that to Illuftration and Confirmation, which he intended for Confufion 
and Extirpation of the Truth. Ton know its no news to hear of fame Ig- 
norant, Proud and Licentious, of what Religion foever they be. And 
this Trinity is the Creator of Herefics. And as for the fob tr und (Jodly, 
it is but in lejfcr things that they difagree : and mofily about words and 
Alet hods more then Matter (though the fmallefi things of Qod are not 
Contemptible.^ He that wonders to fee wif^e men di^er, dnhbut wo:tder 
that they are yet Imperfefl, and kj'ow but in part j that is, tktt they are 
yet Alortalftnners, and not Glorified on Earth ! And fuch roonderers 
know not what man is, and it feems are too great fi rangers to themfelves. 

L* 3] And 

jindifthej turn thefe differences utht frtjudice tf Q$dj Truth , er di» 
pfOitoMr of Cjodiiaefs ,thej fijew tijemfelvesjet mere unreafonable^to hUmt 
the Snnr.e that men are furblinde. And indeed ttvrr Tride and PaJJioH 
laid afide i>j our Difputes, and men conld g(ntljjnffer contradict ion ^ and 
heart i/j love and corrcfpond ^'ith thofe that in lower matters do gainfaj 
them, I fee not hatfuchfiiendlj debates might edifie. 

For jour f elf J Sir, afjou)^'ereafriendtofoundDoE}rine,toZJnitj 
andtoPietj, and to the Preachers, Defenders and PraEiifers t hereof y 
V(hileIconzcyfi\\>ithjou3 and as fame informcth tu, have centinued 
fueh J fc iLc^e that God Who hathfo long prefervedjoUjWill prefervejtH 
to the end j and he that hath been jour Shield in corf oral dangers, ^ill be 
fo in (pirituall. 

To ftr great fVarfare U not jet accomflifhed : The Worms ofCorrufti' 
on th.it breed in our bowels, Vcill live infome meafure till We die ourfelves. 
7 our Conquefi ofjottrfelf is jet Imperfect . To fight With jour f elf ,joh 
Willfnde the hardefi, but mofi nice^arj Conjiifl that ever jet jou Were 
engaged in -, and to overcome jour felf the mofi honourable and gainfuU 
} iclorj. And thlnlajiot that jour greatefi trials are all over. Pro^erity 
hath its peculiar Temptations, bj Which it hath foiled manj that floed 
Hnfjakenin the forms of adverfitj' The Tempter Who h.ith had jou on 
the Waves, Will new ajfaultjou in the calm ', and hath hts lafi game ta 
plaj en the Mountain, till nature caufejou to defcend. Stand this Charge 
and you Win the daj. To which, as one that is faithful tojou, 1 [hall aC' 
quaint JOU in a few words, what his temptations are like to be, and how jou 
fljould refifl them : Jfjou are alreadj provided, a Remembrancer will do, 
you no harm. 

1. Thcfirfi and great Ajfault will be, to entice jou to Overvalue jour 
prefent Profperitj , and to fudge the Creature to be better then it is, and 
to grajp after a fulnefs of Honour and Wealth, and then to faj. Soul, 
take thy Reft. As jou love jour Teace, jour Life, jour Soul, your 
God, take hed of this. Judge of Projperitj a4 one that mufi go Naked 
cut of the world : Bfieem of earthlj Greatnefs and Glorj as th.it which 
yvilljljortlj leave jou in the dufi. whj (J;oiild it be prepcr to Djing men to 
be wife, and to Judge trulj of this world, when all the living undoubtedly 
know that thej muft Die ? 

2. At leaf the Tempter will perfwade with jou to enjnjjour Projperitj 
to thefatisfjing cfjourflejb; and tell jou that the f-ee ufe of the Creatures 
is jour Chrlfiian Liberty, and therefore you need not denj jour felves 
thofe T>elights th^n God affordethyou. But remember that it is the feem- 


ittgfveetnefs oft'he Creature that dra:wi menfitm God : The Pleafantefi 
Condition ts the mofi dangeroHs. If ever yon would have jour ftnl Fra- 
Jpery make no provifion for the flc(h to fatisfie its lufts ; j4 better man 
then any of tu, wot fain to tame his bod^ and bring it into fub]eUion.M.or- 
tifcation 14 a necefarj, but much negleSled part of the Chrijfian Reli^ 

3 . Should the Tempter prevail in thefe, it would follow, that God 
would be much forgotten, former Engagements violated, and the Invi" 
fible things of the Life to come wof>ld hefeldom thought on, and lefs efiec' 
med. O thinkjn him that remembredyou inyourg^reatefi fir aits '. Its a 
provoking Jin to breakjhofc Engagements which depth of Extremity, or 
Greatnejs of Deliverance, did formerly confirain m to make with our 
Cod \ Ingratitude makes a forfeiture of all we have. And thinkjtot well 
of your own heart J when you cannot thini^morefweetly of another world 
then of this. Its unhappy projperity that makes God to be more jleighted, 
and the Glory to come more unfavourj to our thoughts, and makes us fay. 
It is beft to be here. 

4. Ancther dangerous Temptation that will attend thefe, will be, ta 
difregard Chrifis Interefi through an over-minding of their own : To play 
your own game, and lay out your chief efi care for your fe If, and make Gods 
hufinefs tofioop unto your own. where thus prevails, the hearts offuch are 
falfe to Chrifi : fVhi/e they pretend toferve him, they do butferve them- 
felves upon him. They will honour Chrifi n« longer then he will honour 
them. And when they are once falfe to Chrifi, they can be true to no one 
elfe. Their friends are efieemed but asfieppingfiones to their Ends, when 
they canferve them no longer they rejeB them as unprofitable. £ver Re- 
member, that manfiandsjafefi that ejpou/eth no Interefi contradictory t» 
Chrifis •, / had almofifaid. None but Chrifis : For even Chrifis mufi 
be made his own, and then his own will be Chrifis. God is more engaged ta 
fecure his own Interefi then ours. There is noPoUcy therefore comparable to 
this, to Sngage mofi deeply where Chrifis chief efi Interefi lieth , and to 
ZJnite our own to his, in a jufi fubordi/iation. He that Will needs have a 

fianding divided fiom Chrifi, hjdependent on him, or Equal With hirttj, 
much more in Oppofiticn to him, isfure to fall. It will breakjhe greatefi 
Prince on Earth to cfpoufe an Interefi inconfifient with Chrifis, when he 
doth but arifc to plead his Caufe. Study therefore where Chrifis Interefi 
mofi lieth, and then devote all your own to the promoting of it : and hold 
none that lives not at the Vine ori the Wall, or rather as the branch in the 
Vine, in^ependanceupon his. And upon Enquiry jou will fmdc, that 


Chrifis Interefl lies much in thefe tvo things, the Pietj and the Peace of 

his People. The Rtftrmation cfhis Churches, and the Unit in j of them 
(at hotne and abroad) are the great eji Vesri^s that any can be Jmplojed in. 
To yvhich ends Gods chit fejl means, is an Able, ^^Ij, Diligent A^ni- 
firj , to Teach and Jiule his flocks according to his IVord. All the Inter e^ 
that Gcdhath CJivcn you, he cxpeSlethfiould be Jjjeedi/j, diligently and 
Undefervedlj inrployedto thefe Ends. Delay not, joh have but your time. 
Thir.kjt not enough to do no harm, or no more good then thofe belorv you. 
Towjlanding is unfafe whcnyou do little or nothing for Cjod. He is not 
bound to held y OH the Candle to do nothing, or to work, for y our felf. Work 
therefore while it is day : the nighc comes when none can work. 
<- 5- yinother Temptation that you mufl cxpeU: , will be, to have your 
mindefwell withyour Condition : and to Mjrejpefl the infer iour fort of 
your Brethren. But J hope the Lord will keep you fmall in your own eyes-^od 
remembring that you are the fame in the eyes of your Judge, and your 
Jhadow 14 not lengthened by yourfuccejjes, and that you mufl He down witk 
the Vulgar in the common dufi. 

Sir, Becaufe the matter of this Bookjmay be lefs ufeful to you, ■ I could 
not direEl it toyonr hand, without fome words that might be more ufefuL 
J do not fear leaf you (hould take my faithful dealing for an injury, or 
interpret my Monition to be an Accufation ; as long as you fo well know 
the Ajfeciions of your Ui'fonitor. The Lord be your Teacher and Defence, 
and Direct, Excite, Encourage and Succeed you, and all that have Op- 
portunity to do any thing to the Repairing of our Breaches, by furthering 
The Reformation and Unity of the Churches : ivhich « the earnejh 
'Deftre, and daily Trayer of 

Tour Servant in the workjofCkriJi 

»6 J J- 

Richard Baxter. 


Given to his Reverend Brother 

M T. "B L J K^ E 


Reafons of his Diffent 


The Docftrine of his Exceptions 

in his late 

Treatise of the CovENANTSt 

John 3.7. 
Little children , let no man Deceive joh : He that doth Righteoufnefsj 
is RighteoHSj even as he is Righteous. 

1 T I M. 4.8. 

Godlinefs is Projitable unto All things, having Tnwife of the Life that 
nsTv is, and of that Which is to come. 


Printed by <iA. C^t. for Thomas Vnderhill at the Anchor and 

Bible in Pauls Church-yard , and Francis Tjton at the 

three Daggers in Fleetjlreet, 1654. 

The Treface ^pologeticaL 

O fwect a thing is Chriftian Love and Con- 
cord, and fo precious are the thoughts of 
Peace to my Soul, that I think it unmeet in 
this contentious Age, to publifli fuch a 
Controvcrfie as this, without an Apology : 
which, its likdy, may be needful, both as 
to the Matter and the Manner. Not that I 
dare rather choofe to Excufe a fault, then to 
forbear the committing of it : But that I 
would have the Reader judge of things as they are. Juft Apologies 
are not a cover to our faults, but for removal of mif-reprefentati- 
ons, and healing of mifapprehenfions, that thofe may not be taken 
for faults which are none, or thofe to be of the greater fize, which 
fire but ordinary infirmities. Whether my Apology be Juft, the 
Reader muft judge. 

I do fo heartily Love Peace, that I have hard thoughts of Con- 
trovcrfie : yet do t fo Love the Truth, that I reftife not to contend 
for it. Though the ftrait be great, yet its no other then we are ufu- 
ally put to, even in lower things. The moft noble and excellent 
ends, may have feme diftaftfiil means : whidi as none that is in his 
right fenfes will choole for themfelves, fo none but a flave to his fcn- 
fes will refufc when they arc neceffary. It is no Contradidion in 
fuch a cafe, biittrue Dsfcrerion, to Choofe the thing which at the 
fame time we do Abhor : To choofe it as a neceffary Means , and 
yet to abhorre it for its Ungrateful Nature. We are contented to 
feek, and buy, and take that Phyfick which we fo abhorre, that we 
have much ado to get it down or to retain it. The Lord knows, that 
contending is diftaftfui to my foul : though my corrupt nature is coo 

A 2 prone 

prone to it. Much ftudying of Controverfies hath oft difcompofed 
my minde, and interrupted my more fwect and heavenly thoughts, 
and unfitted me tor publick and private duties ; fo that I as fenlibly 
finde my felf a lofer by if, as by Tome other avocations of a more 
aliene nature. Yet dare I not be fo felnfli as to caft it off. That muft 
be endured, which may not be defired. We may not pretend the 
difadvantages to our fouls (much lefs any lower) againft apparent 
duty, and fervice to the truth of God. Many wayes hath our Mft- 
fter to make us a full reparation for our loifes. What then fhall I 
refolve on? (Neither tcv Delight in Controverfie; nor totally to 
Refufe it. Not to r'udi upon it unadvifedly, nor to be carried into 
it by blinde Pafiion and partiality, nor yet to caft away my Captains 
Colours, nor to draw back when I am preft. Not to militate for any 
Fadion, but for the Faith ; nor for vain-glory and credit, but for 
Chrift : And this with fuch a differencing the Perfon from the 
Caufe, that as it refpedeth the errour, it (hall be bitter and conten- 
tious ; but as to my Brother, it fhall be a Conference of Love. I 
abhorrealmoft nothing nnore in Divines, then laying too much 
upon the fmaller controvertible Dodrinals, and making too much 

of our Religion to confift in curious and 
* Scnccz Epifl.ai Luc. loi. unneceffary fpec^!ations,ifnotunfearch- 
No« dc^Kit /;oc ho&« f/?c propo- able, unrevealed things- contradiding 
[mm aHuu^fcrercerP}?^- one of thcir firft Maxims, that Vrko- 
fu/MajclUte detubcrc. % '-'/ FraBical Scieyice.l^ An honelt 

^mo fatiui eft ire ap'cm Philofophcr law the evil ot this *. Yet 
via, (^ rcSia , quxm fibi ipji mull Gods commands be obeyed, and 
ficxuidilponcre, quescumniig- the Truth defended, and the Church 
mmolcfitsdcbc^relcgcrc?Mc- .o^firmed and edified, and the foul of 
htjpumioncsimit, qum inter ^n erring Brother be relieved, though 
fepcritecapuntiumlulut. at a dearer rate then a verbal Difputa- 

It is about five years fince I wrote a fmall book about Juftificati- 
on, and being in great wcaknefs and expectation of death, I was 
forced to deliberate. Whether to publifii it with its many Imperfe- 
ftions, or not at all ? I chofc the former, fuppofing the Defeds and 
Crudities would be charged only on the Author, and that fome Light 
might notwithftanding appear to the Reader, which might further 
him in the underftanding of fcvcral truths. 1 durft not fo far value 
reputation, as to be injurious to Verity, for fear of difcovering my 
own infirmity : Its no time to be folicitous about the efteem of men, 


when we are drawing near to the Judgement Seat of God. When 
this Book cannc abroad, it tell under very different Cenfures, as moft 
things ufe to do that feem to go out of the ordinary road. Too many 
overvalued it ; Some were offended at it. Hereupon being afraid 
left by Ignorance or Rafhnefs I fhould wrong the Church and Truth, 
I did in the end of my Book of Baptifm, defire my Brethrens ani- 
m^dverfions and advice : which accordingly many of the mol^ pious 
and Learned men that I know in the Land, were pleafed to afford 
xne ; and chat with fo much Ingenuity, Love and Gentlenefs, as I 
muft needs confefs my felf their Debtor, as having no way deferved 
fo great a favour : and I do hereby return them my molt hearty 
thanks. After this my Reverend and Dear Brother M"" 'Blake in a 
Treatife of the Covenants, did publifli a Confutation of fome things 
in my Book (among many others whom he deals with, W Powel/y 
Mr.Tcmks, Mr.OwY«, Hi'. Firm iff. Sec.) wherein I found nothing 
but tcndernefs and brotherly Love, as to my perfon ; and no fuch 
inclination to extreams in his Doftrine, as I found in fome others ; 
but much Moderation and Sobriety, as indeed the Gravity, Piety 
and Integrity of the man,would promife to any that know him. On- 
ly I thought it might have been more convenient to him, to me, and 
to others, if 1 had feen his exceptions before they had been publiOi- 
ed, thatlohavingknown what I would reply, he might have publi- 
fhed only fo much as he remained unfatisfied in. But as it feems, his 
Judgement was otherwife, (o is it n« whit to me offenfive. Yet when 
I had read his Book, it was my Refolution, to fend him privately my 
Reply, thatfo we might confider how farre we were c^reed, and 
how farre the difference was onely feeming and about words, and 
might publifh only the remainder to the world, by Joynt Cfonfent. 
The Reafons of this Refolution were thefe : Firft, Becaufe I was 
loath by tedious altercations, to hinder the Reader from difcerning 
the Truth : It is the courfe of moft voluminous Difputers , to tire 
their Readers with Contendings about words, that they can hardly 
finde outthe true ftateof theControverfie; much lels difcern oa 
which fide is the Truth. Which might be much remedied if men 
would but lovingly firft debate the matter in private, and cut off all 
the fuperfluities and verbal Quarrels ; and then put out only the ma- 
terial differences by joynt Confent, having Correded even in the 
language and manner of debating, whatfoever was difpleafing or 
feemed injurious to either {^arty. Secondly, Becaufe 1 unfeigr.edly 
abhorrc contending, and never wrote any thing that way, but when 

A 5 I was 

I was unavoidably neccffitatcd. Thirdly, Bccaufc I fo well know 
my own frailty, and proncnefs to be over-eager and keen, and uh- 
mannerly in my ftiie, and the frailty of moft Brethren in being Im- 
patient hereof; yea of many in judging themfelves wronged when 
they are not, and making fome plain fpeeches which were but nccef- 
fary or innocent, to feem proud, contemptuous, and fleighting as 
to mens perfons, racking them to a fenfe chat was never intended, I 
therefore thought it farelt to avoid all occafions of fuch miftakes, 
which may be injurious to themfelves, as weJl as to rae. Fourthly, 
Becaufe chc Lord hath of lace years by a Itrange, unrefiftible work 
of his power, fartned in my foul fo deep an Aporehenfion of the 
Evil oi DiiTeadons, and of the Excellency and Necelfity of the U- 
nity of Brethren, and the Peace or rhe Church ; and in order here- 
to, of the healing of our Divilions, :h.\L ic fticks in my thoughts 
night and day, and the Zeal of fuch a Reconciliation doth eat mc 
up ; fo that I make it the main ftudy and bufinefs of my Meditati- 
ons, which way I might do any thing towards its accompUrhment. 
And I was much afraid, lelt if 1 wrote by way of Controverfie, I 
might, by exafperadng my Brethren, hinder this happy work. He 
thatknoweth my heart, knoweth that chefc were my thoughts. Here- 
upon I did in the firft Page fignifie to M.^/.'^f, this my Refolution, 
which when I was forced to akcr, I would not alter the words of my 
writing, but having given this account of the reafon of them,I(hall 
let them go as I wrote them. 

Before I had finifhed my Reply to Hr. Blake, comes out Mr.KeM' 
dal's Book^Qami\f^.Goodmn,mth his Digreliion againft me: After- 
this J^^^Bmn^S of divers others that were ready to write againft 
ray^ii^^P^nd fontt that had written, and were ready to publifli 
it, and divers others that were defirous to fend me their Animad- 
verfions. I did therefore apprehend ( and fo did many learned 
Friends) an unavoidable Necefiity of appearing more publickly, 
both to fpare my Friends the labour of writing the fame things to 
me over and over, which fo many others had written before ; and 
to fpare my felf the time and pains of endlefs private Replies ('which 
have this three years taken me up, and hinderecl me from more pro- 
fitable work:) and alfo to prevent mens publication of more fuch 
writings as have already been pubUfhed ; feeing when none know 
whatlcanfay againft them, the reft may go on in the way as thefc 
have done, andcroublethemfelvesand the world in vain. Befides, 
1 undcrftood chat fome were offended at my filence, as mif-inter- 


prcting it to be from contempt. Being therefore necelfitated to do 
fomethingof this kinde, Icouldnot(accordingto the Laws of Ju- 
ftice or Friendlhip) deal publickly with any, but thofe that had be- 
gun to deal publickly with me. Its true, there hath been long un- 
anfweredja Book of lAt.Otvens againll fome tkings which I had wrote 
which concerned him. But I never thought fit (nor yet do) to Re- 
ply to that : I. Partly becaufe it containeth To little matter of reall 
difference between him and me (and moft of that is anfwered by 
lAt.BUke, andinmy Reply toMr.iCfW^//.-) The main Points be- 
ing. Whether Ghriitfu&red the fame which the Law threatned, or 
the Value, or that which was equivalent ? (wherein he yieldeth as 
much as I need) and, Whether the Covenant be Conditional } and. 
Whether the Obligation to Puniftiment be diffolved before we Be- 
lieved, finned, or were born? And to vindicate the Truth in thefc 
two or three Points, I conceive it not fo meet a way, to do it in An- 
fwer to that Book, wherein ten times more words would be bettow- 
cd in altercations, and upon the by. 2. Bcfides, I was never ne- 
ver neceffitated to a Reply to that Book , nor once defired, and I 
will do nothing of that kinde, which I know how to avoid. 3 . Buc 
indeed my greateft reafon, was the confcioufnefs of my temerity in 
being fo fooliftily drawn to begin with him ; and the confcioufnefs of 
my fault in one or two unmannerly words of him, and confequently 
the confcioufnefs of my duty to be fir ft fi lent. It is not fit that I 
(hould both begin and end. But thefe Brethren that I here Reply to^ 
did begin with me. 

Upon thefe Reafons, I fent not my papers to Mr.B/ake, but re- 
folvcd to publifti them, with my Reply to Mr.7C. 

AsforMr.A'.himfelf, I know not the man ; butby his writings he 
appears to be a Learned man : Andl will hope his humility may be 
anfwerable to his learning, though he here exprefs it not ; We arc 
all poor frail finners J and above all do hardly Mafter our Pride; 
the fire whereof in an unmortified foul, doth make fewell to it fclf 
of Gods excelleut Gifts, till it have turned them all into fait and 
afhes. That which this Learned man hach troubled himfelf to write 
concerning my felf, I will not infill on : It is not fojr my fclf that I 
am difputing, but for the Truth, fofarreasi knowit : I can tru- 
ly fay as Augtijiine to Hierom, Ohfecro te per ma-rifuctudinem Chrijii, 
ttt fite Uft ^ dimittas mihi'^ nee me vkijfim Udendo malum pfo malo 
reddas Lades enimfi mihi tacucris trrorem mettm, qpicm forte invent" 
■>'is in Scriptfs, vel in ditlis meis. Namfi ea in me reprshenderi-Sy qtii& 


refrehendenclanonfunt, tefotimUdiieiuamwe; ijHtdahfit a morthtUt 
^ fanElo frofoftto tho , ut hoc faci>ti wluntate Udendi cut fans in me 
^Uojuid dtnte malcvolo, o^ned mente veridicafcu non e^e CHlpand»fJ9,8cc. 
Fieri potcfl ut tibi videatnr aliud quam Veritas habet, dam tamen aliud 
fibs te ?ion fat qn^m charitas habct. Nam C7" ego amicijjimam repre^ 
henfionem tuam gratijjime accipiam, etiamfi reprehendi non meruit, quod 
relie defcndi potefi : Ant agnofcam ftmul & benevolentiam tuam c^ 
culpam meam ; G~ qnantum Dominus donat, ' i alio gratm, in alio e- 
mendatm in veniar. ,^J*jd ergo ? fortajje dura, fed cert efalubria ver- 
ha tua tanqttam cefttn Entelli pertimefcam. Cadebatur ille : non cura- 
i>atur : Jzt ideo vincebatur, xonfanabatur. Ego autem ft med'cinalem 
correptionem tuam, tranquilln6 accepero, non doleho. Si vera inft-mi- 
tasvel humane, velmea, etiam cum Tcraciter arguitur, non potejt 
non aliquAntulum co,'triflari ; Aielim tumor Capitis dolet cum cura- 
tur, quam dum ci parcitur, & nonfanatur. Hoc efl enim quod acute 
vidit, qui dixit, ZJtiliores efe plerumque inimicos objurgantcs, quam 
amicos ohjurgare metuentes. llli enim dum rixantur dicunt aliquando 
vera, quee corrigamm : ifii autem minorem quam oportet exhibent y«- 
fiitiit libertatem^ dum amicitia timent exajperare dulcedinem. Ncn 
mihic^e debet mole ft umpondw <ttati4 tujt, dummodo conteratur palea 
culp£ me A. I do not feel my feif hurt by the words of Mr. A'.againft 
my felf, much lefs by any free difclofure of my faulcs. But I con- 
fefs I defired more Clemency to his Adverfary, and more humble 
fenfeof his own frailty, when I read fome paflTages in him againft 

Mr. Goodwin. For example , /j^frf. 3. pag. 
* Yet (ifyoubeableto be- 112,113. much of two pages are taken 
lieve him) he tel$ his Read- up in [[ * A folcmn Profejfon of hU difcer- 
er he is lure there is no Pepper ^ -^^ ^y a^fn. f^^^j ^r /.^aven, and the (hirit 
fprinkied throu J,hoiK his Dil- r n ^1 , r,^r n-^^A.,,:^ j 1 

course, nor is \. Coulcious ^/T^^ff f .;; C^^r-Goodwin, and the porn- 
to himfelf of the leaft bitter- po'^ ^T^^J "/ htsfollj>, to appear mofi ridi- 
nt{ij i3'c. ' culom, ^'c, ~\ even daring, to S^adore the 

hand of God in infatuating his parts, that 
Balaams Afs may fee the hand of the Angel againfl the Prophet'] with 
more of the like. And what is the matter? Why Hv. Goodwin over- 
fecingly wrote the word \^ Antecedent] for [^Confequent] and \^Con~ 
fequent] for [^Antecedent.] A hainous crime ! When I read fuch 
paffages as theic ^n him, I began to think, how well 1 had fped, 
an<l tantum non, did o\v,e him thanks for handling me fo gent- 
ly,, even iii thofe paffages that others moft blamed. But I 


faw it was no wonder, if all ray words » i„deedImore dcfircd m 

were lifted to the bran *. Mi.Ka confcience fo tcndec 

as would have ftiained at 
fomc of all thofe palpable untruths in matter of faft, then a milder language to 
tny Telf. but he tcls us in his Epiftle, chat Aliquandt imocemiut dclinquendum 
erat, nedeclJCHtinqiubudcondornindk,Si.c. EtqutdnimthignxtuUrfxltcii quxdam cr- 
utula, &c. Whether he think alio that he ihould innocentiui dclinquire, isf f^xltctter 
crrare, tkat there may be matter for the honour of Gods Grate, as well as mans* 
1 cannot tell. 

2. As for the Manner of my handling thefe Controverfies (which 
is the next thing that (more) necdeth an Apology,) I expeft to be 
blamed for thefe three things : i . For unprofitable Altercations and 
Repetitions. 2. For too much curiofity and obfcurity in fome di- 
ftindions. 3. For toocourfeand (harp a flile. 

1. For the firil, I knew not how to avoid it, without inconveni- 
ence. I mufl follow the leading of them that I reply to. I murt not 
digrefs too farre, to fetch in more ufefull matter then they put into 
my hands. Yet I think I have done fomewhat in that kinde, as far 
as I faw fit. And when the fame words of theirs, require the fame 
anfwers, I am forced fometime to repeat them, where the occafion 
is repeated. Yet I can promife the Reader that I will not go near fo 
far in this way of repetition, as more learned difputants do, and in 
particular Dr-Twifs. 

2. For the feeond Exception, Imulifay, that many are miflaken 
in my way, in that they difcern not the difference, i. Between Ne- 
ceflary diflinguifhing and unneceffary. 2. Between Curiofity in the 
main Caufe, and in the Means of difcufling it. 3 . Between curious 
Notions that are thrufl on the Church and poor ignorant people, as 
NecefTary and Certain ; and fuch as we are forced to ufe with Lear- 
n«d men to difcover their millakes, and to expugne curiofity of Er- 
rour or Uncertainty, by exadnefs of indagation, and as curious an 
explication of the Truth. I am fomewhat confident that my curious 
diftinguifhing (as fome call it ) is but of the later fort, m all thefe 
refpeds. For example. In the prcfentControverfie about the In- 
flrumentality of faith to Juflification, that which offendeth me is, 
that Divines fhould be fo dangeroufly curious, as to make a Logical 
Notion of fuch Necefiity, which Gods Word never ufed, nor for 
ought I know, the Church for many a hundred year; and which 
poor people cannot comprehend : Yea and that they may lay fo 
much ^of the difference between us and the Papifls on this point, 

(a) thereby 

^hereby moft dangeroufly hardening thcni, when they fiiall difcover 
^ur Errour ; and occafion them to triumph over us, and to think, 
^hat the reft of our Doctrine is like this ? And that this Inftrumen- 
^ality is ftill fo contradiftinguifhed from Merit, as if there were no 
^hird way of Faiths Intereft in our Juftification, but it muft needs be 
^he one or the other. Yea and the moft Learned in the uplhot flie 
^o this, that Credere is not Agere, but Pati, and is but A^io Gram- 
matica, or thenarae of Adion, but Phyfically or hyperphyfically 
a fuffering. Is not here a curious Dodrine of Faith and Juftificati- 
on ? If Arijicth had been a Chriftian he could not have comprehen- 
ded it : Much more is it too fine for vulgar wits (as well as too falfc 
for lovers of the Truth.) In oppolition to this, and in compaflion 
of plain Chnftians, I only fay, that faith is the Condition of our 
Juftification; or tliat the reafon why we are Juftified by it (fuppo- 
fing Its Objed , and its Aptitude) is , becaufe the Free Donor, 
Law-giver and Juftifier will have it fo, and hath defigned it to this 
Office in his Promife or Teftament. I think this is plain Doftrine, 
and fit for plain men. There's fcarce the fimpleft man in the Town, 
li one offer him the Sovcraigns pardon for Rebellion, on Condition 
he will thankfully Accept it, and promife to Rebell no more, but he 
knows this to be the reafon why his Acceptance hath an Intereft in 
his pardoning (viz. as the fitteft Condition freely determined on by 
the Soveraign) without any more ado. And I think to reade him 
a Logick Lcdure about Adive or Pailive Inftrumentality, would 
more abufe then enlighten his underftanding. Yet the fubtilties of 
thofewhomi oppole, doth force me oft to diftinguilh, to expugnc 
their Sophiftry : and I am forced to ufe more accurate means to de« 
fend a plain Truth. And indeed, he that Defineth and Diftinguifti- 
eth well teacheth well. Confufion is the Mother and Nurfe of Er- 
rour. Truth loves the Light. Jt is not found Diftindion that 1 blame 
in any, but fancies and vain curiofities^ and carrying us from Mat- 
ter to Words, and making an appearance of difference, where there 
is none, and calling Coniufion by the name of diftindion or explica- 
tion. I am fure a few obvious Diihndions, have been a Key to let 
many a truth into my underftanding. 

Moreover 1 muft defire the Reader to confidcr, when things feem 
too curious to him, and hard to be underftood, whether it be not 
from the Nature of the fubjed matter, rather then from any unne- 
ceffary Curiofity in me ; If the matter be fuch as will bear no more 
familiar and plain enoaacions and explications , I cannot help that. 


As Seneca faith, ^pifl.$^. Platoni imputes, mn mihi hanc rerHm^ 
eiifficuhatent. Nulla efi autem fine difjicultate fubtilhas. I can- 
not better fpeaR my minde then in the words of >^;y/?;«, li. 5. dt 
Trinit. C. I . Ab ht^ etiant c^ui ifia ieBftri funt , ut igncfcant feta 
ttbi tne mtigu t^oluijfe ejuam pttuijfe dicere antTnadvertertnt , tjuod 
vel if ft melim IntclligPint, ve/ propter mei eloquii difficHltatem non 
intelilgftnt : Sicut ego eii igmfco, ubi propter [nam tarditAtem intel- 
li^ere non pojfunt. Pardon my obfcure difficult expreflions,and I will 
pardon your dulnefs ot apprehenfion. 

3 . For the third Exception, viz. the fiiarpncfs of my ftile, I have 
thefe things w fay, i. I dare not, nor will not wholly excufe it. I 
am too confcious of my frailty, to think my felf innocent in this. I 
confeded my fault as? to one even now ; and I contefs as to another 
( M"^ fVaik£f) i committed the fame fault, by too unmannerly pro- 
vokmg cxprertious ( Though 1 will take none for a competent Judge 
of the degree of my fault, that hath not read his Anfwer to f.Good- 
Vfin, and M' Gatukers Vindication of M"" fVottons Defence.) The 
other paflages that fomeacculeme of, arc, I think, upon a forced 
miftaken fenfe of my words. The moft real fharpnefs that ever t 
was guilty o^, was againft M^^ Tombes in my Book of Baptifm : and 
its too probable that m this againft M'^ K. I have tranfgrcfled : which 
if I have done, I heartily defire him, as I do all other Brethren 
whom I have offended, in compaffion of humane frailty, to remit 
it; as I heartily do all thofe paflages of his, which his Readers do 
generally judge fo unfavoury. However I do adjure every Reader, 
that would not break the ninth Commandment, and wrong God 
and themfelves and me by falfc cenfures, that they impute not my 
(harp expreflions to a difefteem of Chriftian Unity and Peace, or a 
hatred to my Brother : and that by too impatient reception, they 
make it not an occafion of difaffedion, or breach of peace in them- 
felves. For the Lord knows, that, though my words may be too 
rough and earneft, yet my foul longeth after the Unity and Peace 
of the Church. And I never yet wrote againft any Brother fo 
(liarply, butlcouldheartily live with him in dear Love and Com- 
munion; asl am confident I fhou Id do with thefe, if they were 
near me : Forfurelam, Idifagree not with thofewith whom Ido 
convcrfe ; nor ever fell out with any Brother, to my remembrance, 
fincel was a childe. Charge me with unmeet expreflions if you 
pleafe ; but with no further Unpeaceablenefs, DiIaffedion,or Con- 

(a 2) tempt 

tempt of my Brethren, then you can prove 2. I muft intreat the 
Reader to diftingui(h carefully, between my fpceches againlt the 
Perfon, and againft the Errour or Caufe which I oppofe. I confefs, 
when I am confident that it is Errour that I fpeak againft, efpecially 
if It appear to be foul or dangerous, I am apt to fliame it. and load 
it with Abfurdities, and (hew the nakedncfs of it to the Reader : In 
this cafe, I finde many take it as if I fpokc ail this of the Pewbn, and 
cenfured him as abfurd, asldohis Opinion: which is an injurious 
charge; feeing a wife man may hold an abfurd Opinion. And I 
think, as I mui\ not fpeak contemptuoully of my Brother for a lefler 
Eirour, fo neither muft I for his fake, fpeak lightly and favourably 
of his faults. Errour is not like confefled fins, which none dare 
own, or encourage others in : but it is a Vice that difpofeth men to 
Infed all they can ; and cmboldneth them to defend it, and fear- 
lefly to draw all others into the guilt. And therefore it necdeth the 
moft potent oppofition, and the fouls of our Brethren need the moil 
effeftualprefervative: And that muft not be only by a naked, dull 
Confutation^but alfo by a difcovery of the foulnefs,the finfulnes and 
dangeroufnefsofthe Errour. The Affedions have need to be a- 
waked, as wellasthcUnderftanding informed, in the prefentcafe, 
as well as againft common moral Vices. I am fure Seducers make 
no fmall advantage, by moving the Affedions, and why they that 
fpeak Truth (hould not do fo, I cannot teii* Ifwemuft dofoin 
Preaching, fo muft we in fome Difputings, ftiil fuppofing that Infor- 
mation go firft, and exciting application bebutfubfervient, and be 
not the leading, or the principall part. Thofe that take intelleduali 
Errour to be no finr.e, muft deny the underftanding to be under a 
Law, and its ads to hi participative voluntary, and being comman- 
ded by the Will- And if Errour be finne, we may have leave to 
difgrace it and deal with it as finne; provided that we maintain our 
Charity to the erring Brother. I am bound not to hate my Brother 
in my heart, but plainly to Rebuke him, and not fuffer fin to reil 
upon him. If he cake it ill, that makes not me the offender, nor 
will difcharge me from my duty. 3. I confefs I think we arc com- 
monly too tender ear'd in fuch cafes : of which I have fpoken my 
minde already in the end of the Preface to my Book of Baptifm. I 
Iiave oft wondered to think what patience we exped ( and juftiy) 
yea and finde, in many of the worft of our hearers, when we fpeak 
to them as cuttingly as polTibly wc can (and all coo little :) and how 


little we exercife ©r can allow to one another ! and what filkcn ean 
the Preachers of humility have thcmfelves ? And I cannot but ob- 
fcrve the ftrange partiality of the beft : how zealous they are againft 
a Toleration of Errours ; and yet how impatient of being told of 
their own. Other mens (hould be cut down with the Sword, and 
theirs may not be plainly confuted by the Word : nor can we fo skil- 
fully butter and oy lour words, but that we (hail be taken for con- 
temners of our Brethren. Not that I am free from the fame difeafc : 
but ( though proud hearers judge him a proud fpeakcr that deals 
plainly with them, yet) Icantruly fay ofthat fin, to the praife of 
my Phyfition, 2iS Seneca £pifi.S. Salntares admonitiones velut medi- 
camentorum utilium compofitiones Utteris mando, ejfe illas ejficaces in 
meii ulceribtu expcrtna : qua etiamfi ferfdfiatA mn fnnt, ferpere de- 
fierunt' ReSlum iter quod ferb co^novi, O" Uj^m trrtindo, aliis mori' 
ftro. And for my own ftile in writing, it is but fuch as I would ufe 
in free fpeaking, if any Brethren were prefcnt : and I think they 
would then bear it. I would not be furious, nor yet would I be 
blockifti ; nor fpeak as without life about the matters of life. I fay 
of earneftnefs as Seneca of wit, Epifi.j^. ^M^alls fermo ntem ejfet 
ft unafederemM, aut ambHlaremus, tales ejfe Epifiola4 meas volo^ qu£ 
nihil habeant accerfttum, autfiflum. Si fieri pojfet qmdfentiam ojlen-^ 
dere, quam Icqni, mallctn. Etiamft dijpntarern, nee fupploderem pC' 
dem ^c. hoc unum plane tibi approbare veflcm, omnia me ilia fenfire 
aute dicerem, nee tantum fenfire fed amare. Non jejuna ejfe c^ arida 
volo, quA de rebm tarn magnis dicenthr. Neq; enim Philofophia inge- 
nio rentintiat. H<ecjit propojiti noftrijumma : qmd feritimns Jaqnamur ; 
qmd loqmmHr fentiamns. 

4. One thing more I defire : that if my words be any where of- 
fenfive, the Reader will do me that right, as to confider dilic^ently 
the words that I Reply to: for without that, you cannot equally 
judge of mine. Though I do not feel my felf fmart by any words 
of M'"iC's, yet I knew not well how fufficiently to Reply to them, 
without manifefting them to be as they are, I remember Hierom, 
fpeaking of one Evagrim that pleaded for the Stoical impalllonate- 
nefs, faiih he was, ty^pit 'Dem^ aut Saxum : I am neither : and 
therefore muft fpeak as I am. Yet this I will promife my moft of- 
fended Brethren, that in the harfheftofmy Writings, I will not 
give my adverfaries half fo hard language, as did cither Hierom the 
mofi Learned of tlie Fathers, or Calvin the moft Judicious and 

(a 3) Happy 

Happy of the Reformers, no nor as D"^ Twijfe the moft Learned 
oppofer of the Arminians. And I remember what it was that Hie- 
rom cOBjpIained of (adverf. Rujji>tum) Canim dente me rodunt, in 
publico detrahenteSf legentes in attgidn : lidem ^ccufdtores G^ De- 
fenferes'^ turn in aim ^robenty ijuod in me reprcbant : quafi VirtHS & 
yitittm Hon in Rebiu fit, fed cum Attthore mutetur. 

I cannot blame the Reader if he be weary of this long Apologie, 
indasJc, To what purpofe are all thefe words? To whom I truly 
anfwer; More for thy fake then mine own : becaufe fome angry 
Divines that diffent, do raife fuch an odium againlt my Writings, 
upon the pretenfes before intimated, that they may thereby hinder 
thee from receiving any benefit, and entertamin^ the Truth. For 
my own fake, I confefs it little troubleth me ; tor 1 know it hath 
been the cafe of my betters, and I have greater matters to be trou- 
bled for. I can fay as Vi^. Strigelitts £pifi. ad wefenbech. a little be- 
fore his death, Sgoeditione talium pagelUrum nee nominu mei vanam 
glorioUm quaro, nee aueupium peeunia exerceo : Sed eupio Deo decU' 
rare meam gratitudinem pro maximis bene fie iU j c^ EeelefiiA ofiendere 
tneamconfejfionemy denicj^mediocribm ingeniU aliqua ex parte prode^e. 
Horum finium cum mihi optime fim Conjcins, non metuo ejmrundam 
infulfas aut venenatas reprehenfitones, fed me Gr meos labor es Filio Dei 
commendo. Scio meum Vita, curriculum ^ hreve & exiguum ejje : 
^uare in hoc brevitate peregrinattonis ea dicamy fcribam & faciam, 
cfua migrationem in vitam aternam n»n impediunt. This Learned Di- 
vine (Strigelifu ) himfelf, and before him Melan^lhon, as peace- 
able as Learned ( and many another befides them alfo ) have been 
fo tired with the cenfures and reproaches of Divines, that it made 
thcm,ifnot weary of Uving,yet more willing to die: So that Me- 
lanUhon thus wrote down before his death,the motives of his willing- 
nefs to leave this world. 

A dextris. 
ttA fimijiris, Venies in Lucerne : 

Difcedes a Peccatis : Videbts Deunu : 

Liberaberis ab arumnii (fr Intueberui F ilium 'Dei: 
aRabieTheologorum. Difces Ula mira arcana qu*. in hac 

vita intelligere non potutfii: Cur (fC 
fimui conditi : ^lualis fit copulatio 
duarum naturarum in Chrifto. 


only Diflenters, that do terrific people from reading 
:itten, by telling them of I know not what latent dan- 

Nay it is not 
what I have written, 

gerots Errours ; but even they that are of the fame opinion with 
me : For example, I .lately wrote, that Qthe Dodrine of Infallible 
perfeverance of all the fandificd, was my ftrong opinion, and I 
was perfwaded of its trnth,] and i argued for it from Scripture ; yet 
becaufe I fo far acknowledged my own weaknefs, as to fay, that I 
was not fo fully certain of it, as of the Articles of the Creed, and 
becaufe I fay, I thinkitunfafe for a backflidingfcandalous Chrifti- 
an, to venture his falvation meerly on this controverted Point,] 
what offence is taken ? what reports fpread abroad ? fome proclaim- 
ing that I wrore againft Perfeverance ( even when I wrote for it;) 
Others that I am turn'd Arminian ; Others that I am dangeroufly 
warping I In fo much that fome of my neareft friends, for whofe 
good I publiflicd that Book, were ready to throw it by for fear of 
being infedcd with my doftrine againft Perfeverance I The enemies 
Inftruments be not all unlearned nor ungodly. 

For my part, I commend their zeal againft Errour, fo it be Errour 
indeed, and fo they will moderate it with Charity and Humility. 
I am as ftrongly perfwaded that its the Diflcnters that erre, as they 
are that its I. And werethey-as zealous againft Errour indeed, I 
think I might have fpared the labour of fuch Writings as thefe. But 
I remember how they reprehended 'Beattu Rhenanus for his fup- 
pofcd coveteoufnefs, Beatm efi Beattn : attamen ftbi. So are fuch 
Brethren charitable, ftbi & fuis. And all this comes a fludio far'- 
tium, and becaufe the Doftrine of the Unity of Chrifts Body, and 
the Communion of Saints (as Saints) is not reduced to pradice ; 
and we love not men fo much for being of the fame Body, as for 
being of the fame Side or Party with us ; nor for being in the fame 
Chrift , as for being of the fame Opinion. If he that knows 
Chrift knows all things; and if Intereft in Chrift alone be enough 
to make us Happy ; then is it enough to make our Brother 
Amiable ; though ftiU we may be allowed, the diflike of his 

Which fide the Truth lies on, in the Points here debated, I wil- 
lingly leave the Reader to judge according to the evidence that (hall 
appear to him in the pcrufal. I defire no more of him, but Dili- 
gence, Impartiality, and Patience in his ftudying it : And I again 
intreat my Brethren to believe that I write this in an unfained Love 


of peace and them : and that accordingly they will receive it : and 
where they meet with any of the effeds of my infirmity, which may 
(ecm provoking and injurious to them, they will corapaffionately 
remit them; remerabring that Heaven will ftiortly Reconcile our 

F^derminHer, Aug.u i6^^. 






r H^ Prologue to yl/r.Blake, pag. i 

Certain Difiinl^ions and 'Propojltions explaining ntj 

fenfcHow Chriji as King ii the ObjcEl of Jftji^ifg 

Faith, §.i. 3 

Ten Arguments proving thdt Chrifi as King and Head 

is the ohjeH: of the Jf^j^ifji^g AH of Faith, §. 1 . 3,4 

The common BiftinHion between Fides Quae, rf«<^ Fides Qua Juftificat, 

examined, §.i. 7 

The danger of the contrary DoElrine, §. I. 8 

Theformer'iyon^rine defended againfiiJlfr.Bhkes Exceptions, §.I. 9 

The fame defended againji more of bis Sxctptions : and the faith Heb. 

unexplained, §.2. lO 

James 2. about fuFtificatton by ^orkj ^explained and vindicated, ^,1- 12 

Borvfar^X^orksfHjlifie, §-3,&4. H,>5 

fi^hy IW'rote againji- the Inflrumentalitj of Faith in ff^ftifyi»gS'5 ■ ^^"^ 

Sthical ABive improper Receiving, difiingni/hed from Fhjfical Taffive 

proper Receiving, §-5' ^7 

Jiow Chrifi dwels in m by Faith, §. 5 . ibid 

C^WV.Bl's Exceptions againfi my oppcfttion of Faiths Infirnmentalitj in 

Receiving Chrifi, conjidered, §.6. 1 8 

^r.Bl's dangerous Do[lrine,That God is not thefole efficient, nor any Ail 

of -God thefole Infirument of Jptfiification, §.7,& 8, 19 

Afr.BVs ccntradiBion, that faith is the Infirument of man^ and yet man 

doth not fufiifehimfelf, §.9. 20 

whether Faith be both Gods Infirument and mans in fufiification, §• I<?. 


Further, how Chrifi isfaid to Dwell in. us by Faith^ §. i O. 22 

The common opinion of Faiths Infirumentality opened . and the Truth 

further explained^ § • 1 1 • 23 

Aiore of Afr,^Vs reafoning on this, confuted^ §. 1 2. 27 

(b) whether 

whether ^td makf nft of our Faith at hu iMjlrumint to Jufiifie «/, §. 1 5 


whether the Covenant of God he hU Inflmment of 'fuflificatioK,^.ij\.2^ 
Mr . B r J arguing againfi the Injirumentalitj of the Promife confuted § 

I5,& 16. 29 
Mr.ViVs darjgeroui 'DoHrine confuted, that ^the Efficacy that u in the 

Gojpel to f unification it receives by their Faith to ^hom it is tendred 

§.i7,&i8. 30 
fVhether Afr.'^lfaj truly, that the "^ordhath much lefs an Influx to the 

producing of the Effeth bj a proper Caftfalitj, then faith, §.19. 31 
Jn ^hat l^vj of Caujalitj the Word Werketh , § . 2 o. 3 2 

whether the Word he a Paffive Infirument, §.21 33 

Mr.%\'s grange DoBrine examined, that \jhe Word u a T^ajfive Infiru' 

mentofJufiificatioH, §.22,&23. 34 

More againfi MrM's DoFiriue, that ^Faith through the Spirit gives 

efjicaej and power ofWorking^to the Gs^el,in forgiving JinsJ^^.2^. 3 5 
FuUerproofofthe mojf proper Jnfirumentalitj of the Gojpei in fujiifica- 

tion, §.25. 36 

Mr.'Bl.ContradiBion, in making Faith and the Gojpel two Injtruments^ 

hoth making up one compleat Infirument , S • 2 5 . 3 7 

More againfi Mr. Blfi range doBrine, that ^Faith gives ejficacj as an 

Infirument to the Word, §-25. 37 

A Condition, What ; and how differing fern meer Duty, § .27. 3 ^ 

The difference between us compromiz^ed or narrowed, §.27, 40 

of Evangelical perfonal Righteoufnefs, §.28. 41 

what Right eoufnefs ii, §.28. 43 

In Whatfenfe our perfonal Right eoufnefs is ImperfeCl and perfeB, § . 28 

\iai.6/[.6. explained,Our Righteoufnefs is atfilthj rags, §29. 46 

How Holinefs isperfeEl or ImperfeU:, . §.30. 47 

whether Holinefs or Righteoufnes be capable neither of perfection nor Im- 
perftEiioni but tn relation to a Rule, §0 ' .& 3 2. 48 

Concerning nrf charging learned Divines With Ignorance and other harfh 
'- fpeeehes, ... ^, . §.33. 49 

We are not deriomindted perfehallj righteous for our conformity to the Law 
•of Works only, or properly^ proved, §-3 3- 50 

whether as Mr. Bi. faith, the old Rule, the Moral Law be aperfeli Rule, 
and the only Rule, §-33. 51 

ji Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance, for char- 
ging fome Divines With Ignorance^ § • 3 3 • 49 


jyhether ImperfeB Conformitj to tk Law he Right emfnefs, man Image 

lefs Uki the patern is an Image ^ § ,^^ . j^ 

Borefavrlj Mr.Blchargeth me to fay [^Swcerity « the New RhU, §.36 


An Jnfroer to Davcnants Teflimonj tited hj Mr.Bl . § . 37, 5 6 

How far V»be lief and Impenitencj in profejfed Chriflians are violations 
of the New Covenant, ' §08.57 

Bow manjftrts of Promifes or Covenants there are in Scripture mentio- 
ned, §-39- 58 
Bow far Hypocrites and wicked men, are, or arc not in Covenant ^ith 
God'jinfeveral Propofitions, §-3 9- 60 
tyfn enqnirj into MrSVs meaning, ef VogmatiCat faith, and being in 
Covenant, §.39. 64 
of the Outward Covenant (as thej call it) and how far the Vnhliever: 
or Bjfoorit'es may have right to Baftifm and ether Ordinances, § . 3-5, 

Mr Bl'/ Akfurditiesfupfofed to follow the rejlraifit of the Covenant ft 
the Elefl, confidered, § • 4 ^ . 80 

0/*r twnCovenanting is the principal part eftheCondition ofGodspromift 
or Covenant of Grace, ^.41. 81 

whether I make the Seal ofBaptifm, atidof the Spirit, ttbe of e^jual lati- 
tude, '«'•", ^^^^ ^^ 

Afr.^Vs dangerous argument, anfwered [_The great Condition to Vchicl 

Baptifm engageth, u not a preretjuijite in "Baptifm : But fuflifyin^ 

.' Faith lifuch :Therefor'e~] •§.43. ibic 

Kjlfore'ofA'fr3Vs Arguments anfwered, §.44,&45. 2( 

My Arguments Vindicated f\om Mr^Ys EjcCepticn, §.4610 52. 8J 

26 Arguments to prove, that it is fufiifying faith which God requires p^ 

them that come to Baptifm, and that Afr.VA's doHrine in thu is un 

found and unfafe, §52. 9. 

OfMr.^Vs Controverjtewith Mr.Virmin, §5 3- 10; 

My averting of the Abfolute promife efthefrfi Grace, vindicated, §.55 

JVhether our Faith and Repentance be Cjods ^korks, § • 5 5 • 1 09 

fVhat Life was frcmifed to Adam in thefirfi Covenant, § .J 6. ill 

of the 'Death threatned by tbefirfl Covenant, § -5 7- 1 1 2. 

fvhether the Death of the body by ftparation of the foul were determinate- 
ly threatned, §-58. 113 

Of the Law as made to Chrifi, §-59- 1 1 5 

whether the Sacrament ftal the Conditional promife Abfolutely ? or the 

(Jf 2) Conclufion 

Ct>tclufion[_lAmJufiifitdandJh4llbefaved~^ ConditiunAlly , S-60j 

61,62,63. 115 
The Ndture of JcAling opened^ • §-64. I18 

2.0 Prof cfttiens {hewing how God fealethy S-64- np 

That the minor being] eAled, the Conclnfion is not eo nominc/c^/f^, as 
Mr.Bltiffrmeth, §.65. 123 

,JHoTv Sacraments fcal with farticuUr Application^ S -67. - 12^ 

Afr3i's doLlrine untrue, that [_lfthe Conclufion be not fealed, then no 
Prepojition is [ealcd ] §.68.126 

whether it be JirtHAiiy written in Scripture that Alr.Blii fujlified, § . 

69. 126 
A^ore about Condieionalfea/ing, ^.jo,^!. 128 

fVhetherit is de fide that Mr.Bl.ia fufiified, §.72,73,74. 129 

Jn whatfenfe \Vf denj that Conclttfton to be dc fide, § • 7 5 • 13 3 

Tkit Divine Faith hath Evidence, 4i ^ell at Certainty. Rob.Baronius 
and Rada'j words to the contrary, examined^ §-75* ^34 

The difference between M.r. BLand me contrafled, and a plain cogent Ar- 
guTtient added, to prove ^t hat the C one lufton fore-mentioned is notfealed^ 

S.76. 139 
The pojfibilitj but vanity of Conditional fealing, § • 7 7 • 140 

Afore of Afr.BVs Reafonsanfwered, §.78,to8!. 141 

The danger of teaching men, that they are bound to believe that they are 
'JuBified,andJhalibefaved, ^.81. 142 

Jn whatfenfe the Covenant commandeth perfe^ obedience, §.82. 1 44 
Jl^r.BVs Rea/ons examined, concerning the Covenants commanding per- 
feSlion, §^3,2,t0 9i. 144 

How far true believers are Covenant-breakers, -',' ' §.84. 148 

The Covenant is Gods Law, ' §-9i' ^5^ 

The C(/nclufion Apologetical againfi the charge of fmgularity , § .92. 152 




'The l?rologU', 

'C^ Y Reverend and dearly be'oved Bfocher, I rcmemW 
<fr that when I met you laft at Shrewsbury, you tolj mc 
'^ that you had fent to thc'Prcirea Treattlc of theCox/c- 
nantj, and defiied me not to be offended, ifyoupub- 
liihed in it fomc things againft my Judgement : Your 
Ticatifc is fince come to my hands, and upon a brief 
perufall of fomepartof it, lam bold to let you knew 
this much of my thoughts, i. That I very much va- 
lue and honour your Learned Labours, and had I been 
M' rinet or M» Fijher, 1 might rather have given (in 
romerefpefts)a higher commendation* of your Book : 
And efpeciallyl love it for its found difcoveiies of the Vanity of the Antinomians. 
1. So farre am I from being offended at your Writing againft my Writings, thac 
( aj I have oft faid concerning M' Ovfen, Cnce I faw hij Book againl^ me, even 
fodolbyynu) I never honoured you fomuch ( though much ) nor loved you 
fo dearly (though deai ly ) before as fince j for 1 lee more of yourvvoith then I 
faw before. For where I erre, why fhould I be offended with any brother for lo- 
ving Gods Truth and mens fouls, above my Errours, or any fecming Reputation 
ofminethat may beingaged in them, and for feeking to cure the hurt that I have 
done? God forbid that I ffinuld feekto maintain a Reputation obtained by, ou 
held in an oppoluion to the Truth. I take all my Errori in Theology ( even in 
the higheft revealed points, p^rtiapalitcr) to be my finnes ; but cfpecially my di- 
vulged Erroi-s : And I take htm fcK- my bed friend, that is the grcatelt enemy to 
my lins. And where I erre not, I have little caufs for my own fake to be offended 
at your oppofition. For as you are pleafed to honour me too highly both in your 
Epithetcs and tender dealing, yea in being at Co much pairu with any thing of 
mine, and in Hooping to a publick oppofuion of that wKich you mi^ht have 
thought more worthy of your contempt, fo I know you did it in a ical for God and 
Truth, and you thought all was Error that you oppofcd ; fothitinthe general 
we fight under one Matter, and for one Caufe, and againll one Enemy : You arc 
fot Chriit, I. For Truth and againit Errors, fo farre as you know it, and fo am I. 
1 know you wrote not againrt Mc, but againlt my Errors, reall or fappofed. And 
truly, though I wou'd not be flnmelefle or impenitent, nor go fo far as fenced, to 
fay wefliould no: objefta common fault to fingularperfons (^y'li.CorM lri,ll- 
<:,i6. p. (mibi) ^<ix. no morcthen to reproach a Blackmorc with his colour i yet I 
' ■ B ice 


kt fo much by tW moft Learned and Judicious, to aflare me that buadnum efi er^ 
fire, and that we know but in part, that I cake it far no more di /honour, to have 
the worid know that I erre, then for them to know that I am one of their Brethren, 
a (on oi Adxm, and not yet arrived atthatbleflcd ftate where that which ischiidiOi 
fliall ccafc, and all that is imperfcd fhall be done away. Only if my Errors be 
greater then ordinary, I muft be humbled more then ordinary, as knowini^that 
my fin is the caufc that I have no greater illumination of the Spirit. I have truly 
pubhThed to the world roy indignation againlt the proud indignation of thofe men, 
that account him their enemy that fliall publiquely contradift them. 

a. Yet muft I needs tell you, that in the points which you contradift, I find« 
no great alteration upon my undcrrtanding by your Writings j whether it be from 
the want of evidence of truth in your Confutation, or through the dulneflc of my 
Apprchcnfion, I hope I ftiall better be able to judge, when 1 have heard from you 
next. I think I may fafely fay, I: is not from an unwillingnefs to know the Truth. 
And one further difference there is in our Judgements : For my Judgement is,thac 
it is not fo convenient nor fafe a way to publifli fuddenly a reply to your oppofition, 
as to tell yoa my thoughts privately ( feeing we live fo near ) and to bring the 
Points in difterencc by friendly collations to as narrow a compafs as we can, and 
make as clear a difcovery of each others meanings as may be j and then by joynt 
confent to tell the world our feveral Judgements, and our Realons, as lovers of the 
Truth and of each other i that fo others may have the benefit of our friendly Col- 
lations and Eni^uiries J and may be thereby advantaged for the more facile difco- 
very of the Truth. Truly I would have all ftich Controverfies fo handled, that all 
the vain altercations might lye in the dufl in our ftudies,and that which is publiHi- 
ed might be in one Volume friendly lubfcribed by both parties. In this 1 perceive 
by your praftife, your Judgement differs from mine j and that you rather judg« 
it fitteft to fpeak firft by the PrefTc, that the world may hear us. I crave your ac- 
ceptance of thefe Papers, rather in this private way, and that you will fignifie to 
me in what way I fliall exped your return, wherein I think it fitter you pleatcyour 
fclfthenme. I fliall faithfully give you an account of the effed of your Argu- 
ments on my weak underftanding j but not in the order as they lye in your Book, 
bat I will begin with thofe Points which I judge to be of greateft moment. 

§. I. 

M"" Bkk« Treat, of Covenants, pag. 79. 

IT it dlfo lru€ thit faith accepts Chrift as a Lord, as veeU as a. Saviour : But it U the 
yieceptation ojhm Of a Saviour, not as a Lord, that ^uftifies : Cbriji Rules hit People 
as aiding, Tcachcth them as a Prophet, but makes jitonementforthcmcnly as aPneji^ 
hy giving himfclf tn Sacrifice, his blood for Rcmijfton of fins : Thefe muft be Jijiingiufo- 
ed, but not divided : Faith hath an eye at all, the blood 0} Chrijl, the command of Cbriji, 
tbedocirmeefChnft, but as it lies and fafiens on hit blood, fotffuilifics. Hcis fctout 
a propitidtion through faiih in his blood, Kom.i.z 4. not through faith tn his command. 
It is the blood of Chnfl ihat cleavfcth all fin, and not the Sovcraigmy of Cbnft. Thefe 
ttnfufions of the diftinH parts ofChrifts Mcdiatorjhip, and the Jpeciall o$ces oj faith may 
vot be fuffcred. S tripture affignes each its particular place and ww^ ; Sovcraignty doth not 
fkanfeui; nor do:b blo(d conimani ut i Faith inbfibl09d,n9tjaiib yielding to bisSove- 
r'^^ntj dotb ^uftife tit. §. «. 


§. I. 

R. S.'T'His is a Point of fo ^reac moment in wy cycj, tbac I refolvf to begin 
JL with it. I doubt not but the diffsnence between you and mc is onlya- 
bcTut the bare methodizing of our Notions, zndnot de Sub fiiiaii re i : But 1 doubt 
left your doArine being received by common heads, according to the true iitipot- 
tanceof your expreflions, may do more againft their falvation then is yet well 
thought on: And that not per <tf«i«i, but from its proper na:arc > fuppciing the 
impreflionof the foulto be biK anfwerable to the objcftive dodrinal leal, law 
no friend to the confufion chat you liere fpeak againft i and I am glad to find yoa 
fo little in love with it, as to pafs your judgment that it is not to be fuffcved ; Poc 
now I reft aflured that you will net be offended, when here or hereafter, I ihall 
open your guiltinefs of it J and chat you will not be unwilling of what may teod w 
your cure. Thefe two or three neccifiry diftinftions I muft firftthere premife, be- 
fore I can give a clear anfwsr to your wards. 

I. 1 diitinguifti ftill between conftitucirc Juftification or Remirtion by the 
Gofpel grant or Covenant, called by moft 'fujiifium ^urk , and Jultificationper 
fcntentiam'fudicff. z. I diftingui/h between conttitntive Legal Juftification as 
begun, and as continued or eosfutiimate. g. Between the Phylical operation of 
Chrift and his Benefits on the imelleft of the Beleever per modum object upprehevji, 
•tan intelligible /^e«w J and the moral conveyance of Right to Chrift and his 
Bcnefirs, which is by an aA of Law or Covenant-donation. 4- Between thefc 
twaqueftions, \Vhatjultifiethcxp4rteC&ri/J/^ and What juftifiech, or is required 
to our Juftification ex firiepacuorki J. Between the true clficicnc caul'cs of 
our Juftification, and the meet condition, />/te ^U4h'0n, ^ cum ^i<i. 6. Between 
Chrifts Meriting mans Juftification, and bis adual juftifyiag hi(n,by conftitucioii 
or fentence. 

Hereupon T will lay down what I maintain in thefe Propofltions, which ( fomc 
of them) (lull fpeak torcher then the prefcnt Point ia Qaeftioo, for a preparation 
to what followeth. 

Prop. I. Chrift did Merit our Juftification (or a power to juftific ) not as a 
King, but by fatisfying the jafticeof G^d in the form of a fervanc. 

Prop.z. Chrift doth juftifie (^*«nStituU'je as King and Lord, v/^. ut DtminM 
Kedempttr, i.e. quoxd vilorem ret, he canferreth it, ut 'Dominu* grMk bcneficicns : 
but <fU9ii modum conditidHolem conferenii, ut ReHor (^ 'BencfsHor. For it is Chrifts 
cnaftingthcnew Law or Covenant, by which he doth legally pardon or coofec 
Reniiflion, and conftituce uiRighteous,CuppoUag the condition p;;rformed on our 
pare And this is i^ot an aft of Chrift as a Pricft or Sa:isfier j bat joyntly, u( Be- 
ncfjL^or isf Kcciof. 

^Vrop.^. Chrift doth juftific by fentence, as he is Judge and King, and not as 

Trep.^. Sentential Juftification, is the moft full, compleac and eminent Juftifi- 
cation ; thi: in Law being quoid fcntcjitidm, but virtual Juftification j chough 
quoid con litutioTiern debitt tj* rcluionh, it be aftaal Juftification. 

'^rop.%. Faith juftifiech no: by receiving Chrift as anobjeft which is to make 
a real impreflion and mutation oathe inrellcd, according to the nature ofchcj^c- 
cits: I fay, To juftifie, is uo: co ixake fi>ch a real change: Though fomc joya 
with the Papifts in this, and cell m;, that as the Divine Atwibuws »akc their fe- 


vcral moral Imprcflions on the foul according to their fcveral natures, To do the 
fatisfaftion and merit* oi Chrirt, apprchctidcd,prccurc comfort aud joy, and a ju- 
ftifying icntcnce to be pronounced in the loul i: fe'f : and To the appichcnfion of 
Chjiks Sovcrainty caulcth our lubcftion ( which lail is true.') 

Prop. 6 Faiih therefore can have no Phyfical Caufation or EfHciency in jjfti- 
fyinr > fcein-j; that the woik to be done by us, is not mfmatpjos^untfji^re, in 
whole or in part, but only J«4 acquircrcii "Bcnejictumgrath jci cindiiwuUter cAU- 
tum: It ii a Relative change liia: is made by Jullificatiou, and noi a Hial »z 

ir«^.7-Thc Legal, formal intereft, or conducibility of Faith toour Juftification, 
cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition, in the proper Law-fenfe, 
astheword [Condition] is ufed, w^. that .^ec/cj of conditions which they call 
Voluntiri* vcl Potcfiattva, and not CajudcsvcHMixtie. 

Prop.9. Scripture doth not fay ( that I can fiiidej that Faith juftifieth > but 
that wcarejujlificd by Faith : I therefore ufe the later phrafc rather then the for- 
mer, both becaufe it is fateft to fpcak with the Scripture, and becaufe the formec 
Ipeech fccmech to import an Efficiency j but the later frequently imports no more 
then a mecr condition. Yet 1 will not quarrell with any that fpeaks otherwife, nor 
refufc to fpeak in their phrafe while I difpute withthcmj as long as I firll tell them 
my meaning. 

Frop.9. Though, cxpmcChriJii, our feveral changes proceed from his feveral 
Benefits, and parts of his Office exercifed for us ; yet, ex parte nojiri,.'ue.fdei, it ii 
one entire apprehenfion or receiving of Chrift as he is oftered in the Gofpel, which 
is the Condition of our intereft in Chrill and his lereral Benefits 3 and theeft'eft 
is not parcelled or diverfified or diftinguillied from the feveral diiliii(!t refpcds that 
taith bath to its objcft. Chrift mcriteth Remiflion for us as Satisficr oi Juftice > 
and headually juiiificthusas Bencfaftor l<.ing and Judge, and heteachcth us as 
Prophet, andrulethusaj King. The real mutations here on us, receive their oi- 
verfification partly from our faith, becaul'e there faith doth c^tcrc or UM/jrj > As 
we learn of Chrift becaufe we Belceve him, or Take him for our Teacher : VVc 
obey him becaufe we Take him for our KingjtiT'c. But it is not fo with the Con- 
veyance of meer Right or Title to Chrift and his Benefits. Faith doth not obtain 
Ri^ht to Remiflion and Juftification diftindly as it rcceiveth his Rigbteoufnefsj 
or himfelf as Pricft i and fo Right to the Priviledges of Chrifts Government, di- 
ftindly as it takcth him as King J nor Right to Adoption, as it taketh him as a 
Father i nor Ri^ht to Glory, as it taketh him as Glorifier ; no more then all in- 
feriour benefits (as Title to Magiftracy, Miniftry, Health, Houfe, Lands, (ir'f.) 
proceed and arc diverfified by the divers afpefti of our faith on Chrift. The titw 
Reafon of which is this 5 That Ri;;ht to a benefit is the meer eflcifl of the Gift 
(Donation) or Revealed Will of the Giver : And therefore no Ad of the Recei- 
ver hath any more intereft, or any other then it pleafeth the Donor to aflign of 
appoint it to have. So ibu ( fuppofttid^Ua mtur a ) all the formall Civil intereft 
comes from Gods meer Will, as Donor : ( for to the Abfolute Benefactor doth it 
belong, as to conferreall Right to his freely-given Benefits, foto determine of the 
Time and Manner of Conveyance, and fo of the Conditions on the Receivers 
fart.) The nature of the AftofFaithis caufed by God, as Creator of tbeold 
and new Creature j 1 mean of our natural faculties, and their lupernatuial endow- 
ments or difpofitions : And therefore this is prefuppofed /'woriiwc wjwr* to faiths. 
Legal intereft : At God is Rtik the Maker of caiih^ before he is the Maker o£ 


c 5 : 

\^ Jims hcdy : Faith is to be confidcrcd as being Faith (i.e. Tuch sfts cxcicifei 
about fuch cbjtds) in onicr of nature, bel'oie it can be rightly ccrfidered as ju- 
liifyingor the condition of Juflificaticn : Seeing ilieiefcre it icctivesall its for- 
mal Legal intereft from God, as Leeifiator and Donor of Chrift and hisbeoefiis, 
which is after its material aptitude ad hoc bfficiim ; its intcrtft muft not be gathered 
diicdly, cxvaturaaiffcSy but ix covjittuticne d<»:auiii dr crdmauis : And therefore 
you muiifi;ft picve out of the Golpcl, that It hihcOrdtmtienofGod, iha: as 
Cbrilts Uvual a^cns havetlicir Itvcral efliits for us and on us, fo out faith fl^all 
be the proper cencition ot each of thtfe vaiicus cfti els, ^mj <jppr(/;cw<f;l,as it Bclte- 
veih or Acccptetheachdiilii.it eftcft, cr Chrift tiiflinftly as the caufe of thatef- 
tcd, (^ cmmconfidcraturn iitmedocaufandi. But, alas, how inviliblc is the Proof 
of this in all your Writings ? ( 1 will leave the reft of the Prcpcfuicns, by which 
I intended here together to have opened Icmemoieof my fenfe, till afteiwards, 
becaufe 1 will not interrupt the prefcnt bulinefs.) Here, either my Unde:ftanding 
is too fliallow to reach your fenie, or elfe you are guilty, quoad liter am, oi\ ay great 
confufion j ( which one wonld think fhould have befallen you at any time, rather 
then when you are blaming others of unfufferable confulicn :) and yet qutadfen' 
juminvolutum, of more dangerous, unfcriptural, unproved Diftirdion. 

I. Your exprcfllons confound Chrift and hisAftions, with mans faith in our 
Juftification: Or,thefe two Queft ions [By what are wc']uiiiiicdcxfArteCbrijiiiJ 
and [By what arc we jalVidcd tx pirte noftri ?'] 

I. Your implied fcnfe, even the heart of your reafoning, confifteth in this after- 
tioh, that [As out Right, as to the feveral benefits received, is to be afcribed di« 
ftinftly to fcvetaldittinft Caufes on Ghrift?part, fo alfo as diftindly arc the par- 
ticular Benefits, quoad Debitum vclTitulum, to be afcribed lo the feyeral diftinft 
apprchenfions ot thefc Benefits ( as moil fay ) or of Chrift as divcrfly caufing 
them (as fome fay,^ ] And heie 1 cannot but complain of a treble injuilice that 
you feera to me guilty of ( even in this elaborate Treat, wherein yeucorteft the 
Errors of fo many others.) 

1 . Againil the Truth and Word of God, in implying it to have done that, even 
in the great Point, the Conftitution of the Condition of Juftification and Salva- 
tion, which is nor to be found done in all the Scripture. 

z. Againft the fouls of men : i . In fuch nice mincing and cutting the Condi- 
tion of their falvation, to their great perplexity, if they receive your dcdrine. 
a. Ajid aifo in not affording them one word of Scripture or Reafon for the proof 
of it, which is injufticc,whcn you are Confuting others and Redifying the world 
in (o great a Point. 3. Laftly (and lealtly) it is evident injufticc to your Friend, 
to Accufe him ( for it is no hard matter to know whom you m;an ) with con- 
founding the diiiind parts of Chiifts Mediatorfhip,which he ftill diftinguifhcth as 
cxaftly as hecan ; though he do not diilribute as many cfticfs to Faith, as there 
ate objefts for it, cr ashe doth to Chrilis feveral Works. Why did you not name 
one line where 1 do confound the parts of Clrrifts Orhces ? I pray you doit for 
me in your next. 

1 will not trouble you much with Argun>ents for my opinion in this Pointj fee- 
ing you meddle with none already laid down, and feeing 1 have done it over and 
over to others, and becaufe 1 am now but Anfwetin^ to your Confutation. Only 
let me tell you, that the Proof lieth on your pan. iFor when 1 have once proved, 
that God giveth Chrift and his Benefits toman, on Condition he will Belecve 
in Chrift. or Accept him : Jf you will now diftingujflij and lay, It is Accepting 

B 3 tis. 


feijfatiifaAion, which is the Condition of Juftlficatioa, and Accepting him as 
King, which is the Condition of Sandificacion or Glorification, CT'f. you mufl 
prove this to be true. For 7ionc[l dif^iagiicndum vcl Umitandiim ubi Lex non diiitngufS 
vclltmiut. If God lay [ Bclcevcin the Lord jeiusjandthou ihalcbc fivcd,] ami 
you faj, [Bclccvin^ ill him as Priclt is the only Condition of faving thee from 
guilt: and Beleevingin hiiuasKing, is the only Condicion of faving thee from 
the power of ria.C^c.]you mull prove this which you fay. Or it you wi-11 no: fay[Ic 
is the only Condition] but [the only inflrument] you give up the Caufe. For 
ihcword [Cojidition] is it thatexpreflcih its necrcll Legal InterclHn jutbifying 
Of conveying any Rijjht : ami that which yuu call ics iniirumcataliryj is but the 
natural Aptitude and Remote Intereft. 

». It is the Receiving of Chrift as Chiift that juftifieih (as the Condition of 
Juftification ) But he is not received as Chrill, if not as Lord-Redeemer. 

I. JulUfying faith is ( fay the Allembly ) the Receiving of Chrill as he is of- 
fered in the Gofpcl : But hz is dficicd in the Goipel as Saviour and Lord^ and not 
as Saviour only : ThcreforCiC^c. 

J. Juftifying faith is the Receiving of Chiift as a full Saviour : But that can- 
no: be except he be received as Lord . For to fave from the power of fin, is as true 
apart of the Saviours Ofiice,astolavc from the guilt. 

4. Juftifying faith rccciveth Chrilt as he juftifieth us, or as he is tojuftifie us : 
Blit he doth juftifie us as King and Judge and Benefactor J as he fatisfieth and mc- 
ritcch in the form of a fei vant under the Law. 

J, If receiving ChriH as a Satisfier and Meriter, be the only faith that gives 
right to Juflification, then on the fame grounds you mufl fay. It is the only faith 
that gives right to further Sandification and to Glorification ; For Chiift Merit- 
ed one as well as the other. 

6. Rejeding Chrift as King, ?s the condemfling fin : Therefore receiving him 
as King is the juftifying faith, Lm<[.i9.z7. Thofc mine enemies thit would not thaft 
JJjould reign over them, brivg,Scc. The reafon of the confeouent is, becaufe unbelief 
condenaneth (at leaft partly) as it is the privation of the juftifying faith : I fpeak 
of that condemnation or peremptory fentcnce which is proper to the new Law, and 
its peculiar condemning fin, eminently fo called. 

7. Pfiii. Killing the Son and fubmittin^ to him as King, is made the condi- 
tion of elcapiug his wrath. 

8. Mattk.ii.i^yi^iio. TheconditionofEafe and Reft (from guilt, as well as 
power of fin) is our coming to Chrift as a Teacher aivi Example of mecknefs and 
lowlinefs, and our Learning of him, and Taking on us his yoke and burden. 

9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation, is the Condition ofjiifti- 
fication or Rcmiflion : But it is the receiving of Chrift as King, as well as Sacil- 
fier, that is the Condition of Salvation: Therefore, ©^tf. 1. Juftification at 
judgement, and Salvation (from iicU, and adjudication to Glory) arc all on the 
fame conditions, Mut. If. (^ abique. x. Juftification is but the juttitying of our 
Right to Salvation 5 i.e. fcnrcncin^:; us as Non rcos Pmx ( quii T>ijSolitU cil oblrgi- 
tio) (ff quibuA dchetur fTiXmiiim -y Therefore Juftification and Salvation mull needs 
have the fame conditions on our part. 3 . Scripture no where makes our tai:h, or 
aft of faith, the Conditiou of Juftification, and another of Salvation. Batcon- 
tcarily afcribeth beth to one. 4. When Piiitl argueth moft xealoufly againft 
Works and for Faith only, it is in rcfped to Salvation generally, and not to Jufti- 
fication Only. E^b.t.ijp. By graces cure favei through fxith, Sec. Sot6Jwrks,lcji 


ivy man JhouUboaJi. Tit.j.T* Sethyvperkscf rigltetmfntjivehicbvpehdvedone, IfUt 
according to his Merey befavcd Wj&c. Never more was laid againft Juftification by 
Works (which Tw/cTcludes ) then againft Salvation by them : Nor is it any 
more diflionour to Chrift that be fliould give Juftification or Remiffion on Co«- 
dition of our Accepting him as King, then that he fliould give Salvation on that 
Condition. ?. Pardon of (in and freedom fro.n hell, muft needs have the fame 
Condition: For pardon refpcfteth the punifliment as truly as rhcfin. P^sm (ff 
^oenia fujit advcrfi: Pardon dilTolveth guilt 5 Guilt is the obligation to puniHimem. 
Yet I fpcak here only of a plenary and continued pardon. 

10. Laftly, If Accepting Chrift as Lord-Rcdcrmerj be the Fides qux^ufiifi" 
cat, i.e. qua efi conditio ^ujiiJicauonK, then it is ncerly, ftriftlyand properly theju- 
liifyingaft of faithj as the accepting of Chrifts Righteoufncfs is: But the Ante- 
cedent is granted by all Divines that I have bad to do with : ThereforCj^c. For 
the general cheat is by the diftindion of Fides qua ^ujiificat ( that is.' fay thevj the 
Accepting of Chrift as SavioHr and Lord, by a taith difpofcd to fruitfulr;frs in 
obedience ) and Fides qui ^uftifat ( and that is the Accepting of Chrifts Righ- 
teoufnefs as our formal Rightcoufnels, fay feme: Or the Accepting of Chrifts 
RightCGufnefs a$ the meritorious caufe of our Rightcoufnefs, fay others : Or the 
Accepting of Chrift hrimfelf as Pricft, fay others :) Now this Fides ['^-j"] either 
rcfpedeth the meer matter of faith, or it refpedeth the formality of the effed, or it 
rcfpeftrth the Forma! Reafon of faiths intereil in the eftcft, m medium, vol caufa. 

1. If iquj.'] refpcft only the matter of faith, then 1. it is an unfit phrafe ; *^^or 
C^ai] and Iquatevvs} ate ftridly ufed to exprels the formal Reafon of things. 

2. And then the Accepting of Chrift as Lord muft be the Fides t^i too : for that 
is confitflcd to be materially an ad of that faith which juftifi.-tb. i. If [-i^i] 
refpeft the formality of the efteft, and fo the refpcAof faith to that efleft rather 
then another ; then faith is not [juftifying] qui reeipitchrijium,fedquajujlijjcxt : 
And fo the diftinftion containet>i this truth, Thzt fdcs qua fsiilfifcatctiam jujli* 
fttat, fed-Konqui (avSifut : (^e centra. But neither of thcfccan be the fcnfc of 
them that ufe thisdiftinftion in our cafe. 3. It muft theicforc bcthe former rea- 
fon of faiths intcreft in juftifying that is cxprefled by [«^i ;] and then it implieth 
the begging of the Queftion, orthisfalfc I'uppofition [that Fides qui fides iujiifi' 
wi] I mean not qua fides in ^ciicre, but qua, hac fides, viz- qua eHfiducia in CDnJlum 
fatiifdcJerem, vclaeceptatioChriili. Indeed the term [Accepting] implieth the gift 
and offer, and the conftitution of that acceptance for the condition : But the AS 
it fclf is but the Matter apt to be the condition : If Chrift had been given (or par- 
don) abfo'utcly, or on fome other condition i then belcevrng in him would not 
have juftifled. Thcrdoic fidesruChriftum qui talis doth net ii'ftifie j bu: qu.icoH' 
ditioTefiumtmifraUita: though ^(^c.ux cknjiim qua talis had in its nature a Gn- 
gular aptitude to be chofen and appointed to this Koncur and Office. So much 
to fhcw the vanity of that difticdion (of much more that might be faiJ.) Fur- 
ther the confcquence of the w<i/or Prcpcfitior. of my Argument, is made paiWll dif- 
pute, to them that will but well confidcr this r To ( be the condition of cur Jufti- 
fication) fpeaksthc neareft intereftcf faith 'in our Juftification, that is, as it is 
medium legale i or that kindc of caulality which it hath ; which is to ht caufa fine qtta 
von, (^ cum qua: Therefore i< is ameer impcflibility thatthc Receiving Chrift as 
Lord ftiould be the condition of cut juftitlcaticn ( or the fides qua e[i covditio, as 
they fpcak ) and yet that we fhould not be juftificd by it as a ccndiiion, when per- 
tormtd ? It is ao founder fpewh, then to fay, that is an (fi&cieni caufe, ^^hich doth 



nateffeft. Som; CanJitionj ( anl moll a-nong m;n^' are Moral impu^fivecau- 
f«s : Faith is rather a rcmovcnt pr9hibent,zni ea:h nothing in it rhat fo well dcforvci 
the title of a Ciuie, as ot a Condition : though unbelief may be laid to be the 
Caufe of our Not-bcin^ lulliheJ, a; fuch caut'cs are faid to move Gii, when w< 
fpcak according to the manner of men : Indeed if they will fay (accord in-" to their 
principles) that Fides in Chriftum Dominum qie cjl conlttio non jujlifjcxt per mrium 
injlruvuntti 1 ihill grant it : liir. th:n i. I iHiil lay a$ m:ich 4fJ?ic j« (.hrijlum 
fMisficientcm. a. Thus they grant it the intereft of a Condition in our Juftihca- 
tion : and I intcni no more- VVe are 'uftih:d by faith i/s the Condition of Julli- 
fication ; Therefore we a-e juftitieJ by every acft of faith vtbicb is the Condition : 
YoTyAqiutenut al emne vxUt confequentix. Thus I have given you a few of thofc 
many reafons which might be ^ircn, to prove that the Accepting of Chrift for 
Lord-Redeemer, and not only as Satislier, w no: only his Righteoufncfs, is that 
Faith by which as a Condition wc are jullified. And what ladeffcds it may pro- 
duce to teach the world that the only jullifyingaft of faith is, The Accepting ot 
Jufti.ication asmeiitedby Chrifts blood, or the Accepnngof Chrifts Righteouf- 
nefsto juftifiethem J it is not hard for an unprejudiced man todifcern. For my 
part,inallmy experience of the cafe of the ungodly that I have trial of, I can fiadc 
no commoner caufe of their general dcludon and perditionjthcn this vary doftrine; 
which they have gcacrally received, though not in fuch exaft terms as it is taught 
them. I never met with the m>ft rebellious wretch ( except now and then one 
under terrors) but when they have finned their worft, they llill think tobe faved, 
becaufe they believe : And what is their beleeving ? why they beleeve that Chrift 
died for them, and therefore God will forgive them, and they truft for pardon and 
falvationto Chrifts death and Gods mercy ; This were good, if this were not all ; 
but if Chrift were alfo received as their Sovereign and Sandifier and Teacher : 
Bu: if this were the only juftifying aft (asthey ufually fpcak) then I Hiould not 
know how to difprove him that (hould tell me that all men in the world fliall be fa- 
ved that beleeve the Gofpel to be true : or at leaft, the far i reareft part of the moft 
wicked men: For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned, and there- 
fore Accept, or are Willing of Chrift to favethem from damnation : and lam furc 
they are Willing to be pardoned as fatt as they (in, and that is, to be juftificd ; and 
therefore miift needs be Willing of Chrift to pardon them ( fuppofing that they 
beleeve the G^fpcltobe true) What therefore ihall I fay if a wicked wretch thus 
ar^ue: He that hath the only juftifying ad of faith is juftified : But that have I; 
fori Accept of Chrift to forgive and juftifie me by his blood : Thercfo'*c, ^c ? 
Shall I tell him that he diflcmbleth, and is not Willing ? Why i. Long may I 
fo tell him before he will beleeve me, vvhsn he feels that I fpeak fallly and flander 
him. 1. And I (hould know that I flander him my felf: Suppofing that he be- 
leeve that there ii no pardon but by Chrifts blood, (as the devils and many milli- 
ons of wicked men do bclecvc :) For I km. v no man in his wits can be willing 
to b: unpardoned and ro burn in hell. Shall I give him the common anfwer ( the 
beft that ever was given to mc, ) that though the only juftifying ad be the recei- 
ving Chrift or his RightcouCnefs to juftifie us, yet this muft be ever ace )m;?aniei 
with the receiving him as Sovereign, and a reiolution to obey him ? Perhaps I 
may fo puzxle him for want of Logickor Rcafon j but elfchow cafily may he tell 
me, that this receiving Chrift as Lord, hich either the nature ofa medium xi fi" 
Item., or not ? \i it be no meiii<»i, the wane of it in this cafe cannot hinder the 
Jultification of that mantfvac is lure hs hath the folc juftifying ad it fclf : For as 



mcer figns or idle concomitants do nothing to the cffcd, Co the want of them hin- 
ders not the efted where all caufcs and means are prefent • But if I fay, that this 
aft of faith is a mcAHs to Juftification j then I mull either make it a Caufe, or a 
ConditioHjer invent feme new medium not yet known. 

But you fay [Sovcraignty doth not clcanfe us, nor doth blood command us.] 
tAnf.i. How ill is ^flveraignty put in flead of the Soveraign ? I fay not that the 
reception of Chrifts Soveraignty doth lullifie (thofe words may have an ill fenle) 
but we arejuftified by receiving Chriftas ourSovcraign (which much differs from 
the former.^ z. Chrift as Soveraign doth cleanfe us, both from the guilt and 
power of hnne, by aftual Remiffion or Juftification, and by Sanftification. 
3. Suppofc you fpeak true, as you do, if you mean it only of Meriting our clean* 
fing : What is this to ourQueilion ? But you addc [Faith in his blood, not faith 
yeeldin^ to his Soveraignty doth juftifieus,] Anf. This is famething to the pur- 
pofe, if it had been proved. But will a nude and crude AlVertion change mens 
judgements ? or fliould you^have e«peftcd it ? A text you cite, and therefore it 
might feem that you thought it fome proof of this. Row. 3. 14. But all the force of 
your Argument is from your dangerous addition, which, who will take for good 
Expofition ? The text faith. He is fet forth to be a propitiation, through fuitb in 
bifBUoi. And you adde [Not through faith in bis Command.] 1 . SeJ quo jure 
nefcto. Your excKifion is either upon fuppofitionjthat/u/ifetnfe« Blood is equipoUtnc 
to faith in his Blood only ; or elfe it is on fome myflerious ground, which you ihould 
the rather have revealed, bccaufe it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader todilco- 
ver it, without your revelation. If the former } 1. iiy what authority do you 
addc [only] in your interpretation ? z. Will you exclude alfo his Obedience, 
Refurrcdion, Intcrccffion,(i;'c .' When by the obedience of one miny are made righte- 
out? and Row. 8. J 3, j4. It it Cjoithat jujiifieth, vfho is he that condcmncthi It is 
Cbriji thjt died, ycx rather thit is rifen again ; rvho it even at the right band of God, wba 
alfomal{eth intercejfton for la. i. But the thing that you had to pr«ve was not the 
exclufion of [faith in his Command] bat of £faith in Chrift as Lord and Teach- 
er] or either: Receiving Chrift as Rulei-, goeth before the receiving of his par- 
ticular Commands. And for the text. Root. J. 14. It was fitteft for Piw/to fay [by 
faith in his blooi]becaufe he intends to connote both what we are jullificd by, ex 
parte thnjli, 3ni what ex parte nofiri, but the former ptincipally. I will explain 
my thoughts by a fimiliiude or two. 

Suppofe a Rebell be Condemned, and lye in prifon waiting for Execution > and 
the Kings Son being toraife an Army, buyerh this RcbeTl, with all his fellow 
prifoners, from the hand of Juftice, and fendeth to them this melVagej- If you 
will thankfully acknowledge my favours, and take me hereafter for your Prince or 
General, and lift your felves under me, I will pardon you (or give you the pardon 
which I havepurchafed) and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit 
in my Army:] Here now if the Q_ucftion be, What it is on the Princes part that 
doth deliver the prifoner ? It is hisranfom, asio the Impeiration or Preparation: 
and it is his free-Grant, which doth it, as to che aftual Deliverance'. Ifitbeaskc 
What is it that Honourethor Enrichcth him ? I', is the place of Honour and Ri- 
ches that by the Prince is freely given him. But if you ask on trie oftjnders parr. 
Whir it is that delirereth him as the condition ? It is not his accepting Pardon 
and Deliverance (or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ranfbmcr ) thit is the tole 
Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death : Nor is it the Acctp-ing of 
the Honour ( 01 of the Prince as one to honour him J that is the fole condition 

C of 

of his Honour r Nor is it accepting of Riches, that is the folcconJitionof en- 
riching him. But ir is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General, and 
thankfuil acknowledging his Ranfom , that is the Condition of all together, 
and hath as near an intcreft in one part of the Benefit, as another. 

Or fuppol'e the condcmnea prifoner be a woman, and the Prince having Ran- 
fomcd her, doth fend this offer to her, That if fhe will thankfully acknowledge 
his favour, and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince ( to love, 
honour and obey him ) hcwill deliver her, and make her his Queen, and ihc (hall 
partakeof all his Honour and Riches.] Here now if theQueltion be. What it is 
on his part that Redeemed her ? What that Delivered her ? What that honoured 
her ? What that enriched l.er ? each effeft muft be afcribed to its proper caufe, and 
the caufcs not confounded : And /he mull diftindly apprehend, by what way and 
caufc each priviledge comes. But if you ask only. What it is og her part that is 
the condition of enjoying thefe Benefits ^ Why it is»but one entire, undivided 
Condition bcfcre njentioned : Will yoH here fubtillydiftinguiih and fay, that her 
taking him to deliver her, is the fole a<ft which is the condition of her Deliverance? 
and her taking him to Dignifie her, is the fole condition of her Dignity ? and hcf 
taking him as Rich, or to enrich her, is the fole condition of her enriching ? No, 
It is one undivided condition that equally gives her intereft in all. Much lefs if ic 
the Accepting of his Riches, that is the fole condition of enriching^her. Yet if 
any fliould in one Qucftion include both. What on his part did lave her from 
death ? and what on her part ? then it muft be expreft as Taw/did in the feremen- 
tioned text, in our cafe : It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer. 
I fliould wrong you, by feeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehenfivenefs, if I 
fliould fpend words in application of this to our cafe. Having been fo much too 
tedious already, I will onlyaddej That the common doftrine in this Point, re- 
quires that there be as many adtsof faith as tITJfc are Benefits from Chrift to be 
received j and that each one is the Inftrumcnt of receiving that particular benefi^t : 
and fo one aft o( faith Juftifieth, another A<io}ptcih,(S'c. And that ad which 
recciveth Juftification, which they call the Paffive inftrument thereof, intheup- 
fhot of all their Difputes they fo defcribe, that it is apparent they mtinipfam 
^uflificationem pajfivam .- And fo with them (^rcdere iff ^uftificari muft be Sy- 
nonimall termes : For fo to receive Juftification, is nothing but lo be Ju- 

§. a. 

M' 2?/. 'T^ Here arc fcverd a^s of ^ufiifjfitig faith, Heb, ii. butthofc are notacisof 
JL Jujlification. Jt w »« Abrahams obedience, Mofcs fclf-dcniaU, Gideon 
•r Samplons valour, that were tbeir ^ujiification .- but his "Blood who did cvable them in 
tkefe duties by hit Jpirit. Paul went ?w thefe duties of high at they, living in more clear 
tilbt and under more abundant grace. I doubt not but be eut-topt them, and yet be was not 
thereby fuftified i as i Cor.4.4. 

S..B. i.TTisaftrangephrafeto callanyaft of faith [An ad of Juftification.^ 

•■ If you fpeak properly, you muft mean it c^cienter vel ctnUitutive : either 

thatfomead of faith is «n ad of Juftification, a$ tbceflicicnc (* but thacs'fatre 


fromtrtJthj to bclccveani to juftifie differ) ©rclfcthat icisan ad conftitutinf; 
Juftification : But that is as far from truth j far then Qrcdexc ihould be ^Jiifcari. 
Ifyoufpeak improperly, yoHmuflmearij either [Anadeflcding Juftification3 
as it feems you do > which is unfound, as well as improper : or elfc [An ad which 
is the Condition of Juiiification] which is fouad^thou^h improper. 

a. Who knows whether you mean that [noncof thole afts, Hc&.ii. arc ads of 
Juftification] or [not all of them] The proper importance of your words is foe 
the former. But that is a dangerous untruth : for verf. i j. is judged by our Divines 
to contain a proper defcription o^ juftifying faith [they faw the promiles («.e. the 
good promilcd) a farre off, and were perfwaded of thcmjand embraced them ftT't-J 
iBut which focver you mean, you ihouId hare proved your alicrtion. It will be ca- 
fily acknowledged that many there mentioned, weic not the great and principall 
aft which is the Condition of Juftification, as begun: But yet they may be lelki 
afts which arc fecondarypartsof the condition of continuing their Juftification. 
I do not think but that aft [ by which Nook became the heir of the vighteoulncls 
which is by faith,] v.7.had a hand in continuing his Juftification, though it were 
the preparing the Ark, being moved with fear. I think tfiat aft by whi«h ^bel ob- 
tained witneffe that he was righteous, and that by which Enecb plealed God, and 
without which it is impofUble to pleafe him, had fomchand in Juftification: I 
think thcfe four great afts mentioned, i;.6. are part of the condition of Juftification. 
1. To beleeve that God is (w^. that he is God,thc Chief Good, the firit and laft, 
the principal efficient and Ultimate Endjt^c.) i. The diligent fceking ofhit». 
J. Beleevingthat heisarewarder of them that do To. 4. Coming to him. (Ifthil 
be diftinft from the fecond.) When the holy Ghoft doth of purpofe in the whole 
Chapter fet forth the glory and excellency of faith, I dare not be one that ftiall ima- 
gine that he fpeaks all this of* lower fort cf faith, and quite left out the noblcll 
part which juftifieth, from his praifes. 

g. Yetyoufhould not (in my judgement) have called l^Abruhamt obedience, 
CMofes felf-dcnial, Gidetns valour] afts of JulHfying faith : Arc thefe afts of faith * 
If you mean that thefe afts are fruits of faith, its true : Or if you mean that an aft 
of faith did excite the foul to each of thefe afts, and fo you mean no: the obedi- 
ence, valour^tT'c. but the aft of faith which excited it, then you might call thofe 
afts of juftifying faith ; But if I had called valour and obedience fo, 1 ihould have 
been blamed. 

4. What mean you to fay Obedience and Valour was not their Juftification ? 
Do you think that any aft of faith is Juftification? You mean ( if I may cojije- 
fture from your afrer-doftiinc) the inftrumcnt of Juftification. 

J. But then how come you to fay next, that it is Chrifts blood ? The blood ofc 
Chrift is the meritorious caufe of our Julfification, which improperly may be cal- 
led alio, the Matter of it : But I think it is neither out Juftification formally, not: 
the inftrumcnt of it in proper fpccch. 

6. But I thought the contt ft in your Difpute had been. Which is the juftifying 
aft of faith, and which not ^ and therefore when you denied thofe in Hcb.i i. to 
be afts of Juftification ( which I am forced to interpret [ juftitying acts] ) I 
cxpcfted to findc the true aft aflertcd i but in ftead of that I finde the oppclite 
member, is [The blood of Chrift.] Isthis ioJccd the Controverfic ? Whether 
it be [Accepting Chrift as Lord] or [the blood of Chrift] that juftifieth ? Ncvct 
wasfuchaQjJeltiondebatcd by me, in the way here intimated. I am wliolly for 
youj if this be the doubt : Ic is Chnfts blood that juftifieth mccitoriouny. Out yec 

C 1 w| 

we arc juftified by faith too, as the condition of our intcrcftin free Juftification^ 
And why fhould tbcfe two be put in oppoGtion ? I lookt when you had aflcrted 
and well proved that it is not taking Chrill as Lord. but only fai-.h in his blood>tbac 
isthe condition on cur part, of our attaining Jul^ification. 

7. It would prove a hard task to make good, that there arc feveral aft$ of jufti- 
fying faith, by which we are not juftified ; without flying m great impropriety of 
fpeech. By [juftifying faith] you muft mean, the Ad, Habit, or rcneweu Facul- 
ty : li the ad, then I think you will fay, ic is but one, or not many : Or at Icaft 
every ad, which's juftifying faith, muft needs be fuch a$ we are juft.ficd by ; Or 
elfe why ihould that ad be called [ juftifying faith.] i. But 1 doubt not bur you 
mean the habit : And then 1. you confefs that the habit is [juftifying faith] which 
is true; not only as ii helpeth to produce the ad, but even as it is in it fcif j But 
that will oveithrow the dodrine of inftrumentality. a. It requireth another kindc 
of Dilpuing then I here meet with, to prove that ads and habits of mans roul,aic 
of fo different a nature, that where the ads are fpecifically diftiud by the gieat 
diftance and variety of objeds, yet the habit producing all thcfe is one and the 
fame, and not diftind as the ads : and that obedience, felf-dcnial and valour, are 
adsof the fame habit of faith, as isthe accepting an offered Chiift. 3. If you 
fliould mean by [ juftifying faith] the faculty as fandified, then all other adsof 
that faculty as fandified, or of the Spirit there refiding, might as well be called 
Adsof juftifying faiih. But I will not imagine that this is your fen fe. 

8. I C«r. 4.4. is nothing toourbufir.efs. P«tM/ was not hisown julHfier : Though 
be knew not matter of condemnation ( fenfu EvAngdico, for no doubt he knew him- 
felf to be a (inner) yet that did not juftifie him, becaufe it is God only that is his 
Judge. Can you hence prove, that accepting Chrift as Lord, is not the condition 
of our Juftification ^ Then you may prove the fame of the accepting him as Savi- 
our. For Pill knew nothing by himfelfjas if he were guilty of not performing the 
one or the other : yet was he not thereby juftified. 

M' Bi T Ames indeed faith, thxt Abraham veoi j ujiified by rvorfis, veben be hid oferei 
llfaacfcw fonon the >4/rjr, Jam.z.ri. but either there vfc muft underHund a 
wor fling fMtb, with Pifcator, Parous, Pemble, and conjcjS thxt Paul and J^mcs handle 
trvo diUincl qneftions, The one, IVhetber faith alone "^ufiifies rvitheut veor^s ? which 
be ancludes in the Affirmative : The other, JVhit faith juftijicth ? iVhciher a vporkr 
ing faith only, and not a fuiththat is dead and idlci Or elfe I linorv m>t how to make 
feufe of the ApoftU, who ftreight inferres from Abrahams ^.ift if cation by the offer 
of hk fon. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which faith, Abraham bclecved God 
and it was imputed to him for righteoufnefs. Hew ethcrwife do tbcfe accords He 
wof juftified bywords: and the Scripture wiK fulfilled, wbnh faith, be wa juftified 
kj faith f 

§■ ?. 

R.3. I. IF ^ames muft ufe the term [Works] twelve times in thirteen verfes, 

^ (a thing not ufual) as if he had forefeen how men would ouefti- 

on his meaning, and yet for all that we muft beleeve that by [ Works] ^ames 

dpih not mean [Works} it will prove m hajd a thing to underftand the Scripture,, 

* as 

as the Papifts would pcrfwadc us that it is : and that the: c is as great a ncceffity of 
a living deciding judge. 

1. Do but reade over all thofe ycrfes,and put [working- faith] in ftead of [Works] 
and try w. at fenfc you will make. 

3. No doubt but Ptfw/acd jF^wrj handle two diftinfl Qucflions . but not the ^ 
two that you here txprels. P^u/lpcaks of Meritorious Works, which make the 
Reward of Debt, and not of Grace, if you will bclceve his own defciipiion of 
them, Rom. 4. 4. But Jjwofpeaks of no fuch Works, but of fuch as have a confi- 
itcncy with Giacc, and ncceflary fubordinaticn to it: I prove i;; The Works 
that 3^imc,t fpeaks of, we muii endeavour for and perform, or perifli ( fuppofing 
time) But the works that Pdw/lptaks of, no man muft endeavour, or once ima- 
gine that hj can perform, vi'^. fuch as make the reward to be of Debt and not of 
Grace. Taw/fpeaks indeed of faith collaterally, but of Chrifls Merits and free- 
Grace, direSly and purpofely : So that the chief part of F4«/x controverfie was. 
Whether we arc juflitied freely through Chrifts Merits ? or through our own me- 
ritorious Woiks ? But James's qucflion is,Whethtr we are juftified by faith alone, 
or by faith with obedience accompanying it 5 and both as fubordinateto Chrifts 
Merits? Paulas qutftion is. Of the meritorious Caufe of our juftification ; 
Jrfffic/squcftion is. Of the condition on our parts, of our intercft in a free Re- 
miflion i fuppofing TtfM/f queflion determined, that Chrift only is the Meriter. 
*Pd«/ fpeaksof Juflifrcation in toro, both in the beginning and progrefs, but efpe- 
oially the beginning : But ^dtnes fpeaks only of Juftification as continued and 
confummate, and not as begun : For both Abrahams and every mans was be- 
gun, befoie Works of Obedience:. Though a difpofition aad refolution, and en- 
gagement to obey do go before. 

4. If with the named Expofitors,you underftand by [Works] a working-faith { 
cither you grant as much as I aiErm, in fenfej or elfe you mull utterly null all the 
Apoftle*sarguing,fiom vcr/.i 3. to the end. For if by [Working-faith] you fup- 
pofe that ^tmcs meant that God did not only make [Faith it felf ] to be the prin- 
cipal! condition, but alfo [its Working] in obedience, when there is opportunity, 
to be the fecondary condition ( or part of the condition ) of Jultificatioil as con- 
tinued ; as being the necefiary modus, or eflcd (both which it is in feveral re- 
fpeds ) then you fay the fame in lenfe as I do, only changing the Scripture terms 
without and againft rcafon. It is ordinary to make the woiw or quality of that 
matter which is the fubflance of the condition, to be as real a part of the conditi- 
on as the matter it felf. As when you oblige your Debtor to pay you fo much cur- 
rant Englifli money j it is here as neceffary that it be [Englirti] and [Currant] 
as that it be money. If you prcmifc your fervant his wages, on condition he ferve 
you faithfully : here [ Faithfulnefs] is as real a part of the Condition, as [Ser- 
vice.] If a man take a woman in Marriage, and eflate her in all his Lands, on 
condition that flic will be to him [a chaft, faithful! Wife :] here her chaR fidelity 
is as true a part of the condition, as to be his Wife. So if God fay, [He that 
hath a Working faith fliall be juftified and favcd, and he that hath not, fhall pe- 
ri(h.] Here as faith is the principal] part of the condition, fo that it be a [Work- 
ing] is the fecondary, and as real apart of the condition, as that it be bith. And 
if Satan accufc you for not- beleeving (at Judgement) you mufl be juftified, by 
producing your faith it felf, fo if he accufe you as having a faith that was not 
Working j how will you be juftified but by the Works or Working difpofition of 
that faitb ^ 

C 3 5. As 

S- As for your fiagic Argument here, I anfwn-, i. Ic is a weak ground to 
maintain thar ^imcs twelve timts in thirteen verfcs, by [Worki] means not 
[Works;] and by faith alone ( which be Itill oppofcth ) doth net mean tairh 
alone, and all this becaufe you cannot ice the connexion of one verfc to the fot^ 
metj or the force of one cited Scripture. Others may fee ir, and be able to Ihew 
fenfe in the Apolllej words, though you or I could not. If every time we areata 
lolTein analyfmgor difcerning the rcafon of a cited Fcxtjwc (hall prcfime to make 
fo great an alteratioB,meerly to bring all to han| rcgcthcr in our apprehenfions, wc 
ihali findc Analyzers the greattft corrupters of Scripture. It is ealieto imagine and 
fain a fake Analylis with much plaufiblcnefs. 

I conceive that ^jw«/ci:eth thcfe words expofitorily ; q.d. [And thus or in 
this fenie the Scripture was fulhllcd, i c. hillorically, fpoke truly of that which was 
long before done, Abraham belecvcd God, i. e. fo as to iccond his faith with adual 
obedience, and.it (/'. f. bclccving and fo obeying, or truftin^ Godspromife and 
power fo farrcas to offer hisfonto death) vfos imputed to ban, Sec. ». Or why 
may not ^ameshy conceflion preoccupate an objedion ? knowing that this would 
beobjeAcd he might lay, q. d. I grant that the Scripture was fulhllcd,which faith, 
&e. but yet though he weie initially juftificd by faith only, yet when he was cal- 
led to works, he was juftified alfoby his obedience. 3. And is it not as hard to 
difccrn the reafon of this citation, according to your expolition as mine ? For 
you may as well fay, [How do thefe accord. He was juftified by a working faith : 
and The Scripture was fulfilled which faith, H* was juftified by faith ?] For 
^ames is not proving that tAbriham was juftificd by faith, and yet this is it the 
Tex: fpeaks : but tkac he was juftified by works fcconding faith, or, as you fay, by 
a Working-faich : Where, ifyou put any emphafis onthe term [Working] and 
account it to fuperadde any thing to meer belecviug, you fay as much as I j and 
then ^wjcj muft cite that Text expofitorily j and then whether according to my 
expofition or yours, varies not the cafe, feeing one faith as much for Works as^thc 

But I fuppofcyou will fay, Faith vrhich juftifieth muft be working > but it ju- 
iiifieth not qua operam. Anf. i. True : nor qua fides, i. e. qui apprehaidit oljtSiumf 
if the j«i fpeaks theformall reafon of itsintercftin Juftification. z. But why 
cannot faith juftifie unlefs it be working f If you fay [ Becaufe that God hath 
made it the condition of J uftification, that we beleevc with a working faith ] and 
fo that it be working is part of the Condition, you fay the fame in lenfe as I. If 
you fay, cither that working is necefTary as a fign, that faith is true j or that the 
nature of true faith will work j both arc truth : but to fay this is the Apoftle's fenfe, 
istonull all his Argutnentation ; For he pleads not tor a meer neccfTuy of figni- 
ficationor dii'covery, but for aneceflity utmei'ijid ^uftificationcm i even that Ju- 
ftification which he cals [Imputing of Righteoufuefs] and that by God. And he 
argucth not only Phyfically, what the nature of faith will produce} but morally, 
what men muft do tO fuch ends. And it is only as a condition that faith or its wor- 
king nature can be neceflary adfinem ut media mordii j if you fpeak of fuch an ab- 
folute neceflity as the Text doth. 

§. 4. 

M' 3/. A LL rforfis before or after comierfton,i^erent in w, or vfrought bj us,iire exclu- 
*^^ dedfrom 'Nullification. 



§. 4- 
K.B. L'T^Hctcrm [Works] fignificth either fuch as a Workman doth to de- 
_f. ferve his wages for the value of his Work j which make the reward 
to be of Debt and not of Grace } and fo its true : Or it fignificth all good anions j 
and fo this faying is contrary to the fcope of the Scripture, i. Faith and Repen- 
tance are fuch works and wrought by us. i. ^amcs afiertcth the inclufion of fuch 
works. If you fay. But iaith and repentance juftifie net as Good works : I ea- 
(ily grant it : That they be Good, flowcth from the Precept ; That they JuAifie, 
floweth from the Promife, conlHtuting them the Condition . If they fhould ju- 
itifie becaufeGoodjtbeir gcodnefs muft be fuch as may accrue to aMeritorioufnefst 
But yet they muft be Good, bcfoic they can juftifie as Coiiditions of the free 
Gift : yea and have a peculiar eminent goodnelSj confifting in their aptitude to 
this work, and to Glorifie the free Juftifier. Mdt.i'}. Rcm.i. ^amcs i. with the 
greatefi part of Scripture,look not with fuch a face as your Propoiition. This may 
ierv« to yoiu: following word*. 

M' Bt. A Nd thefc things ctmfidtrei, I sm truly forty thit faith Jhtuld novo be denied 
/i to hsve the office or place cj an injirumetit in our ^ujlification : nayfurcc al" 
lovffed t$ be called the inftrument of oitr receiving Chrifttbatjuflifics 
US; becaufc the acf «f faith (^ rx>hicbii that which juftifiethw) it our Whether faith 
acfualreceiving Chriji, and therefore cannot be the ivjlrumcntofrc- be thelnftru- 
ceiving. Thk is too fubtleaNction : Ue ufc to fpeaiiotherveife of mem of Ju- 
faith. Iaith is the eye of the foul vrhcrehy vc fee Chrijl, and the eye is ftification. 
not fight. Faith is the hand of the foul, whereby it receives Chrift, and 
the band is not receiving' jind Scripture ^caks otherwife .- IVe receive Hmijfion of fiis 
ly faith, and an inheritance among them thai are favSliJIcd if received by faith, Ad.i 8.i6. 
Why elfe is this righteoufncfi fomctime caUed the righteoufncjS of fxtth, and fmetime 
the righteoufvcjS of God which is by faith, but that tt w a rtghtcoiijncjS which faith re- 
ceives i Chrtjl dwcls in m by faith, Eph. j . 1 7. By faith we tab^e him in and give bin 
entertainment : iVe receive the prcmife of the Spirit through faith. Gal . 3 . 1 4. Thefe Scri- 
ptures (peafiof faith as the fouls ivilrKment to receive Cbrijt ^fta, to receive the Spirit 
fom Chrijl ^efus. 

§. 1. 
R.B. i.T Know MOt bow to meddle with Controvcrfifs, but fome body will be 
■■■forry or angry, which fide foever 3 take. I am forry that I have made 
you forry, but not for that DcArine which cauftd v. j which yet I fliall be, as foon 
as I can fee caufe for it. 

1. Why would you not here attempt to prorc, that which you are fo forry 
fliould be denied, v:^. That faith is the ii ftrumcnt of Juflificaiion ? Will all 
yoHr Readers take your complaint for adcmonftration cf the erroui of what you 
complain of? 

3. 1 was as forry that men called, and fo called faith the inftrument of Juftifi- 
cation, as ysu are that I deny it : And as your fotrow urged you to publiflb ir^ fo 


did mine urge m:. And my forrow had thefe caufcJ ( which I am content may be 
well compared with yours, that it may appear which wire the jultcr and greater,) 
I. No S;rip:ure doth either in the letter or fenfc call faith an inllrument of Jufti- 
ficacion. a. I knew I hid much Scripture and reafona^ainlt it. j. I thought 
it of dangerous confcqucnce, to fay, that man i theerticientcaufe of jultifyiiv 
and pardoning himfelt, and fo doth forgive his own Cim. 

4. Yet all this had never caufed m .- to open my mouth againft it ( for I truly 
abhor the miking of new quarrels. ) Bat for the next, vi^ I found that many 
Learned Divines did not only alVert this inlliumentality, bat they laid fo "reat a. 
ilreflc upon it, as if the main dift'jrence between us and the Papifts lay here. For 
inthedoiiiine of Juftification, faythey, it is that they Fundamentally crre, and 
we Principally differ : And that in thefe four Points, 

:. About the focmall caufe of our Righceoufnefs, which, fay thefe Divines, is 
theformall Rightcoufnefsof Jefus Chrill, as fuftering and peifcdly obeyin ' for 
us (or as others adde, In the habitual Righteoufnefs of his humane nature > and 
others. The natural Righteoufnefs of the Divine nature. 

X. About the way and manner of our participation herein, which as to Gods 
ad, they fay is imputation (which is true) and that in this fenfc, chat Legditer 
we are efteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Chrill, 

5. About the nature of that taith which Juftificth, which, fay moftof our for- 
reign Reformers, is an afl'arance, or full perfwaft on of the pardon of my fins by 
Chrifts blood. 

4. About the formal r»afon of faiths tntereft in Juftification, which, faythey, 
is as the inftrument thereof. 

I donbt not but all thefe four are great Errors. Yet for thefe muft we contend 
as the ReformedReligion > and here mull lye the difference between us and the Pa- 
pifts. That which troubled me was this: To think how many thousand might 
be confirmed in Popery by this courfe, and what a blow i: gave to the Reformed 
Religion. F jr who can imagine but that the young Popiih Stulents will be con- 
firmed in the reft of their Religion, when they finde that we errc in thefe ? and 
will judge by thefe of the reft of our Doflrine ? Efpecially when they finde us ma- 
king this the main part of the Proteftant Caufe, what wonder if they judge our 
Caule naught? This is no fancy, nor any needlefs fears, but fuch areal blow to 
the Proteftant Ciufe, as will not eafily be healed. Had Divines only in a way 
of freedom ufed thisphrafc, and not made it fo great a part of our Religion, to 
the hazarding of the whole, I had never mentioned the unfounJnefs or other in- 
convenience of it. Now to the thing it lei f, Your Arguments for faiths inftru- 
mentality to Juftificition, I will confider when I can finde them : You begin with 
(and fay moiefor) faiths inftrunentality in receiving Chrill. You can fay no 
more of me concerning this, but that [it will be fcarce allowed to be fo called.] 
This intimites that I make it no matter of contention : nor do I know how I 
could have faid lefs, if anything; when its only the unfitnefs or impropriety of 
the phrafe that I mention, and not the fcnfe : which I thought with fomuchten- 
derncfi I might do, uponrcafon given, it being no Scripture phralc. If faith be 
the inftrument of receiving Chrift, then it is either the Ad or the Hibit of Faith 
that is the inftrument : They that fay^ the Habit is :he inftrummt, fpeak not pro- 
perly, but far more tolerably then the others do. If gracious Hibits are properly 
calkd inftruments of the foul, then fo may other Hibits: And why is not this 
language more in ufe ajiong Logicians ? if it be fo unq-icftionably proper ? But I 



perceive iris the Ad of faith that you call theinftrument : for you anfweronlytd 
what I fay againft that. Idiewupa Scheme of the leveral forts of Giving and 
Receiving, in Anlwei to another Learned Brother : which, for the neccflity of 
diftinguiihing here, I would have added, but that fo operous a Reply would be 
unfatabie to your brief Exceptions. Receiving ftiidly taken is ever Pafljve : Re- 
ceiving in a Civil, Ethical, Icfs proper lenfe, is but the Ait of accepting what is 
oftered : When it is only a Relation, or ^utiirem that is oftered, Confcnt or 
Acceptance is an ad fo nccelfary ordinarily to the polTcfTion (or proper PalHvc 
reception) that it is therefore called Receiving it felt; yet is indeed no efficient 
Caufeof the Pafiivc reception or poflcfTion : but a co«i;;;o ftnequii»on, and a fub- 
jcdivedifpofition ; and fo makes the fubjtd capable of the benefit : but being no 
efficient it can be no inflrument. Yet ftill 1 fay, that if any will plcafc to call it an 
irikrument in this fenfe, I will no: quarrel with him, for the impropriety of a 
phrafe ; fpecially if fome men had the fame ingenuity as others have, that fay, it is 
bminftrumentttmmctaphoricum. But to fay, that the ad of faith is theinftrument 
of Ethical Adivc reception (which is it that I argued againft,) is to fay, Recei- 
ving Chrift is the inftrument of it felf. Now let's fee what you fay to this. 
1. You fay, Its too fabtill a Notion : Thatdefervcs no Reply, z. Ycu fay 
[We uie to fpcak othcrwife of faith.] Thats no proof that you fpeak properly. 
You fay [ Faith is the eye of the foul j and the eye is not fight. Faith is the 
handjOT'c] Anf. «. Strange proof ! not only by Metaphors, but by ractaphori of 
mecr humane ufc. i. Is the ad of faith the eye of the foul as dilUnd from fight 5 
and the hand as diftind fiom receiving ? Tell us then what adual feeing and re- 
ceiving is? To fpeak metaphors and contradidions is no proving your Aflertion. 
Next you fay [Scripture fpeaks otherwife.] Thats to the purpofe indeed, if true. 
Youcite, y^ff.i8.i6. where is no fuch matter. If [By] fignifieaa inftrumentall 
caufe, It iscither Alwaies or Sometimes : You would not furc have your Rcadec 
believe that it is Alwaies. It but fometimes. Why do you take it for granted that 
it fo fignifics here ? Why did you not offer fome proof? Thisiscafie Difputing. 
Next you fay [Why elfe is this Righteoafnefs fometime called the Rightconfncfs 
of faith? Sometimes the Righteoufnefs of God whichis by faiih ; butthatitisi 
Rightcoufnefs which faith receives '] j4nf. i .Its properer to fay, Credens rccipit crC' 
icniOfThz Believer by beleeving receives it : Then to fay, Faith (efpeciiily the ad) 
receives it : But if you will ufe that fpcech, it muft exprefs but fermulem rutionent 
crficnrftexpofitorily, and not the elficicncy of faith, and therefore no infliumen- 
tality. It is the Rightcoulnels of God by faith, bscaufe God gives it freely (Chrifl 
having merited it) upon condition of mans faith. You adde [Ep/;. 3.17. Chrift 
dwelsinus by faith. By faith we tak; him injCT'c] j^vf. You odly change the 
queftion : We are fpeaking of faiths inftrumentality in receiving Right to Chrift, 
or Chrift in relation ; and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit, oc 
graces really, or himfelf objedivcly : For Chiill is faid to dwell in us, i. By his 
Spirit and Graces. 1. Objcdively, as my friend dwels in my heart when I love 
him. The text being meant of either of thefe, is nothing to the purpofe. 2. Yet 
here you do not prove that [by] fignifictha proper inltrument : no more then 
your adual intellc dion is faid to be the inftrumen: of Truths abode in you > when 
it is faid that Truth dwelleth in you by intelledian. The fame Anfwer fcrves to 
your following words about reccivin:j the Spirit, i. Its nothing to our Queftion. 
1. You give us but your bare word that Scripture f^^eaks ef faith as the louis in- 
ftrument, even iu receiving the Spirit of Chrift, much lefs in receiving Right t» 

D Chrift. 


Chrift. But ftill rcnwmber that from firfttolaftj I profcfs not to contend with 
any about the ufc of this phrafe, of faiths inftaimcntality in receiving Chrjft. 
It is its being really the proper inftrumeMail efficient caule of JuUificition, which 
I denied, aad refolvedly more then ever do deny. This yuu next come to, 
and fay. 

§. 6. 

M' 2/. "T^ He infirumentality of it in the rvorf^ nf^uftificstion U denied, bccaufe the ng. 
JL /arc ofiin Ivjirumcnt (m cotifiiereJi in Phyfial operstions) doth not cxiBly 
bclon^tsiti which if itmuji be dlmj-ies rtgtdly foUovtcd, rviU often put us to a (land in 
the Ajji glutton of caufes of any^iindcin iMonla^tent. The muertd and formal esiifes 
in ^ujiif cation are fcarce agreed upon, and no marveU then in cafe men mindc to cou- 
tend about it, that fome queJlionU rai fed about the Inflrument. Bin in cafe tve fljaU 
confider the nature and liivdeof tbii rvorli, about which faith U imploied, and examine the 
rcaftn and ground, upon the which faith k difabled from the o^ce of an injlrument in 
eur^HiiiJication, and withall looliinto that which is brought in i/san injlrument in this 
vforfitn the jlead of it, I do not doubt but it rviU cjfily appear, tbatthofe7)tvincs, that 
•with a concurrent jadgcmcnt ( without almojl a dijfeuttng voice, have made faith an 
injlrument in thii worli) ^ea^mefi aptly, andmojl agreeably to the nature of an in- 

§. 6. 
3t.2.T)Ut is this certain ? Do I therefore deny faithto be thcinftrument ofju- 
Oftification, becaufe the nature of an inftrument [as confidcred in Phyfi- 
cal operations] doth not cxaftly belong to it ? I faid i. The adion of the prin- 
cipal Caufe and of the inftrument is one adion. Is not this true of moral opera- 
tions as well as Phvfical ? If it be not, you muft make us a new Logick before you 
can reafonably cxpcd that we receive your Logical Theology. 2.. I faid, thcin- 
ftrument muit have Influx to the pioducing of thecfledof the principal caufe, by a 
proper caufality : that is, in fuo genere. Is not this true of Moral operationsi as well 
as Phyiical ? Its true, Moral caufcs may be faid ro hare alefs proper caufation then 
Phyfical : But i. The inilrumcntal muft be as proper as that of the principal. 
7. There is a wide difference between, caufam Moralem, and ciujam Moraliiatis. 
EffeUt imuraLii potcQ cjfe caufa morilk, vel imputativi : Et effccii morilii fciiuct Ethi- 
ci, (utVebiti,^urit ,yneriti,) potcft effecauftrcmotiornaturalis. It may well be cal- 
led a proper caufation, when theeflftd is pi'^ioccd by as full a caulation as the na- 
ture of the thing will admit (as in relations that are by meer reluhancy.) 

i.You fay [the inateiial and formal caufes of Jullification are fcarce agreed on.] 
But doth that give you a liberty to alleit what you lift, or what cannot be proved 
true, becaufe all men fee not the truth ? I iTiouid have thought you fliould rather 
have thus concluded : [ .leeing Divines tbcmfclves cannot agree about the aflig- 
nation of thefe Lcgical, unfcriptural notions in the bufinels of Juftitication, there- 
fore it is a meer Church-dividing ccuife, to place io much of the Protcftani Caufe 
in fuch notions, and ir.fift upon them as matteis of fuch ncccffityand weight, as 
is done in alTerting fairlis inftrumentaiity ro juftific.uion.] Your arLument(in the 
iffue and tendency) i/. like ihat of plundering fouldiersin time of fight j that lay. 
Now they are altogether by the earsj we may take that we light on : why fhould 


- CIS] 

they queftion us, till they agree among themfelves ? j. Whether this phrafe be 
fo ape as you affitm, we (hall better know when you have faid lomething to prove 
ic. If Divines have been fo concurrent in it as you fay, that there is Icaicc a di(- 
fenting voice, I hope I am the more cxcufable, if it prove an error, for oppolang 
it; For ic is pity to let To many miftakc themfelves, miflead others, and make us 
part of a new Religion, 

But Sir, whatsthe caufc of this fudden change ? Through their great con- 
defcenfion, I have received Animadvcrfions from many of the molt Leavned, 
Judicious Divines that 1 know in EngUnd : And of all thefcjthere is but one man 
that doth own the Dcdine of faiths Initrumentality J but they difclaim it ail i 
fome with diiUft, others with a tnodefl excufc of thsm that ufe it, and tlic gende 
interpretation of [ a Mttapiiorical inttrument ] and that remote: foi fo tbcy 
would have mc inttipiet our Divines. I told you this when I favv you, and n^u 
asked mc, Whether M'C7. were a:.atnft it ? To which I Anfwcr, Notfomu.has 
divers uchers that wtitt to me J but judge you by his own words, which arc ihcfc, 
\_0'<j\. But though faith be not the inltrumcntof our Juftification, may it not 
be calhd the init.unenr of receiving Cbrill ? Anf. I think they meanfoanu no 
more, who call faith the inltrument of our- Juitification, (j'c- I fhall no: be 
unvvi'linj; to yield toyou, that to fpeak exadly, faith may better be called a Con- 
dition, then an Inlltumentef our Juftification] SofarM'C 

§. 7. 
M' B/. "T^Hc reorii about rchichfMth U imploied.U not an A')folutc,but a relative worf{:X 
X. worliofGof towards man : not without the aHual co7tcurrcnce efmun: futb 
in which neither God vor man are folc c^icients j nor any ail of gei or man (an be jole 
inftrumaiti j but there mu^ be a mutual concurrence of both. 

§. 7. 
R. B. A Dangerous Dodrine, in my Judgement, to be fo nakedly afBrmed : 
•^ ^Nodoubtbut Jullification is a Relative change : and it is palt Con- 
troverfie, that it is not without the aftual concurrence of 
man: for he muft perform the Condition, on which God * J fuppofethewori 
will juftifie him : But that God is not the fole Eificicnt,nor lASl] is u(ed ft 
any • Ad of God, the fole Inftrumcnt, I du; ft not have larirelji . us to include 
affirmed without proof : and much Ids have undertaken to theLawitfdf. 

§. 8. 

M'B/. IpHKWM/f necij be granted. unlejS we will bring in 7)' Ctli^ts pj(five red- 
* piency of chrift : thrifts abode in mau Without man, m ^ite of man, andfiip- 
pofe him to be jufiijied in unbelief 

D i §. 8. 


§. 8. 

R. B.'T" His is veiy naked afTerting. Why did you not (hew fomercafonof thijill 
•■ confequence ? Itspatt my icach to fee thclcaft. ». Why do you ftill 
confound Chvilts real abode in us by hisSpiiit, with the relation we have upon 
Juftification ? when even now you affirmedjit was a relative work (as you call it ) 
I prayjby the next fliew us more clearly, how thefe abfurdities follow that doftrinc 
which aftirmethj Tha: God isthefole Efficient caufc of our Juftification, but ha- 
ving made mans Belief and Confent the Condition(whofe nature is to ful'pend the 
eflcdjtill performed) he will not juftific us till we firll believe and confent. This ic 
my Dodrinc plainly. 

M' Bl. A Nd fditb U difablei from thU office in ^ufiification, by thU jgrgumcnt : If 
^fiitbbeAU inilrument,itKthetvjirumentofgodormiin,8(.c. I Arf.Itisthe 
iiiHrumem el man : and though mAndonot jufltfichimfelf, yetbeconcurrej,asawiUiHg 
reidy Agent with God tn it. God ii ajuflijier of thofe thit bcleeve in fefm, Rom. 3.26. 
God hath fet Cbrifi forth a propitiation through faith, Rom. 3 .15. 

§■ 9. 
K, £. f P this be not palpable contradidion, faying and unfaying, my Lo^ick is 
■• lefs then I thought it had been. If it be [Mans inftrument] of Juftifica- 
tion j and yet [Mandonot jiiftifiehimfelf.] Thencither Man is not Manner an 
Inftrument is not an Inftrumcntj or Juftifyingis not Juftifying. Kad you only 
affirmed it to be mans ad, and Gods inftrument ( how ablurd foever otherwifc 
yet) you might have faidi Man doth not juftifie himlelf. But if it be mans in- 
ftrument, then man is the pi incipal caufe ( in refped of the inftrumentall.) Foe 
emne in[lrumentum efl caufa principalis infirumcntum. Andean he be the efficient 
caufe, and yet not eftcd ? Is not that to be a Caufe and no Caufe ? In my judge- 
ment thisiodrinc (hould not be made part of our Religion > nor much ftrcfslaid 
on i: if it were true j becaule its fo obfcure : That man concurresas a ready Agenr, 
who doubts ? but doth that prove him or his faith the efficient caufe of his own 
pardon and Juftification ? Is the performer of the condition of [Giatefull con- 
ient ] no willing Agent, unlefs an efficient Caufe ? The text you cite doth not 
Ipeak of inftruments, for ought I can finde. 


M' Bl. A Ni becaufe it is the infirumcnt of man in a rvork^f this nature, it is alfo the 
iS inflrumeitt of God. As fame haveobferved a communication of Titles betrveen 
Cbrifi and his Church (the Church being called by his Name) fo there is a communicationcf 
aSliitns in thefe relative works. Chnjl dwels in our heartyby faith, Eph. 3 . 1 7. jVc believe 
and not Chrtfl : and yet faith there is Cbrifts ivfirument, whereby hetaliesup his abode- 
^ed purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith, A d . 1 5 . r 7 . They believed and not God : 
yet faith is Gods inftrument in the vaork of their purification. So on the 9ther^dc,the Spirit 
is q^ds mri: yet m by the Spirit do msrtific tiu icsds oftbeflefh, Rom. 8. 1 3 . 


§. lo. 

R.B.TF this bd' indeed true, That it is mans inftrumcnt of Juftification and 
i. Gods both i then both God and man ai c both (^aufje principaks pirtiales, by 
coordination making up one principal caule. This 1 hope you will not down- 
right affirm : I deny it on this reafcn : Every abfolure Donor ( I mean, who is 
abfolutely owner of what he gives ) is the totall caule-efficient- principal, of his 
own Donation : But God in juftifying is an abfclute Donor (giving remiflion 
and Rightcoufnefs) Thereforc,(jr(r. i. Or elfe God and man muft be principal 
caufcs one fubordinate to the other, and each total in his own kinde. This 
mult be yeur meaning, by your firft words : But then which of thefe is the moft 
principal caufc, and which the fubordinate ? I: is hard for a better wit then mine 
to know your minde by your words : For when you lay [Becaule it is mans inftru- 
mcnt, it is alfo Gods inftrumcnt.] It may feem that you take it to be mans inftru- 
mcnt firft, or elfc how can it be therefore Gods inftrumcnt [becaufc] it is mans ? 
But yet whether you fpeak if ori/neco?f/f(^HfMt« vdconfequentite, deerdtne eJ^cndiCf 
tffictendt,vel de ordine diccndi (^ coUigcndt, I know nor. However, I will not be fo un- 
charitable as to imagine that you take man for the molt principal caule, and God 
for the fubordinate i but contrarily. But then you do not only make man the par- 
doner and juftificr of himfelf, but you make him the neareit total caufe of it : and 
fo it would be as proper to fay, ^tam forgives himfelf, as that God forgives him : 
And fo faith would be only mans inibument diredly, as being the neareft caufe- 
principal J and Gods inftrtiment remotely. As if I hold my pen, and you hold 
my hand, the pen is preximi my Inlh ument, and rcmotiui yours. And fo God 
fhould juftifie and pardon man, by himlelf, as Gods inftrument ; As if a Judge 
had committed Treafon, and the King fhould give him authority to Judge, Par- 
don and Abfolvc himfelf. But how much might be faid againft this ' To juftifie 
t^ciemer is Acim RcciorU .- Scdhomo nou cjl rcBor fuiipfiia ('in the fenfe in hand :) 
Therefore he cannot jul^ifie himlelf. Indeed if you had fpoke only of the Juftifi- 
cation /« /oroc6»/cffnt/<« you might well have afcribed ic to man as the cfficieoc 
caufe : but that you fpeak not of. 

2. The communication of Titles that you fpeak of, is i. very rare. 2. Un- 
certain whether at all found in Scripture. That Text i Cor.12.1 2. fecmeth ra- 
ther to leave out [the Church] as underftood, then to communicate Chrifts Name 
to it : q.d. [So is Chrift and the Church.] 1 would advife all friends of mine to 
take heed that they prcfumc not on this flight ground to communicate Chrifts 
Nameto the Church in their ordinary fpeech. 5. But who can tell what you 
mean by a communication of anions ? Your putting [Communication of ani- 
ons] in contradiftindion from [Communication of Titles] makes the proper 
fenfe of your words be, that Chrift doth as really communicate anions themfelves, 
as he doth Titles themfelves. But that is no better then a plain impoflibility : For 
the communication will make it another aftion. The accident perifheth, when 
fcparated from its lubjed : and therefore the fame accident cannot be communi- 
cated. But its like you initnded to hare faid. That there is a common or mutual 
attribution of each others a(fticns, «r one is entitled to the aftions of theother j 
and fo mean only a communication of the Name quad modumproducendi, and not 
of the adions themfelves. Burthen, either this is an improper figurative way of 
fpetchj 01 it i$ proper, andgroimdcd in th« nature of the thing. If the former, 

D ^ tbent 

then it i< nothing to ©urQa:ftion, who arc not enquiring whether there 'may not 
be found fo.Ti.- Figure in K.he:orick according to which faith maybe faid to ba 
mani inllrumenc of J altificatioa and Gods ? but whether it be fo properly and in- 
deed ? And if you could findcany Scripture th»t (o Tpealcs figuratively, calling 
faith mans inll.umcn: and Go.is io juftifyingj ( as you cannot ) this would do 
nothing to the deciding of ou: Controvciiie. It is therefore a grsunded attributi- 
on that you muli prove, where there is alfo a real inl^rui-nentality, and fo the 
Name fa:cedrotbe Thing. And how prove you chis ? Why,a$ bcforejE/)i?.j. 17. 
you lay, [We beleeve and not Chrili > yet fai:b is Chrifts inftrument, whereby 
betakes up hisabode.] But thisis too facil difputing to fatisfie. i. Hereisnota 
Word to prove that it is a relative In-dwelling that is here fpoken of. I need not 
tell you how Angular you arc in this Expofidon ( if you lo expound ; If not, you 
faynorhing.) i. If chac bad been proved, yet here is no proof that [by] li^nifi- 
eth inftriimcntality. j. Mach lefs that it is Ciiril^s inftrument. Howcafilyare 
all thcfe affirmed ? I think Chriftdwels in our hearts, as I faid, i. By his Spiric 
and Graces j and fo he is faid to dwell in us [by faith.] i. FormzUtcr, faith being 
the principal part of that grace which dwelleth in us. 1. Condttiomliter, taith be- 
ing a condition of our right to the :ipirits abode, g. E^nenter,2s the ad of faith 
doth diri;(ft;y caufe the increafe, and fo the abode of the habit > and ali'o as it exci- 
teth other graces. If you will call this efficiency an inltrumcntal eificiency, I 
think it is no proper fpeech : We do not ufe to call the ad of intcUedion, Mans 
intlrument of knowing or increafing the habits of knowledge : but I wi.l not con- 
tend with vou about this : Nor yec if you fay, This ad of beleeving is Mms in- 
ftrument ^of exciting and iucreadng grace in himfeif ) diredly, and Gods inftru- 
ment remotely : As my pen is iaimediatly my inftrument, and remotely his that 
holds my hand. Or rather I fhould lay, as my adion in writing is improperly 
called my inftrwment, and his. And thus man may be faid (yea more properly 
then thus) to fandifie himfeif, and God to fandifie mm by himfeif : Batinju- 
ftifacation the matter is tar otherwife : Man ioth neither Jullifie himfeif, nor God 
juftifiesman by himfeif. The fecond way of Chrifts dwelling in us, is Obje- 
dively. And here if you will fpeak fo improperly, as to fay that mans ad of be- 
lieving is his inftrument of receiving Chrilt as an Objed, or of the Objeds abode 
in the foul, I will not contend with you about it : O.ily as I would defire you to 
make this phrafe no great part of Religion, nor lay too great a ftrefs upon it, fo alfo 
to remember, i. That it is but the ^e«« and notCiuift himfeif that is objc- 
divsly received, and thus dwelleth in us- i. That every other grace that hath 
Chrift for its objed, is thus far an inftrument of receiving him, and of hisabode 
in us, as well as taith : but none fa properly ani fu'ly as knowledge. And 
3. That thus Chrift dwels objedively in every wick;d man that thinkcth of 
him : Chough doabtlelie not in that deep and fpcciall manner as in his 

J. And yet further, asa confeqaeni of the firft fort of indwelling, Chrift him- 
feif may be faid to dwell in us QLvdiier,vel Horditcr, that is, Kcpiititive, becaufc 
his Spirit or Graces dwell in us KiturdiHr ; As a man that keep* poffeftion of a 
houfe by his Con or fervant, or by bis goods : And here ail'o, if yoij hive a mindc 
to the term Inftru iient, you miy, for me, fay that Chrift keeps pofleflion by faith 
or the Spiritas his inft.a ncnis : But then you muft conlider, i. Thatthisisby 
no communication of Ac"tioas and Titles : but \\ut is a real ground for this fpeech. 
X. That ic is not faich as mans adj but faith as Gods grace wrought and main- 



rained in us, by which he may in this fenfe be faid ro dwell in uJ,or keep poffeffion 
of us. J. Tha: thas every giace may as truly be faidto be Chrifts inftrumemof 
poUeflion or indweilingjas faiih ; fo he dwellethin us by love, hope, truft, defirc, 
pji&e- but moft properly by the Spirit or new Creature, or whole body of San- 

4 That all this is nothing to prove faith to be mans inftiumcnt and Gods (yea 
or either alone) to tfFedl our Juftification. 

The fame anlvver fcrves to e/?ff. if. 17. God purifieth mans heart by faith: 
I. From the power of fin, and that is by faith ; 1. Formaliter. z. Ef.cicnter, as 
is before cxpicllcd. 2. From the guilt of lin j and that is by faith as a condition 
en mans part (and not asan inftiument •) By or through which God is faid to 
punfic or pardon us J i. In that heconferreth rcmifllon only on this condition } 
and fo doth conftitute the formall office of faith in jaftifying. 2, Inihat by his 
Spi'it he caufcth or givcth faith it felf, and effedeth the matter. Though, 
whether this Text reach to Juftification, I will not Difpute. So that ycudo 
but nakedly jffirm, and not prove that faith is Gods infliumcnt or mans in ju- 

Laltly ro what you fay from Kom.S.ij. I reply, i. AnAdjutoror Concaufc 
is ill called an inil^' ument, Mui\ the Spirit needs be our inilrument, becaufe it is 
[By] tre bpiit? Asif [By]ilgnified only an inftiumcnt ? 

2. All this is nothing to the bufincfs of Juitificaiion. Prove but this, that man 
is as true an efficient of bis own panlnr or Juilification, as he is cf mortify- 
Jn2 the deeds of the body, or of Prcgicflive SanAificaiion, and you (ball carry 
the Caufc : I will not then contend whether the term [inftrumcnt] be proper or 

§. II. 

M' Tl. \Jt An neither juHifes vor fdn^ifes himfelf. yet by faith he U raifed to ckfe 
iSi veiih god in both ; ^vd fo faith as an iiifirutnent receives RightcoufncjS to 
^ufiijication ; and therefore U called, The rightcoiifnejS of faith, which ;V our ^«- 
fitfication, and rcoriis San^if cation ; provided you undcrjiand not the frft viiorli>ffhich 
is properly Regeneration, and precedent to faith ; but the further progreji and increafc 
cf ft, &c. 

§. II. ' 

R.B. 1.1 F manjuftificnothimfelfjandyct faith bebis infiiumem of juftifying, 
' then farewell old Lo»ick. 

2. If man fandifie not himfelf, under God, as to the progrefs and aftsof fan- 
Aificaiion, then farewell old Theology. God bi^s men walh them, and purifie 
their heaits, and cleanfe thei' hands^ and make them new licarts, tr'c and Peter 
faith, Te havepurifed your fouls in obeying the truth thrcugh the Spirit,lkc. i P«. 1.22. 
And we muft cltanl'e our feives from all bithjnels of flclh and Ipiiit, fcrfeBingholir 
rxfiinthefearofgod, 2Ccr.7.i. with many the like. 

J. [To cloJc with God] in pardoning me, fi^nificth not that I pardon my felf, 
or that J or any aft of mine is an efficient caufc of pardcii. 

4- When you lay, that [Faith as an inlhiimcnt rccciveth righteoufnefsto Jufli- 
fication] you fpcak cxaftly the conceptions of mcil Divines that I have met with. 


or read, that go your way j and therefore thefe words deferve a little fanhcr con- 
{idcrauon. Their m«aninij,as far as I can underiland of the whole bufinefs is this : 
1. They conceive of Chriih own righceoufnefs, wherewith himfclt was righteous, 
asgivcntous. 2. They conceive of the aft of faith, as the initrument of recei- 
ving this. 3. Upon thereceivingof; his, they conceive we are juflified, as a man 
that receiveth Riches is Rich, or that receiveth Honour is Honourable. 4. Bc- 
caufe faith is the inftrumcnt oi receiving righceoulnefs, therefore fay they, It is the 
inftrumcntof Juftification. For Jultificaiion Qonjlitutive, is but a relation reful- 
ting from righteoufnefs received. This is the iumme of the common judgement of 
moftthat 1 have read. 

But thel'e things muft be more accurately conGdered, I think. And i. It muft 
be known, that the Righteoufnefs given us, is not the Righteoufnefs whereby 
Chrifts perfon was Righteous : ( for accidents perilTi being removed from the 
fubjed :) but it is a Righteoufnefs merited by ChriAs i'atisfaftion and ebedienccj 
for us. 

2. It muft needs be known that the faith which is the Juftifying condition, is 
terminated on Chrill himfelf as theobjcd^ and not on his Righteoafuefs which 
he gives us in RemiUlon : Remiffion or Righteoufnefs may be the end of the (in- 
ner in receiving Chrift j but Righteoufnefs or Remiflion is nottiieobjeft recei* 
ved by that aft which is made the condition of Juftification : or at Icaft but a fe- 
condary remote objeft j even as a woman doth not marry a mans Riches, but the 
iVlan J though it may be her end in marrying the man, to be enriched by him : 
jiorii her receiving his riches the condition of her firtt Legal right to them > but 
her taking the man for her husband. And as a Patient being promifed to be cu- 
red, if he will take fuch a man for his Phydtian, and wholly trult him, renouncing 
all other : Here it is not receiving Health, or a Cure that is the proper Condition 
of the Cure : Health and Cure is the end for which the PhyGtian is Accepted and 
Truftcd ; but it is himfelf as a fufficient faithful! Phyfuian which is the objeft of 
that receiving,whichis the condition of the Cure.The like maybe flicwcd in other 
Relations, of a Mafter and Scholar, Prince and Subjefts, Mafter and Servants, 
^c. Receiving the perfons into relation, from whom we expeft the benefit, goes 
before receiving the benefit it felf by them j which is ufually the remote end, and 
not the objeft of that firft reception which is the condition. Our Divines there- 
forcof the Artembly do pcrfeftly define juftifying faith to be, A reccivivgxni 
refting on Chrijl alone for falvution, nt he is offered. intheGoJpel It is of dange- 
rous confequence to define juftifying Faith to be the Receivmg of Juftification or 

J. In my judgement, it is a meer fancy and delufion, to fpeak of the receiving 
arightcoufnefs that wemay be juftificd CoH§itutiv^ thereby, in fuch a fcnfe, as if 
the righteoufnefs were firft to be made ours, in order of nature before our Juftifi- 
cation, and then Juftification follow becaufe vvc are righteous j and fothefewere 
two things : For to receive Righteoufnefsjand to receive Juftification is one thing. 
Gods juftifying us, and pardoning our fin, and his conliituting us righteous, and 
his giving us righteoufnefs, is all one thin^ under feverall notions. Yet as God 
giveth, I. Conditionally, i. Aftually : toman receiveth, i. Kecepiione Eihici 
Aclivi, figuratively called receiving, z> Keccptione PhyficA, propril,piJjivi : The 
former goes before Juftification : but only as a fmall, and fecondary part of the 
conditionjif properly any(it being the accepting of Chrift himfelf that is the main 
condition :) The later is nothing at all but ^u{iificAri, commonly called, Paffive 
Juftification. 4.Chrifts 


4. Chnfts Satisfaftion or Redemption (^folvcfidc pretkm) and merit, cannot 
bcproperyicceivcdby us: For they are not in chemfelvcs given to us (but as 
Tropically they may be faid to be ^iven to uj, became the tiuit of them is ^iven 
us.) It was not to us, but to God, that Chait gave latistaaion, andthecrice of 
•ur Redemption. And yet jultifying faith doth as nccefiarily refptd Chritts la- 
tisfaftion and mcnt, as it doch our Juftification thereby prccuied- It is therc- 
fovc the adinewkdgtng of this Redemption, Satisfaction cr M.rit, and the receiving 
ofChnlt :if onahut bith redeemed itf by fitiffi^iiou md merit, and not the receiving 
that Redcmpimor SsnsfaHion our ielvss. To lay ihc;efo.e, that the juftifving aft 
of faith, IS only the receiving of Ch-ifts Ri-htcoufneu or of jullification, isto 
exclude the receiving of Chrift himklf any way j even to exclude him as fatisfiec 
ftom the juftifying a<a : and to exclude from that aft, his Redemption, by blood- 
fhed, fatisfadion and merit : For if it be only the receiving of righteoufnefs, that 
is the juftifying aft, then it is neither the receiving of Chrift himl'elf, nor yet the 
acknowledgement of his Satisfaftion and Redemption by his blood j and fo they 
muft fay of thefe as they do of the reception of Chri^ as Lord, that it is the fdet 
^uajuftificdt, fed U071 qua, juftifians. 

5. If faith (hall be faid to be the inftrumcnt of Juftification eo nomine, bccaufc 
it is the receiving of that RtghteoufnejS whereby we are jultified, then it will fol- 
low that faith muft alfo be called the inftrumcnt of our enjtying Chiift, eo nomine, 
bccaufe it receiveth fcim, and theinltrument of o\iv Adoption, eo nomine, becaiU'e ic- 
tcceivcth Adoption i and fo the fame aft of faith which entitles us to Juftification, 
d«th not entitle us to any other bleffing j nor that aft that entitles us to Chriii, 
dothentitle us to Juftification ( unlcfs there be feveral juftifying afts :) but every 
particular mercy hath a particular aft of faith as the inilrument of receiving it : 
which is no Scripture doftrine. 

6. It muft be remembred that the thing that faith receives naturally and proper- 
ly, is not Chnft himfelf, or his righteoufnefs j but the fpecies of what isreprefen- 
ted at its objeft. Asd that taiths reception of Chrift himfelf and his righteoufnefs, 
or of right to Chrift, is hat Rcceptio mctaphortc£ ; vel aHio ad receptionem prepriatn 
liece(firij: and '.hat the true reception, which is fsti, non Agere, doth follow taitb, 
and thercKie Chrift himfelf is received only Keceptione fidei etbica, aSiiva, metapko- 
rid : species ChriBipredicAti recipiatur reccptione lutiirdi, inteUigcndo .- Jaa ad Cbri- 
fiumrccipitHrrecepttonenuturulipxjJivi, propria: That which is conditionally given 
( on condition of acceptance or the like ) and offeied to be accepted i this is re- 
ceived, Recc/it/enejfieiclb/c if : whereupon followeth the aftual cfticacious giving 
of that thing, ( the condition bein? performed, which fufpendcd it :) and this 
ihe beleevcr leceiveth, T^^ccptione p.ijjivl, propria ; but it." is not his Faitb that recei- 
vcth it. 

7. The great thing therefore that I would defirc to beobferved is this; that 
though faith were an inftrument of the forcfaid objc-ftive, or of the E':hical, Me- 
taphorical recpcionof Chrift ( which yet is not p'-operly,bcin^ ip(i Kcctptto, ) ye: 
it is not therefore the inftrumcntal c^ufe of the paflive, proper reccp:ion of Right 
to Chrift or Righteoufnefs. Of this it is only thj condition nnd not the proper 
inftrument. ( For I HialhlKW hereafter that i: is i.npofl!'>:e ir ihould be borh;) 
It doth morally qualifie the fubjcft :o be a fi: patient ro be juftifiod, a: M.'Bcnjam. 
JVoodbridge faith truly, in his excellent Sc.mon o'i'fuflificatioH. The reafcn of liiis 
is. That It is only Donation or the will of the Donor lignified, that can efficient- 
ly convey a right to his own Bcntfits. The Receiver is not the Giver, aiid there- 

E fore 

fore not the ccnveycr of Right. Every inftrumcnt is an efficient caafc, and there- 
fore muftciTcd : and ic is only ^/u/»g that cffedeth this right. Now if the giving 
( the donation) had been abfoliucj i: bad ablolutely conveyed rij^ht } and faith 
would have had no hand in it, as being no condition : COr if the gif: had confti- 
tuied another condition, that other would have had the caufing iiuereft that faith 
now h3tb ( ut ciufi fine qui noa.) So that the nearert and formal iiitereit of faith 
is, Its being the condition } and its apprchcnfion of itsobjcd, ii but the remote 
aptitudinal reafon, being tpfi fides- The great thing therefore that I affirm is this. 
That if you will needs call taith the inftrumentof apprehending Cnrilt,or righte- 
cufnefs,y:t doth it not juftifieproxtwi^tiT'/ormj/Ufr, As inch i but ^j the conditi- 
on of the gift performed. 

8. And if you will fpeak improperly, and call faith as it isthepcrformcd-condi- 
tion [ injlrumentum KtceftionU ] it is not therefore inftrumentum ^ujiificitionU : 
In a few words, thii isthefcmme: i. Faith is an Ethical, M'taphorical rece- 
ption of Chrili, a. If any will fpeak fo improperly as to call this. The inftru- 
mcnt of this Ethical reception J I will not contend with him. j. This Ethical 
reception Aftivc, is conftituted by Chrifts Teftament» the condition of Paflive 
proper reception of Right to Chrift, and with bim to his Benefits. Faith muft 
fi;li be faith, i.e. a^rehenfit Chrijii, in order of nature before it can be the condition 
of Right. 4. It jaftiSes therefore qui conditio, ind noi qua fides in (^brijlum: 
or as they improperly fpeak, qui injlrumentum (^hrijium apprJjcndens. 5. If any 
will take the word Inftrumcnt fo improperly and largely, as to comprehend the 
condicion, then you may fo further fay, [Faith is not only the inftrumcnt of 
Attive recepcion, but of true PafTive reception of Right 10 Chrift, and fo of 
receiving Juftification-] 6. But this is qui conditio prxfiiti, and not qui apprehcvpd 
C^rifii- 7- And therefore every ad that is part of this condition, may fo be cal- 
led, /«/frwwcWM7a rmp/eni/. 8. And if it were, as they would have it, that faith 
i« the inftrumcnt « nomine quid (^'brijium ipprchLniit, then every grace that appre- 
hcndeth Chrift muft be the inftrumcnt too : And Joubtlcfs Knowledge, Love, 
Hope, Delight,^*- do apprehend, or receive Chrift in feme lort ; and have him 
for their objcd. 9. Though I will not contend with him that will fay, [Fides 
'7t«n qui fides, fed qui conditio prjefliti, ejl tnjirumCHtum monle recipiendi jut ndQhri' 
(turn (ft jufiitixm abipfo promcritim.'] \cl ( as 1 think he laieth a fnare for himtelf 
and others, in turning the plain and proper term [Condition] into an improper 
term linftrumentumRccipien.ii,^ ^o ) I think ir not to be endured that therefore 
faith or any ad of man, fliould be cailtu the i..ftrument of Juftification. Tor 
though you may in a ft.-aincd fpecch fay, that ILecepiit mordis aStvA being made 
the weiww or condition Rcceplionii phyficapiffivx, may therefore be called inflru- 
mentum recipiendi, and (^rcdcrevclacceptare faid to be monlttervcl reputitive pati ^ 
( and fo every condition qua. condition be termed a Receptive inftrumcnt ) I fay, 
though I will not quaiiell with this fpccch for mcer unfitnefs > yet it is a highl- 
and more dangerous errour to lay That faith or any condition ii therefore in^rtt- 
mentum ^ufiificutionh. It is not an inftrumcinal efficient caufeof the efitd, be- 
canfe it is medium fine quo non rcctpitur : As Rcalis vcl nitunlk receptio ^ujlificationk, 
is not ^ufiifiarc, fed'fufiificiri i fo much more evident is it thst Menlii (^ impu- 
tativi Receptio '^ufiificittonis,noncfi ^ujitficure,fcd medium nece(firium adl'^ufitfiari.'] 
lo. Laftly, 1 fay again what I faid in my Aphorifmesj Thefe two Qiieltions 
muft bediftinguiffied : What is the nearcft reai'on of faiths intereft in Juftifica- 
tion ? AndjWbat is the cemote reafon ^ or why did God affign faith to this office ? 



To the firft, this is the only , true Anfwcr : Faith Juftifics rather then any thing 

elfe, becaufe God in framing his deed of gift, was picafed to make faith the con- 
dition ; The mecr conftiririon of the Donor is the caul'e. To the fccond, this is 
my Anfwer : God chofe faith to this oifice of being the luitifying conaition, ra- 
ther then other duties, becaufeit was ficteft : as being in its ownnatme, An ac- 
ceptance of a freely given Chrift, and Life with him ( which men call the inlLu- 
mcntalicy-) I have the more fully opened my meaning here together about this 
point (though with fomc repetitions ) that I might leave no room for doubting of 
St, and mifunderilanding me. 

M' Bl '~r^ He Spirttwill do nothing vfitboia our faith, and our fuithcando voihinf 
X. without the Spirit. iMan cannot jujiifie htmjdfby btkeviug without God, 
and God mil not jujiifie an unbcleeving man . Fditb then is the aH of man j man beleevet, 
jet theinjirument ofGodtthatjujitfies only belcevcrs. 

§. It. 
R.T. i.'T* He Spirits working in Sanftitication, is nothing to our queftion of 
»Lwaivii«j . JL Julfihcation. *. The Spirit worketh our firft faith without faiths 
co-working j and that ismore then nothing. 3. The Spirit moyeth faith to adion, 
before faith move it felf: and that is more then nothing. 4. It is not fo eaiily 
proved as /aid, tl^|it the Spirit never exciteth any good aft in the foul, nor yet rc- 
ftraineth from any evil, without the co-working or inlltumentality of faith. But 
thcfe are befide the point. 5. When you have laid down one Propofition [ Maa 
cannot juftifie himfelf by bcleering, without God, ] how fairly do you lay down 
this as the disjhnd Propofition ? [and God will not juftifie an unbelecving man.] 
Concede totum. Is that your Conclulion ^ Would you have no more ? Who would 
have ttiought but you would rather have laid [ Nor will God juftifie man, unlcfs 
his faith be the inftiument of it ?] And do you not feem to imply that man witK 
Goddoth juftifie himfelf, when you fay [Man cannot juftifie himlelf bybclee- 
ving without God ?] No, nor with him neither ? For none can forgive lins but 
God only, even to another : but who can forgive himfelf ? Indeed I have thoughc 
what a fad cale the Pope isi», that is the cnly man on earth that hath no vifiblc 
pardoner of his fin : he can forgive others j but who fhall forgive him? But I 
forgot that every belecv^r forgiveth himfelf} for I did not beleeve it. 6. How 
nakedly is it a^ain affirmed, without the leaft proof, that our faith is Gods iri- 
ftrumentin juiltifying ? Doth Godefleft our Juftification by the inftrumentall, 
elficientcaufation of <Hir faith ? Let him beleeve it that is fo happy as to fee it pro- 
ved, and not barely alfiimcd. 

§. «J. 

M' 2/. Qo that vthich ii here fpol^en, by wjy of exception, 4gain§l fuith Of an injiru- 
^ment, holds of e^cients and injlrumcnts, fole and abfolute in their worli 
and cAufality. But where there is a concurrence of Agents , and one makes u(e 
of the aH of another to produce the efeSl that in fuch cmfdit^ h wrmght, itvcill mt 

£ 1 $. ij. 


§. IJ. 

It. B.Tl^ ^''^^^''' o"^^*" '"^^^ ^'"^ *^^^'3'°" of words and Tyllablcs, tbatei- 
IJchcrfi^nifie nothing, or are never like to be underllood by the learner, 
let him make this an Aitide of his faith, i. What you mean by [abfoluie] I 
cannot certainly a. iolarc, unlefsthat which is never aprincipail. i. Norknow 
I whether by [I'olc] you mc2nM at€rialiter,FormdUter, vd ReJpcSlive quoidciufdm 
principsUm. i. Two materials may concurre to make one formal inlb-ument : 
Heiethe inftrumenc is but one, though the matter of it may be of divers parts. 
Surcthisis not your fenfe, that faith and fometbing clfe materially xoncurre to 
make one inftru-r.tnr. 2. An inftiument may be called [folc] formally, when 
it it is the only inftiuinentj and there is no other concurrcthto theefFcA. If you 
mean that my exceptions hold ..gaintt none but luch loleinftrumcntSj then it is 
morerakedly, then truly afret;ed : nor do they hold ever the more or lefsj whether 
the inflrumcnt be fole or not : elfe they would hold againft few inftrumenrs in the 
world. For it is not ufual to have an effcA produced by a folc initrumcnt : efpe- 
cially of lubordinatc inflruments , though it may be ufual as to coordinate. 
3. An ini^rument may be called liolc'] Ref^/eSUve, as to the principal caufe : w'^. 
It is not the inftrumenc of many principals, but ot one only. Is this your mean- 
ing, that ray exceptions would hold, if faith were only mans inllrument, or only 
Gods > but not when it is both ^ If fo 1. This is affirmed without ihc leaft fhew 
of proof J or reafon > why my exceptions hold not as much againft that inltrumcnc 
of a double principal, as of a finglc ? furely the nature of an^inftrument is not 
varied by that. z. If God and man be both principals (as they muft be, if faith be 
the inftrument of both ) then cither coordinate or fubordinatc j but neither of 
thefe, as I have argued before. Man neither forgives himlelf under God, or with 
God, if you fpeak of one and tlie fame forgivenefs. Though I know there is 
another kinde of forgivenefs, whereby a man may forgive himlelf: whcrtof i'c- 
wca fpeaks, de Iri, when he faithj l_lVhy Jljottld I fear any ofmj Errors^ vehen I can 
fay. See thou do fo no more, I novf forgive theC] lib. j .cap> j 6. O for one proof among 
all thefe affirmations, that [here is fuch a concurrence of AgcntSt that God makes 
ufe of the aft of man, to produce the efteft of Remiflicn ] and that as an inftru* 
mem,and not only as a mecr condition, fne ^ua non. 

TsV'Bl.'^T^He^romifcir Grant of the Mew Covenant in the Gofpel, U {infiead of 

_!. faith) made the tnjirument in the rvorli of ^uftifcatten. This it indeed 

Geds, andnctmant. It is the Covenant of God, the promife 

Oftheinftrumentali- ofgod,theGefpel $f Qod: but of it (elf unable to raifeman 

ty of the Covenant. up to ^uftification. 

§. 14. 

Jl.S.V^Ou have been farrefrom fatisfying me inaflerting theinftrumcmality of 

1 faith in Juftification. You here come more fhorc of fatisfying me,againfl 

the fufficicncy of the Gofpel-grant as Gods inftrument. You fay. This indeed is 

Godtj not mans. Ifay^ There is none but Gods : foe non dmr injirumentumy 



quod nonefi cAufaprutcipdlu ivjintmevtum. You fay. It is of it fcif nnablc to raM« 
man up to Juftification. 1 anl'wer, i. It is not of it felf abletodoall other 
works antecedent to Juftification, as to humble, to give faith, to Regenerate;^c. 
But thats nothing to our bufinefs. i. But as to the aft of Juftification, or con- 
veying right to Chviftj pardon, and righteoufnefs, I fay, It is able of it felf as the 
fignum voluntatis divinx to doit. And you will never be able to make good your 
accufationof itsdifability. 3. If you fliould mean that [of it felf] i.e. without 
the concomitancy of faith as a corditicn, it is not able: I anfwer, thais not fitly 
called difability : Or if you will fo call it ; there«ron of that difability, is not be- 
caufcthcrcisanecefTity of faiths inftrumcntall co^fficicncyj but of its prefeacc 
as the performed condition : It being the will of the donor that his grant fhvuld 
noi eflictrea^ualiter, till the condition were performed. 

§• 1?. 

M' Bl.\T is often tendered and ^ujlification not Alvtxies xfrought, and fo difabled from 
' the office of an injiruwicrtt, by Ktckerman inhis ComTnc?fton bis fir fi Canon 
concerning nn tnjirumcnt. tAs foon a/s the inflrument fervcs not the principall agent, fo 
foouit lo(ithtbeniitureofaninJirument. Heinjfanccth in auborfe rvhiih obej/ethnettbe 
reins of his rider, but groves re fra^ ory : then he cejfcthtobe an injirumevt for traveU. 
A fnord is not an inilrumcvt ofjlaughter, where itjlayes not : nor an ax an inftrumcnt t« 
htrr, when it cuts not. Heither is the <j0^il an injlrument of juftification, where itjufti- 

§. 15. 
R. B. T Am too fliallow to reach the rcafon of thcfe words. I knew you had not 
■^ Icafuie to write them in vain, and meerly to fill paper. And I will not be 
fo uncharitable as to think you willing to intimate to the world, that 1 had wrote 
er thought that the Gofpel was the inftrumcnt of juftifying a man that was nevcc 
juftified. Do you think I know not a Caufe and Eftcft are fo related, xhit forma- 
liter it is not an efficient before it doth effcd-? Though it may ftill be the fame 
Thing, and have the fame Aptitude to produce tht Effed, even when it is aot 
applied : and therefore by many Logicians is laxly termed a Caufe ftill. j. Nor 
can I perceive you make this a medium of any argument : except you would argu« 
thus: The grant of the Covenant is not an Inftrument of juftifying unbelie- 
vers that never were juftified : Therefore it is not a full or proper inftrument 
of juftifying believers that are juftified.] Or elfe, therefore faith is an inftrument 
as well as the Gofpel. Toyour Reader that is no' wifer then Ij thefe words there- 
fore, are at the beft but loft labour. For I fuppofe this Argumentation you vrill 
not own. 

§. 16. 

M' 2l.\7t7Hett the Miniftcr it a Minister of condemnation jhe fivBur of death to ddtlr, 
V V there the Go^elbccmft an inftrument of condemmienottddutb. 


§. i6. 

K.B. 1. Co it is, if thjrc be no Minifter where it is known any way. i, I 

^-'fpeak of Gods grant or p.omife in th. G jfpcl ; you fpcak of hi$ cm- 
fnination. j. If the threat be :hc pioperinft ument of concicmnacion, i. tjiri^ 
the promife orgiftis the proper inltrumcnt of Juliification. Saw you not this '.^ficn 
you wrote it ? 

THcc^cttcythit U in the go^cL for ^ujlij!cm9n,it receives by their faith to 
rvbom it is tcndred. 

§. 17. 

K. B.rx Arkly, but Jangeroufly fpoken. Darkly, for its pofliWe you may 
L>/mcan, that it receives it by faith as by a condition fine qui homo non cjt 
fubjeBum pnximi cipax: andfol grant the fenfe: dangeroufly, For the words 
will leem to any impartial Reader to import more j fpecially finding what you fay 
for faiths inftrumentality before : v/^. Thac the GMpel receives its eflkacy from 
faith, or byfaith asihe Jnftrnment which conveyeth that efficacy to the Gofpel : 
which if you mean, I wouli for the Truth's lake, and your own, that thefe 
words had never been feen. For if faith give the Gofpel its efficacy , i. It can- 
not be as a concaufe-inftrumentall, coordinate i but as a fuperiour, more princi- 
pal caufe to the fubordinate. 2. If it were the former that is meant, yet were ic 

I. Nothing but a fuperiour caufe dorh convey efficaciam ciufunii to another. 
And this muit be either, i. Influendo in pot entidm inferior is. z rdina^um. To 
fey that mans faith doth either of thefe to the Gofpel-grant, is fuch a doftrine as 
I will not dare to argue againft, left you take me thereby to accufe you of being 
guilty of it. 

X. Faith cannot as a concaufe, convey any efficacy into the Gofpel : For a co- 
ordinate concaufe doth influere immeiiAtd in iffum effekum, itnon incontaufa potcH' 
tian vel actum. 

g. If you had only faid that faith doth concurre in efficiency with the Gofpel, 
tojuftificationj you had faid snore then you bring any proof for : But let's fee 
what you bring in ftcad of proof. 

§. 18 

HEb.4.2. VntouA tv a/! the Gofpel preached a/5 well as unto them: but the 
Wordpreiched,iti not profit them,, not being mixed with faith in them that 
beardit. 1 Thef.z.iz,ig. Tou received notthe iVordofGod, as the word of men, but 
(as It is in truth) the Word ofgoi, which effectually worietb in you that believe. 

§. x8. 


§. 18. 

K. B. 7) Ut Where's your condufion ? er any Ihew of advantage to yourCaufe? 
tji- In the fiift Tcxtj the Apoftle fpcaks cf the words profiting in the real 
change of the foul ; and cur quefticn is of the Relative. The Scriptuie meancthj 
The word had not that further w 01k on the heart, as it hath in them that mix it 
with faith : will you interpret it thus : [Tl:e Word did not juftifie them.] z. Its 
true, that the Word did ret juftifie them: but thats confcquertial only of the 
former upprofitablencfs. Once prove that man is but as much efficient in jufti- 
fying himlelf, as he is in the obedience and change ct his minde or anions j and 
then ycu do I'cmcthing. j^ Is here ever a word for the Gofpcls receiving its effi- 
cacy to Juftification by faith ? no ner of its fo receiving that rea! profit of lan- 
dificacion, which is here meanr, neither. Its weak arguing to fay. The Word 
profited notj becaufc it was not miict with faith: tberefere faitli conveys to it its 
efficacy of lanftifying, yea of juftifying. You cannot but know the fequcl would 
be denied. In progrefTive far.dification, and obedience, and cxcrcife of graces, 
the word and faith arc concaules, and one will not effc ft without the other; But 
it followeth not that therefore faith iiives efficacy to the Word in this (much lefs 
to Juftification where faith is no efficient.) For ccrcaufes have rot influence on 
each other, but both on the effeft. The want cf faith may hinder the Word from 
that further work on the foul, which prcfuppofeth faith (tor faith is not wrcughc 
with faith's cooperation :) and thats all that the Text laith: But may not ths 
ab fence of faith hinder, unlefs when prefent it doth effcft ? lam fure in Juftifi- 
cation, where it is but a condition, it may. The nature of a condition, when 
the gift is free and full, is not toefteft the thing, but to fufpend the efficacy of the 
inftrument,till it be perfoimcd. As (if I may ulcfo grol's a fimilitude) thcclickcc 
of a Crofs-bcw doth hinder the bow from fliooting, tillyou ftir it j but doth not 
adde any force to it, when you do ftir ir. 

The fecond Text I know not how you mean to make ufc of 3 unlefs ycti argue 
thus : The Word workethefttdually only in Beleeveis : therefore faith conveycth 
efficacy to the Word. I think I need not tell you, that I deny the fequcl ( not to 
fpeak of the antecedent :) nor yet to tell you that this fpeaksnotoi woiking the 
relative change of Juftification. 

§. 19 


SO thiit theGo^el, i?iitfelfcor>fidered, Urennthg in that honour ajjigiied toatt 
itiHrumim, to hdvc tvfux to the producivg of the cffcH of the pnncipall caufc, 
hy a proper caufality. Ifvonedarcfiy, that faith hath (uch an influx^ ihej may muck U^ 
jay that tbc iVord hath [tub an influx. 

§. 19. 

21. 2.T He Gofpel in it felf confidered, without the coordinate or fubordinate, 
• or fuperiour caufality of faith, hath tbij honour fo fully, clearly, beyond 
all doubt, that no man that is a preacher of this Gofpel ffiould queftion it : Much 
JcfsftiDuld prefer the caufality ot faith, in faying, that [we may much lels ^ivc 
ihis honour to the Word,] or fay this of the Word, then of our own faith. Vet 

4t »^? 


the Gofpcl without theconcomltancy of tai-.h, doth not aftjiUy juftific : dfc faith 
were no condition or ciu/i fine qua «o«; bat ihi: is no J-.lhjnout to the G ipel j 
nordcfcd ofp3Wcr which fai:h maft fupply. But the fu.c: of the inll. uncut be- 
in^ mcerly from the Donors wiii, he wUlcth that i: ihiH rhen (inJ not till 'hcii) 
r^fccrc, when the condition i$ perto.mcd. I aj»peal to all the Divi.ies, Liwycrs 
and Logicians in the world ; when the thing to be convv-yed is buc Dcb:tum v:l }xs 
tirem, and the ctfcft is bu: a Tianiccndcn:al relation (at Jffc/».<.'n ii^) Is n'^: the 
Voluntas conftituaiiii vol Donintis ihc only principal prjp.T etti.i.nt ? And is not 
the figaumvoluntjx if coujhtuens, the p.opercll iiiltru;«rHL that the wit of niin cia 
imagine. Isnot thcTcltament ofa manth: moft ll.icl and proper i-iliru-ncnc 
of conveying right of the Legacy to the Legarsry ? Is not a Covenant, Contrad, 
Deed of gift, the molt proper iuttiumenca! ctficient caufc of the dancfs of the 
thing given or conveyed ? It is not only a Law te.m, but a term of the rtriftcft 
Logick, tocallthcie amans inrtrumen: for conreyance. Is not aprxtniantor 
priviledging law, in the moft ilrid and proper feme the Lcgiflitors iiifl:'am:nt, 
cflFefting the dcbitumprjemii vclpriv'.legii ? It is evident that the fullelldehnition 
of aninllruiTienral erticicnt caulc doth agree tothcfc." as farasthe nature of the 
cfFcft (^Kditio dcbhivdjurU) wiiladmit of full or proper efficiency. For tbcl'e 
inftrutnents are the very funismcnu proximx of thelerelationi. Can you prove 
the like, (yea and more) of faith, and will not? Bat I pray once more remem- 
ber that it is not the cff.ifliag of a Phyfical change, but a relative, t 'e con* 
veying of Right that we are ipeaking of; fo full an inltrtjment is each of 
thefe that the very name of theeff;d is oft given to them. So a pardoning 
inftrument is called A pardon: the inftrument of donation is called A deed of 
gift. The Law is faid, prxmiare (y punire , quia tonHituit debitum premii t^ 

M'B/.r)Emblct&«'c/crea^>'w/n^tk tVordtobeaa injlrument of Qods Spirit, pre- 
L fentlj aides, Hsvo injtruments are cither coopentivs or pdffive, and the iVori 
nHJl be one of thefe ticvo : Cooperuive,he(Mthtt is not, ani gives his rcifon: It ii there- 
fore, [Mb he, apijfive infirument, wiriiingonly per modam ob cdi, asitcounins* 
declirsxion ofib: Divine iVi'l, and ttpropofeih to the under Jiitiini and will the things to 
be iiHOWtii beleevU and pn^ifed. 

R. B. \ >f r Pcmble fpeaks of the Word efteding, or as the inftrument of fandifi- 
IVlcation. We fpeak of it as conveying right to Chrift, and as joftifying. 
Whats that to this ? z. When did M"^ Pc»ii/c prove that the vVord or other ob- 
jeds arc paffive inftruments ? You know he goes againll the llream of Pliilolo- 
phers : and then his rcafons muft fway more then his authority : And his rcafon, 
which you fay he gives, is but this. It cannot be declared what operative force 
• there (hould be in the bare declaration of Gods will,?i7't'.] But I will undertake to 
declare that an operation there is bythe agency of this declaration} thou;,h not 
pundually how it operates: I have read many that fay that objcHiim operdtur in 
genere ciufe finxlii : and others that fay it worketh /a genere ctafx cfJicieHtis* I'ome 
faying it eftedcch Pbyfically, othemhac ic efiedeth morally, others that objccium 



9peraturnatHrallter, at prtpsnent 6bjc^um eft tdntum caufimoulis ; others that it is 
aafi c^cieus objcHiva protattrciiti rcfiectu arum opcrxtiomm qux ab iUa mmediiite 
txcrceniuri fed uufafinxlU refpcHmltorum opentionum qtnedbiHi fuutpmrumhucr- 
ventu, «s Burgerfdis ipeaks : But I remember none that call it Jvftrumentum pujff 
vum : yea not only the ob;ed, but declaration and all, InHrumeHtumpuJJiium. 
VovmypaxilimoiScotxsminde, that ObjeHam opcritur e^cienter (^ per modum 
ndtura in inuUeS!um.i fed mouliter txntum in volunUtcm ; irrefiftibly and neccfli-a.- 
tin«lyon thcintclleft ( conlldciing it as an intelleft, and not fo far as it is /m& 
impcrio voluntatis 0' ita ejus opcratienes funt participative v^luntarin -,) but on tha will 
not lo. And 1 am lore this paflive inftiumcntftlity of theWord in fat^ftitying, 
doth very ill agree with the language of Scripture; which makes the Word to be 
mighty, powcrfull, pullingdown ftrong holds, (harp, dividing.^c. The feed of 
God by which we are begotten, lively, the Word of life, faving mens foulsj quick- 
ning, fanftifying, cleanfing,Cir'<^. But what's all this to Juftification ? 

SO tbxt if Burgerfdicius htf gladius and colter be active inftrumentf, and 
Keckerman'f Incus inftrumentum fabricationis, and hif fcamnum & 
menfa accubitus, & terra ambulatianis ; /« it followetb not, at is thence inferred, 
that there is nopajjlveinftriment. Here is an inftrnment that ifpxjpvc. 

§. II. 
R. B. "rHcfc words import an intimatioa that I faid all thefc were adive inftru- 
■■ ments, which ihould not have been done, wfien I manifefted thati took 
fome of them for no inftruraents. ». Thcfe words intimate, as if I concluded 
hence (if not only hence ) that there are no paflive inftruments ; which ftiouKl 
not be, when I only brought in thcfe as Objcdionsto be anfwered, and argued 
viithScbibler againft paflive infliumentsthus : Every inftruracnt isan efficient 
cauie : All efficiency is by adion : Therefore every inftrument isaftive. If yoa 
chofe rather ( as ordinarily you do ) to iilencc my reafons then anfwcr them, yet 
you fhould not have intimated, as if I had given you none, or but fuch as I gave 
not. J. 1 look for your proof of a paflive inftrument j and not to fay £ Here is 
an inftrument that is pallivc] as if you were demonftrating it ro my eyes, when 
you bring nothing buc lingular Mi: PsmbUj lingular word. And I doubt whether 
you beleeve him or your felf throughly i for if you did, I think you would preach 
but coldly. I am pcrfwaded you look your preaching (hould operate adively : And 
indeed fo it muft or not at all ; for pau non eft eperari ; and therefore Pcmble dcni- 
eth it to cooperate, and to operate. Be not offended if I doubt whether you beleeve 
this your felf, in your Studies, Preaching,Writing and Exhortations. 4. I doubt 
net but that which doth only realiter piti, may be called an inltrum^nt morahter vel 
reputative:hat then its reputative inftiumentaIity,confifl:eth in a reparative adtiviry. 
5, And I doubt not but the difpspio materia may, by a bovrowed Ipecch becalled 
inftrumentum recipiendi i ind (0 i?iftru>ncntum pajfivum, ix- Pajfionis, iz. Kcctptionk : 
but all this is nothing to the bulinefs. 6. If it were proved that there were a hun- 
dred p^affivc inftrumens, it would never be proved that fauth is one ( as an inftru- 
ment (ignifieth an ef&cient caul'e) of Gads workof juftifying us: neither Really 
n»c Reputauvely is ic fucb. 

f S. it. 


5 11. 

THdt which it produced by in efficient tr principiU agent t0 the pr0duciiig i 
efeci, and receives iciivity And porter fromfomc other, uapujfrje tv[lrui 

§. 22. 

K.B. CTranger yet! i. Its nothing to the nature ofan inftiument aftiveor 
^paflive, whether [it be proJuced by the principal agent] or not, loitdo 
but rubfervc that agent, z. If this propofition be true, there is never an adivc 
inikrumtm in rerum natura : For Angels and men, color, frigiu, and all creatures 
are produced by God as the principal caufe to the producing of fomc cffcds ( ex- 
cept there be any ultimi effccfua found out which are not caufes of other eflcfts ) 
and they all receive aftivity and power from Ood. Thofe that aremoft for paflive 
inftruments fay, calor is an aftive inflrument. But if I ufe fire po warm my beer, 
or burn any thing, this receives its adivity and power from another, and therefore 
muft be no aftive inflrument, with you. If there be no aftive inflrument, when 
I thought there had been no paflive inflrument, I was far wide. J. But what 
mean thefe flrange words of [Adivity and power rcceired] if the inilrunjent be 
not adive ? Is not the Potentia here meant, Potcntia efficicnii ? and is not all efFe- 
^ion by aftion ? And is not the aftivity here mentioned, an adivicy in caufing ? 
What ? and yet no adive inflrument ? Be not ofiended with me, Dear brother, if 
I confefs, that you and I differ in more poim« tbtn one, aod in our Philofopby u 
well as Theology. 

M-^ Bl.Tyot the iVord U produced and held forth of Cod for the workof ^jiipcatidn, 
IDattd hub its power of worliing el{ervbcre. 

S.. B.V^Et more ftrange I i. 1$ it not enough that you take the Word u> be » 
1 paflive inflrument of Confirmation and Converfion ? and all the work 
that it doth on the fouls of your bearers really ? but you mufl feign the Word to 
be the paffive inflrumont of Juilification too? Is there any thing in the whole 
world that can more unfitly be called a paflive inflrument, then the Covenant 
of JuftificatioB ? Why, it is Gads only inflrument of adive C^ntlitutioa 
of the duenefsof the benefit ? Though it be but aBione moruli, tu fignum vo- 
luntatis donmrii. The T>cbitum refuhs from the Grant, Deed cf Gih, Te- 
fiamentj or Inflrument of Donation or Conveyance, as from its fuiidamentum 
froximHm : And is the fundamentHm proximum Relatiom a paffive Inftru- 
ment ? 

a. The Word hath its power of working clCcvvhere, that is, from God > but not 
from mans faith ; Farre be fuch a thought from my foul. 

3. I fufped by your words, when you fay [the Word is produced and held 
forth of God ] and by your ditcourfe all along, that you all rhi* while underfland 



not what I mean by the Covenants jurtifying : ( yet I had hoped you had undci> 
flood the thing it fdf.) You fcem to think that rhe Coveaant juftifies by fome 
real operation on the loul, as the Papifts fay j and our Divines lay. It fanfti&es > 
ot »s ii iu&\(ic& in foro con fci€nti£, by giving aflbt-ance and comfort. But Sir, I 
opened my thoughts of this fully in ^^fror.pag. i7h^74)^75>^7^}^77)^7^)^79' 
1 fcaice beftowed fo many words of any one particular point. I fpeak not of the 
effe6: of Godi Word, as pleached to mens hearts: but as it is Lex prtmulgata, O* 
Ptdfu, O' TeQiimetttum, and To doth convey Right, or Gonftitute theduenefsof 
the benefit ? This U the Record tbdt gd hAth given uf, eternsU Life, snd thk Life it in 
biiSoriyScc. i ^ofe.j. 11,12. This Golpel-donation doth conftitutetheduneliof 
the thing given, to us i and thus the Covenant juftifies, as a written pardon un- 
der the Kings hand, or an aft of grace or oblivion, doch pardon. Do you not 
oft read in Divines of ^uftfiatio ^ris, vel Legit, as diftinft from 'fuftifi- 
citio ^udicif, vol per fententixmf I refcrre you to what I laid in the cited 

W^Lr^Orgivcncf? of fins ii preacheiintbe Gofbtl, Aft. 13. p. Butit Uthofc thxt 
Vbclccve tm arejuftijjcd. Faith through the Spirit gives efjicacj ind psrver oj 
working to it. 

§. 14. 
R. B.T Should tremble to fay fo : What Rtmmft by the doftrine of merit gives 
■*• more to man in the work of Juftification 1 If our faith give efficacy and 
power to the Gofpel tojuftifieuj, then we juilific our felvcs when the Gofpel ju- 
ftifies us .' then the Gofpel is our inilrument of Juftification ! And can this be 
unlefs it be alfo faid that we made the Gofpel ? Then God and we areconcaufcs 
in the Gofpels aft of Donation : And is it the fame power and efficacy for jufti- 
fying, which the Gofpel receives from God, and which it receives from faith ? 
or are they divers ? If divers, fhew us what they are 5 and which part of its power 
andcfficacy the Gdfpel receives from faith, and which from God ? If they are the 
fame, then God muft convey juftifying efficacy and power into faith firft, and by 
faith into the Gofpel : which who imagineth ? or why (hould I be fo vain as to 
ftand to confute it ? O that you had condefcendeJ fo far to your Readers weak- 
nefs, as to have deigned to rtiew him, •^opiodo pMitur Evivgclium recipicndo ? (^ 
>^d recipit KtfiM potcns (3' tfficux f (^ qusmodo hxc potcntii (^ c^cucia fuit in fde f 
utrum cminenter an formaliter ? uut utrum fides id communie^vit quod nuniiuim babuit ? 
(St quomodo agit fides in hoc inftuxu caufxtico in EvMgcUum i with many more of the 
like, which you make neceflary to be enquired after. And why gave you no proof 
from Scripture or reafon for a point tiiat is fo new, that 1 think never man printed 
before you, for fo far as I can learn at piefcnt : That faith gives efficacy and powd- 
er of fanftifying or exciting Grace, pec haps fome before you have delivered : but 
that it gives efficacy and power of jultityiiTg, I think not any. 

1. And furc you do not take the foregoing words for proof: If you do, I de- 
fine your Reader may not do fo. What tboui,h only Believers are juftificd by the 
Covenant ? Doth it follow that faith gives eificacy and power to the Covenant 
to Juttifie ? Then citherihcrc are no conditions or caufcs fine iuibm non : or eife 

F » ihcy 


tbcy^Ur* tfficicntt, and give efficacy and power to other efficients: What if 
your father bequeath by hisTeftaraen: i lo' apiece to each of his Ions ? ro one 
on condition he will aik it o/ his elder brother, and thank him for it: to another,'* 
if he be married by fuch a time: to a third, if he will promircnot to wall it in 
Prodigality: Do any of tlicfc condidons tive efficacy and power to the Tefta- 
ment ? No: Yet the Tcftamcnt doth not t^f4<:;/fr<igerc till they are performed. 
Why is that ? Becaufeall I'uch iniivumcnts work morally, only by exp. (.fling «t 
figjiA the Will of the Agent : and therefore they work both when and how he will ; 
and it is his Will that they ffiall not work till fuch a time, and but on fuch terms } 
and I'o he frames the conditions himfclf, as ebices to fulpend his Te(tanicnr or 
other inil'-ument from ading or cftcding, till they are performed : but not to give 
efficacy and power to his Te (lament. It the gift be ifi iiem,the inftrument receives 
not erhcacy ard power from the Time, quiiiio veuit dies ; no more doth it per pne- 
ftatiovem coniitionk. 

I. Your terms of [ Faiths giving power through the Spirit] tell me, that furc 
you ftill look at the wrong aft of the Gofpel j not at its moral aft of Conveyance 
or Donation, but at its real operation on mans heart : For neither Scripture nor 
Divines ufe to fay, The Gofpel remitteth lin, or juftifieth by the Spirit: Nor 
doth the Spirit otherwife do ir, then by cnditing the Gofpel ; unlefs by the 
Spirit you mean the Godhead in Eflencc; and notin Perfonality. Sanftification 
h afcribed to the Spirit as the efficient, but fo is not forgivenefs and Juftification-. 
Nor do I like your phrafe, as to fanftificition it felf. That faith conv-eys efficacy 
and power to the Gofpel through the Spirit : For i. I had rather fay, The Gofpel 
and Spirit, or the Spirit bytheGoIpel, convey efficacy and power ro faith, then 
faith to the Gofocl. a. How faith ihould convey this through the Spirit, is quire 
beyond my reach : Doth the Spirit receive any influx from faith, and thereby a 
power,and then convey this to the Gofpel from our faith i But its like you mean, 
the Spirit doth it through faith. 

§. 1?. 

'M'BiQOthdt neither the Go£?el, tier faith tn the gofpel, jhouldin thUo^ceofdnirt" 
OJirument in ^uftificatien be denied their due honour. The Gofjel received by 
fuith, ii a plenary injlruraent in this rvorli: and faith embracing the tender attd promifc 
oftheGcJpcl. ThsGoJpcl ii anomwardinjlrttment. /iztfcRaranelly : faith aninrard: 
they both malie up one inftrument full and compleat : yet faith i< more aptly and fitly caUcd 
aninftrumem : Seeing that faith gives efficacy, as an inftrument to theH^erd: theiVord 
may be without faith, andfo no inftrument at all : butjaiib alwdy prefuppefeth the iVord 
of promifc: it is not without itsobjcSf. 

K..3. i.fjAd you firft proved any fuch honour due to faith, and fo to man, as 
tlto be the inftrument of Juttification, yea aad more fitly then the 
Gefpel, fo to be called, then you might fairly have thus conclud'^d. But I like 
not Arguments that have but one part, being all Conclufion. I will fay more for 
the Gorpels inftrumentality. Sigmm voluntatis Tonatoris conftitucnsjits adbenefici- 
umVonatum ( etjiindiemvel fubcondttiene) eft Vonaterit inftrumentummaximeprO' 
prtHtn : Std Teftamntum Cbnfti eft fgtium voluntatis divina jut mftrum ad Cbnftum 



tH* ^uftifiedtiovcn pnjfivm ccu(litu(^s, (\\x fuhconditient, dj* dBuslhcY qumiopfi- 
ftitur conditio :) Ergo TcjiAmmum C^rtjh eft jnftrttmcntnm hujiu donatknis, maxin^ 
prepriim. For the major, examine it by all the qualifications of an inihumenrj and 
i: will appear undcubted. i. Subfervit iMf,e prir.cipali^fcilicet voLuvuu donatoris. 
2. Acitoejui^ priitcipalif (ur.tadtm a^io : fciljcct Donatte, vclcoujiitHerc debitum 
henef.in. 3. The trucdsifinition of an inftrumcnt agrees to it: Infirumeiitumcft 
quod ex dircSiom alterius principilU ager.tu inflnit ad produccndum effeBum (c mbilio- 
rem •• f'c/, per quod cauf4 alia opcratur fie, ut hoc cUvctur ad cffedum (e nobiltorem, feu 
ultra ferfcCitoncm (^ (mm (s' aSiif^ni' fux. 4- Yea it is the moll perfcd inftrarwcni J 
for triftrumtuum co mdim eft quanta triaiis eft fint propcrttOTiatum : ut Aquin. i . za. q. 
iS2.il 7. But Gods Legal grant is molt pti if di) proportiored to the conveyance 
of rightio Chriit, and his benefits. Prove tiii much of faithjas to Jullification, 
beforcyouagain tell the woi Id that faith is n<.rc fitly called an inftrumcnt of Ju- 

1. If the Gofpcl received by faith be a plena, y inftvwnsefitof juftifying, asyou 
fay: Then 1. How isfaith mo c fitly ca it.i a-. inlhuiTisnt ? z. Then Ka;pcrc 
EvangeUum IS inftrumentumjuftiftcandimixmcrnprtum (asyou think) making the 
Gofpel a compleat inftruuient. 

J. If faith and the Gofpel be both fullccnipleat inftruments, then cith«i- c/h/"- 
dcm cfeMi per candcm a^ionem, vd per diverfnf': net per eandcm a^oitem , Foe 
I. Then they (hould be one inftrumenr. 2. Their f//«; ii i'o cificient that their 
operari muft needs be different, z. If per diverftu eSftoncs, then coordinate at 
fubordinate : You think fubordin«te,it fecms, and that faith gives power and efii- 
cacy tothc Gofpel j-- If fo, then faith doth modo (^ fevfu itobiltsre ^uftifcarc quam 
Teftamentum. Bat thats farre from truth: For 1. Itismoit proper to fay, The 
Covenant-grant juftifieth : or the Law of grace juftifieth j but it is lefs proper 
to fay, Faith juftifieth : aiul Scripture never faith fo that I know of j but that we 
are juftified by faith. 2. You fay your felf that faith is but a paflivc inftrumem : 
but the Teftament is aftivc, (morally in its kindc.) 3. Rccipcre Evingcliun it 
not fo properly ^uftiftcare, as is immedtate ^ufiificarc, Rcmittere, ^ua ad Chriftum 
&r€miJJionemcon(lituere, which is the Gofpclsaft. (Jrcdere non eft tarn preprte fuSir- 
fare. Much more might be faid of thisjif ncceflary. 

4. Howplainacontradidion doyoufpeak, that faith and the Gofpel arc two 
inftruments ; and that both make one compleat inftrumem. They might hate 
been faid to be materially two things, making one inftrumenc without contradifii- 
on ; but not withewt notorious untruch. 

f. For it is no better when you fay, they make up one comp'eat inflrumenr. 
For I. You faid before that faith gives power and efficacy to the Gcfpcl : whicb 
if true, thea the Goi'pel is an inftrument fubordinatt to taith, and therefore no; 
one with it. 2. The Gofpel is caufatotalis in(uo gcncrc, fully as an inftrumenc 
conveying right, quando vd ventt dies, vd praftutur (onditio : therefore it is noc 
taufa partialU , velparscaufa. 3. There is fuch a difparity in the adions of each, 
viz. (^rcdere, 2r,d Remttterevcl do-iiareQbrijlum($' Remijftonevt , that they cannot 
pofliblyas c^ufx partiales, ccnftitute one compleat cauie: F;;r one immcdiatly 
and properly produceih theeftcft; the other not fo. 4. Yoti fsy, that they are 
both pafllve inftruments ; But lo they cannot make one inftrument: For furcly 
nee pAtiuntur idem, necab codem i vec formavt ^uftificationU Evangilium patiendo re" 
cipit. Though indeed your authority muft do more then your reafons, to prove ir 
of cither. 

.F 5 6.U 


6, Iffakhbemoreaptly and fitly (asyoui'pcak) called, an in ftrotncnr, then 
it isaproperer fpcech te lay, Faith, or man by taith, forgivethfinii then thac 
The Covenant-grant or Condonation, or ad of paiJon doth forgive thcin, Sei 
tAbfit ! 

7, When you hare well proved that repeated dangerous aflcrtion, [Thatfa!th 
gives efficacy as an inftrnment to the Word i] you may next take the buldncfs to 
Ipcak out its confequcnts, and fay, Gods Word is the Delievers word«: the Bclee- 
yerenablcth Gods Law ot grace to forgive him ; The Law of grace isdefcdivc in 
power, till the Beleever pcrfett it : Lredcrcnoncfl ucim fubitti, vel Lcgatarif., fed 
Rework, "fuditis, (^ Tcjlatoris : Ergo H9m$ hibet mtboritatcn fciffum fujlifcanii, 
tS' fibi tpfi c$udonandi, Jr crtdcndt bine cxcrcct iuthorttntcm, 

8, Your ihangc proof is oft anfwercd. What though the Word without faith 
is no inftrument ? Doth it follow that therefore cither faith makes it an inftru- 
ment, or isaninftrumentit felf ? The King grams an Ad of Oblivion or Par- 
don to a thoafand Traytors, on condition that by fuch a day they come and feek 
and thankfully accept it : EKjih their fecking or thankfull Acceptance^ give 
power and efficacy as an inftrumtnt to the Kings Pardon? Grare the I?ardon 
and Acceptance one complca: inftrument ? O: is it more fit to call the TraytoiS 
Acctptance, the inlhument of his Pardon, then the Kings Ad i* Creia quitrc" 

Twiffe faith, An Audebit Arminianus diquU a^rmjrc Rcmijfiomm petuterum <r/?e 
cffeHioncmfdci? tametfi mfi credentibin contitigAtijU Remtffio. Dkes, fidem fdltem 
prarequifiium qutddam ejSe id Remiffienem p<ccatorum confeqitendttnt- Ejio ; atque bxc 
rxtione dicaur cfcSiitfidei, fed ingeuerc tantum csufa difpo/idVa, TwiffF/ni Grur. 
l.i.part.z.^.z'i.^.mibi ^71. So he oft faith both of Faith and Works, that they 
juflifie only Ht tauf* diip^fitiva : and therefore in one kinde of caufaiity j and not 
as inftrument J properly fo called. 

§. i6. 

M' Bl. "Y^Herefcretomnie up thU whelc Dilute in wlncb I huve United to be brief ^ 
X ( though I feir fomevf ill thinii I pave been to$ tedious :) (cei)ig thitthofe 
tbit mafie faith the infirumeHt in ^jftfication, malietbe Gojpeian injirument li^emfe, 
and dire t»t go about tojirip it oftts honour ; I hope that they that make the Go^elan 
inflruvieHt,vfiU adinorcledge faith to be an inftrument in Itlie manner, being in tlyeir e^cacy 
»f injlruments fo infcparablj joyncd, and foall the Contr over fe will be fairly ended and 
concluded. Amen. 

§• i7- 
R. B. 1. 1 F this be a Difpute, I am none of thoi'e that think it too long ; I fcarc€ 
* finde a line in many Pages : It is in my eyes fo lliort, that it fccms ac 

z. Your motion for decifion will take, when man is proved to be God: then 
mansadof BcUeving may fairly fharc of the lame honour with Gods aCt of Le- 
gal forgiving : And yet then I fhall demurre on the pi'eferring it : But till then, I 
love Peace and Unity, bat not on fuch a compromifing, as to ihare the honour of 
the Redeemer with the redeemed, of the Creator with the creative, of the Sove- 
reign pardoning, with the Traytor pardoned. 


3. 1 ViVtJmdiUittt then lirgo .- and Herbtrts rransformation I much appltud s 
but not the fubfiitucion oiyjmcv, for a ncceflaiy Erg$. This vimum falix dt(pu~ 
undi genus, that can prov« all with a word, an iffc dico, and wipe cff all that is op- 
pofcd with a wet fingerj I never liked. 1 mult newt take in what you adde after- 

§. 17. 

M'B/. Pag. 91. 
Obj. 1 r w [aid by dncther, Tf faith be i condition of the Ccvemnt of Qrect, thin it an 
' be no injirumtnt of our ^ufiif cation : If it be a condition t» this Covenant, it ;'»• 
fiifcs Af a condition, and then it cannot jufiifie as an ivjlrutntitt, andfo J puU dovfn whit I 
build, and run upon contradiHions. 

Anlw. Itnfwcr, I f}0uid rather judge on the contrary, thatbccaufe itU a condition 
cftbe (Covenant in the way as it U before cxpnft, that it « therefore an ivflrument in our 
^ufiif cation. God tenders the gift ofrightmifvcji to he rueivei ly faith .- He Covenants 
for thii faith } for acceptation of it : By bcleeving then nee licep (^ovtvant and receive 
(^hr)iiferjuftif^caticni rec as well dovehatGod requires, as receive what he tcndcrti 
we do our duty, and take Gods gift ; and thcrely liecp Covenant, and receive life, and f» 
faith ii both a condition and an inftrunent. 

§. i7. 
J?. S.'DUtdoyoutakc *^;«w and cojidttio tohc^l one? lealily yield that we 
JDmaydo oui duty in beleeving, though it were an inftrument : But a con- 
dition is more then a duty : yea then z duty to be performed for ih* obtaining of 
a benefit. Cujacitu faith^ Conditio e(l Lex addita nrgotio qu^e donee praftetur eventun 
fufpcndit; Vcl eft modm vel caufa qua jvfpendit id quod agitur, donee ex pcft-feHo cortft' 
nutur. Or ttCMy 71 finger. Cum quid in afum incertum {'i.e. contirgcns) qui toteS 
tevdcre ad ejfe vcl non e^e ctnjertur- And tiiey arc divided into Toteftatiias,Ca(uales, 
Mixiaa : Uurs is of the former fort, and 1 define it, i/^. the condition of the 
Covenant to be, ^Biov^luntariad^ future, aTieo LegiJUtoreO- Chrifto Teftatorein 
mvi Lege, Federe, Tefl&mento requifiia, ut ex ejus prajiatme covSttusturjiu adualead 
hcncficium: vcl, ut ohUgationem (^evcntutn fufpcvdat donee pntftctur. For ex ftipu- 
latiotic cotidittouali neque oblig^tio veque aBto uUa (ft, avtcqtmm cojiditio evcniat: 
J^ia quod eft in aniittot^e, non eft in ohltgationc. Vt Myrfirn?. tn Jnfttt. Schel. 

z. Yeu niuA confider that it is not de conditicne tcntraBm venditioni^ ^ewptionit, 
vel empty teufis, tel locatitvis, or any the like, that is propter prettum ; but it is the 
cendicion parte donationU, but i'cmcw hat partaking naturaFeudi, astofcmeofthe 
Benefits. This being preraifed, it is evident that faith cannot juftifie bothasa 
condition, and as an inftiument of Juftificatinn. For 1 Either of them im- 

f>otteth thcprcximam ist caufalcm ratievem of faith, as to the tffcft : But it is utter- 
y incorfiflent with its nature to have two fuch different ncareftcaufalir.tercfts* 
To be an inftrument of juftifying, is to ef^eA it per mcdum inftrumcnti ; To be the 
condition, is wbcihc caufa fine qua non, which doth not cflcd, but fufpend the 
eflcd til! performed: It bath the name of acaul'e, ( and Icmetime is exmateria 

a moral jmpulfi yc, and foaietime cot ) but it hath the trui nature of fuch a medium 

■■----■■'-- - ■ ni 


Ufinem, as is no caufc. A^ faith cannot be botii c^acm effect, ist efeHum cjuflsm. 
e^eiemii, nor be bo:h thecrticicn: aivi coiift;cu:iyc caufe (material or formalj) 
no morccan ir proiliicc one and the lameeftcft of }ui\ihc^'^on per nudumtnjiru' 
mcmi cfficicntU, and pcrmoium coniitionU fine qui nm. z. EUe you mull l-eijn 
the pardoning ad ta I un thus [ I will pardon th;;e on conJicionihou wilt pardon 
thy t'clfbybcleevin:;, as the inll.iinen:] an.i not only [ on condition thou ac- 
cept Chrtft.] J. Itbclongech to the pardoning inllrumcnc co confcrre the right 
totbethin^, chat is, to diilolvc th^ obligation to punithn:nr, anJ to conftitiitc 
the condition of this Right or Pardon : For Domuth ejt conftituerc conditioncn 
ttiim in ipfi tHJirumcnuU Dmitiant. Bu: taith do:li lu: contcrrc Right} toe 
your fclf fay, It dath but receive it : It doth not dillolve the obligation, but accept 
a Savioui to 3iffblve it : It doth not conftitucc the condition ot right i for you 
acknowledge it is the condition it iclf. 

To conclude this P»int, for the compiomifing or (hortening this difference be- 
tween you and lae, I will take your fairer otfcr, pj^. 7 J- or elfe give you as fair 
an offer of my own. Yours is this: [Faith is conddcred under a deuble 
notion. Firft as an inftiumcnt (or if ijiat word will not be allowed ) as the 
way ofour intcreftin Chrilt, andprivilcdgss by Chrift.] In this general I cafily 
agree with you. 

If that fatisfie n9t, I propound this, Cill you ic an inflrumcnt of receiving 
Chriil, and coofequently righteoufncfs i and give me leave to call it prccifely a 
condition, or a moral difpoficion of the fubjift to be juftified j and I will not 
contend with you : So be it, you will i/not lay too great a ftrefs on your own 
notion, nor make ic of flat neceflicy, nor joyn with them that have made the Pa- 
pifts believe that its a great par: of th« Protcltant Religion, and confequcntly 
tba: in confuting it, they refcll the Protcliants. i. Nor fay any naorethat it 
givci efficacy and power to the Gofpel to juftifie us, and is more fitly then the 
■Gofpel called an inftrumcnc. 5. Yea, I muft dcfue that you will forbear calliHg 
it at all an inftrument of Juftification, and be concent to call it an inftrument of 
receiving Juftificacion : and I would you would confcfs that too to bean impro- 
per fpcech. If you refolveto go further. Ice mc dcfire you hereafter i. To re- 
member that its you that have the Affirmative, that faith is th« inftrument of 
juftifying us : and I fay, Ir is not written, you adde to Scripture : Therefore 
ftiew where it is written, expreflsly or by confequence. z. Do not blame mc for 
making fincere obedience part of the mca* condition ( wherein I think you fay 
^s much as I ) and fo as giving too much to man, when you give intollcrably fo 
much more as to make him-the inftrumencal efficient caufc of forgiving and jufti- 
fying bimfclf. J. Above that I have yet faid, I pray forget not one thing: to 
prove faith to be the inftrumental efficient of fentencial Juliification ( which is 
moftproperly and fully To called) as well as of Legal conftiiutire Jultification. 
For thats the great point of which you have juft nothing {pAcetuifiiU dicam) 
•f wMch you (hould have faid much. And fo much for the Controvcr^c. 

§• ^^! 


§ i8. 
Of Evangelical Perfonal Ri^htcoufncfs. 

M'Bl. Pa^. iio,(^c. 

THcre is yet a third opinion, wbicb I rmy vocll doubt whether I underjland, but fa 
far IK I do undcrjland, I am At far from ajicnt to a as cither of the former .- and 
tJ}atisofihofe,vpbo donotSHly affcrt aperftnal iuhcrcut KigbtcoufneJ? , e/sreella/s impu- 
mi, figaiuil the AvtinomJAns j hut alio a^rm thit tbi< RighteeufmjS h compleat and 
perfect : which if it were meant only of the pcrfccfton ef tL'efubje^, a/s oppo{eitohypo- 
crifie, dtJfimuUtisB, ordoublencf, implying that they do not only pretexJi for God, but 
arc really for him; that they do ?iot lumto him figncdly fiiy r.Vael w^ lomctimahar- 
ged, Jcr. J . I o ) but with an upright be^rt .- Or sf the perfccliou or entirencf of the ob- 
jeH : (rcJpeSiivg not one, oronlyfomc, but all Qommand,H<ntt) ■which it called a pcr- 
feUien of parts i we might readily ajj'ent lo it. The Covenant cals for fuih pcrfc^ion, 
Gen.i7.». Walk before me and bethou peifcd : and Yiiany havctbcir witncfs in 
Scripture that they have Attained to it, as Noahj(yCM.7.9. ^ob i.t. Htzekiah, Ifa. 
38. j. But apcrfeSfionabovetbefe ii maintained i a pcrfeii ton compleat and fuU. IKigh- 
teoufnefs fignifics (<w » faid) a conformity to the Rule, and a conformity with A quacGiius 
or an imperfeSl rectitude is not a true conformity or rcctituie at all ■■ Imperfect Rightc- 
oufneji is not Righteoufneji but unrighicoufnef. It is a contraiiclion in adjcdo ; 
Though holinejS be aci^iowlcdged to be imperfect in all rcfpecls, where perfc^ion is expe- 
Ited, in reference to the degree that it Pmild obtain, or the degree which it foall obtain, or 
in reference to the excellent object, about which it is cxcrctfed, or .in reference to the old 
Covenant, or the dtreSIive, and in fomc (enfe the preceptive part of the new Covenant ; In 
aUthcfe rcfpeHs it ii imperfeii i and Righteoufnefs materially ccnfidcred if holiuefs, and 
therefore thui impcrfcH : butJormxUyconfidered, tt ii perfect 7{ighteoiifnefs or none i this 
not in relation to the old Rule, but the new (Covenant.'] Upou thii account they arc charged 
with grofs ignorance, that ufc and underjiand the word Righteous and Righteou fuels as 
they relate to the old Rule j a/i if the godly were called Rightcoxs ( bcfidcs their imputed 
Kighteoufr.cfs ) only bccaufe their fuuit if cation audgooi worlds have ($me imperfect a- 
greement with the Law ofw^rl^s- Th'u ani much more to ajfert a per foval perfect inherent 
Righteoufnefs, as is faid : all which as it is here hcli out, is new to me, and t muji con^ 
fe(i my (elf inigHoran.e all ever. I never too^i imperfect Righteoufnefs to imply any fu.h 
contradict ton, any more then imperfcil bolincfs. 

R. B.T^ He child opinion you rife againlt, is that which yoiitaketobe mine, 
X as yoLii- citing my- words doth nianifcll : but you confefs your fdf 
uncertain whether ynii undi:riland ic or not. There is a pofllbilicythcu thac 
when you do undciltand me, you may prove your felf ot the fame Opi- 

Inthem:3n time it is your Rcafons which muft juliifie your ftrong diflear, 
which I rti.ill heboid to ex:t:ninc. When- you fayj I [do no: only alFerc a per-" 
fonal inherent Righ-.coufncfsj as well as iinpiitcd, a^ainlt the Antinomians, but 
alfo affirm that this Riijhtcoufnefs is perfect,] 1 Rcpiy : Richer 70U fuppofc the 

G later 


later propofition to be sn adJiiion to the former, in terms onlyj or in fenl'c alio : 
If only inicrmi, the fcnfe being the fame, I fuppofe you would not oppofe ir. 
Ifinfenfe, then it is either fomcwhac ical, or fomcwhat modal, wliichycu fup- 
pofe the later to adde to the former : Real it is not, for Rcs(^ per feci loRci, arc no: 
aiftinguiflicd as Rests' Kts, but as R4s(^ Modia. It is thctcforc but a modal ad- 
<iition. And it is fuch a JV;oi«as is convcrtibU with En/. And therefore there is 
as much imported in the fiiil P.opoficion [We have a perfonal inherent Ri^hte- 
oufncfs] as in the fecond [We have a perfcfk perfonal inherent Rithtcouf- 
ncis.] For Ens (^ Fcrfccfiim arc as convertible as Evs (g* Bomm, or Em (^ 

%You adde [ If it were Bieantonly of thepcrfedionof thcfubjc(5tj as'oppofcJ 
to hypocriliejCiT'f, or of the pcrfcdion or entircncls of iheobjcft (refptiflin^ no: 
only One or SomCjbut All Commandments) which is called aperfcttionofpartSj 
we miijhr readily aflent to it.] ' " 

To which I Reply : i. Your terms are uncouth tome, but! will do my beft 
to guefs at your meaning. A pcrCeftion of the fubjed is perfc^id effentialis vcl ac 
ddentalfs. The former is no more but e^efubjdium, verc (^ pYoprii. The later 
may be varioufly taken, according to the variety of acciden-^s : But certain I am 
that the fubjcft is impcrtcft, quod di ptrfcHionan accidcm^lcm. And tlicrcforc in 
this large exprtfllonj you fcem to fay much more then T. You and I, who arc 
the Uibjefts of Ri^htcoufncfsjareimperfeft, though perfcftly Tubjeds. 

2. That which you call here pcr/cf?/o/M^;£^«, is nothing but the truth of t fie 
immediate fubjedj aslunderftand you. ^uftitia eft velcaufje,velperfoKiie^, velfat' 
tern confiderata vcl ut caufa vcl ut perfonx. C'^uf'i eft fu bjeHim pro^^imum : Terfo?u eft 
fubjeciumprmun^principalc. ^uftttia caufx, eftvcla^iommvclhjihjtttumautdijpo- 
fuioKU'i. Terfccit fmit babitKi (^ dijpofttioves, (j^ Armies vd perfect wne c^hauli 
Trivficnienulij^j^ ituperfecii [ii7ft, qituvcre i\\ni.(^ verd fitntii\cs :) vel pcrfeciiMe 
accidetnah : tT* ita aliquo modopcrfckit (^ alio imptrfc^i funt. It kcms therefore 
that you here lay as much atlcaltasl, for the perfedion of the wjncr of our in- 
herent RighteouUiefSj ( if not more) for I am fure you fpcak more unlimi- 

5. I do charitably coaiedurCj that when you fpeak of [a perfcdion of theob- 
jcS] you do not mean as )ou fpeak, but you mean a perfedion of our Ads as 
they refped the objed, cxtenlively ( for whether you include or exclude intention, 
I know not.) Here muft I diltinguilh between objcds of abfolute nccclFity, (and 
foof the adsabt u: thole objcds) which a man cannot be juftificd or faved with- 
out : and i. Objcds of lefsncccffity (and fo ads) which its pofiTible to be ju- 
Ttificd and faved without. In regard of the former, I confcfs our ads may be faid 
to be [Truly ads that arc exercised about Uich objeds] if you will call tha: per- 
fedion (as in a larger fcnfe you may :) But as to the later, 1 acknowledge no inch 
peixcdion. And therefore ( for that which you call [A peifidioa of parts] I 
acknowledge that every righteous man, hath a perfedion of the effcntial parts 
(that ?s. he wants thcin no;) but not of the integral alwaicsj muchlcfsot^acci- 
dentSi vvKfchare improperly called parts. 

Ncxt you repeat fomt of my words, and then aJde [ All which as ic is here 
h;;ld cut, is ne\i; ro me, and I muft confefs my felf in ignorance all over.] 
R^ply : I cannot ^clp that, but I will do towards it what lean, chat it may be 
nonecf my laiilt : and therefore will let you know my meaning. And in open- 
ing the. fenfc and nature of [Perfedion] I cannot give you more of my minde 



in a narrow room, then Schibkrhithhiddownin Mctdph.l.i.c.ir. ^erfecfumtfi 
cui ad. effentium vihil deeji. Scaligcr Excrcit. 1 40. p. 470. Omne qutd cjf, ftht efl, o* 
bonum, lytotum, O' pcrfe^um. It is a Metaphifical Tranfccndental Pcrfeftioa 
that I fpcak of, which hath no contrary in Being j which confilfcth in the pve-^ 
fenccofallthingsneccflary to Being : and that only of an infciiour, dciired Be- 
ing, fuch as the creature is J for we meddle not wich the infinite Di>inc Being or 
perfcdon} Nordo wctakc JLE in a comparative fenfc, but in an abfolute : this 
beingaP.ighrcoufnefs perfcft in irskindc, though a more pcrfcifl kindc acciden- 
tally, may be found out : \t?.kck i?.zhc( vc^miiialitcr then participalitcr : but ftill 
remember that I take it not dc pcrfcBionc dcddeHtali, fed cQcntUU. /^nd therefore 
I ftiU maintain that in feveral accidental relpcfts oar Rightcoufnefs is im- 

Now to know how our Righteoufnefs is efTcntially pcrfeft, let us confider 
what isclTential toit. Its form is a Relation of ouradionsand difpolltionsim- 
mcdiatly, and our fclvcs remotely, as compared with the Law or Rule. This 
Law ( befidcs the confticution of the reward and punifliment confidered in them- 
felvcSjof which we now fpeak not) dotli i. Conltitutc ( I mean efficiently deter- 
mine) what Ihall be our duty in general. 2, It detcrmincth more fpccially, what 
part of this duty, fliall be the condition of our Jultihcation and falvation, fine qui 
mn. When we coine to be judged at Gods barrc, he that hath performed the con- 
dition fhall be juftified, though he have omitted much of the other duty : but all 
that have not performed the condition fliall be condemned. (But remember of 
what it is that this is thf condition : vi^. of the new Law of grace, whofe ofScc 
is to make over tons Free remiflion of fins, and falvation through the fatisfadion 
and merits of Chrilt : and not the conditionof that Law, which gives the re- 
ward direftly for the work) Take up altogether then, and you will lee that 
I. Righteoufnefs is formally a relation : i. And that not of our Anions or dif- 
pofitions to the mcer precept of the Law, determining of duty as fuch, (common- 
ly called the moral Law j) bu: I. to thcLaw, as determining of the condition 
oflife or death j 2. to thepromifeand threatning of that Law, which are joyned 
to the condition. So that [to be lighteous] lignifieth (^ quoad IcgemnovarH) ihclc 
two things; i. ll^ouobligattudd pttuam, (^ cui dcbctur pr<imium.2 2. [ei^/coH- 
ditioncm impuniutis, (^ pramii prajlitit.'] The fii ft qucUion in judgement being 
\_Anfit ohligdim ad pxnam, vd uon i (^ an premium fit dcbitum ?] therefore the for- 
mer is our firil and principal righteoufnefs, and here to be pleaded. But before 
the firft qiieftion can be determined, the fccond muft be raiixd and rcfolved, 
[^Utrum prAjlitit conditior.cm P] And here the fecontl is our Righteoufnefs ( conditi' 
omspneftitio) by which we mufl anfwer the acciifation IConditioncm vonpr^efiiiit.'j 
Thatis, [Ke lived and died an unbeliever or impenitent.] Sothat 3. You fee 
that our fii ft Righteoufnefs iMoureatitspantS: vcl jus ai impuniutem (^ ad pra' 
tnium,'] asitrcquircth Chrifts perfed fatisfadion, 3iSamcdiHm to it, by which 
all the charge ot the Law of works, muft be anfwcrcd j fo it rcqui'es our perfor- 
mance of tfee conditionef the Law of grace, as another medium, by which Chrift 
and his benefits are made ours, and by which the falfe accufation of [biingunbe- 
lievers and impenitent, and I'o to be condemned by the Law ot gra^c it fclf, us ha- 
ving no part in Chrift] muft beanfwercd, and we juftified agiiult it. 4 It is 
not only tht form of our righteoufnefs, that is traiifcendentey pcrfcd, but alfo the 
matter, as futh, as it i3 the matter: that is, thefubjcct idiuns and i"ifp;fitionSj 
arc fub^cds truly capable of that relation. All this is no more but that it is a 

G 2 true 


true Rigbtcoufncfs, and not equivocally or falfly fo called : andfo that even the 
matter or fubjcft, is ically the matter orfubjcft of fuch a Righteoufncrs, f . The 
form here beiiu a rclaiion, initfclf, admits not cf degrees. 4. The matter or 
fubjcft (curdirpofuions and adions ) though qudmMcria, they hare the forel'aid 
metapiiyiical pcrftdi .n, yet coijfidtrcd in it fcU, or conlidered in reference to the 
meerprcctpi; of i!. Law, ard fo in itiineer morali v, it is impcrfcd. As Schibler 
faith, OnrncperfcBiimcfl e vj .- 0/ omucau eflperfcctumtraiifccHdenuli, CycJJcntuU 
perfi^ionc: Duolmnmaimodh adhttcpojjuni crittavtcdriimptrfcils. i. ^cctdenuli' 
ter,quod fcilicct dcfit id quod .d vne^ntitcm vcl Oruamevtum, vcluUieremf^ intentio- 
rcm nutumpcttiv.ct. EtfiibbdC impcrfiUiOJic ctUm continetur imperfe^to, qux efl in 
dcfeclupiriiiimmitcrtx mium princfulium^ Ndm materia pertinct Ad ejfcntialcm per- 
fcciioHcm, (e Ud complctur fat is (nimdum partes prtncipdks in toto httcrogcnco, qua/u^- 
cientes [unt ad radicandam (^ (ujlcutanddm forrtum, mamfefto ivdicio, quod ablatii 
parttbui minui principalibus, manet prior Jpccics. Vclitti fi humo (sf carat pcdibus, (^ 
brackiis(^vafo(^ oculii.adhuctimcji cii bomo,Scc. ^tquc it a per iblationem psrttum. 
minus pnmpUium pibil adbiic dcejl quod pcrti7iC4t ad tranfcejidtfualcm pcrfec{ionem,qutx 
cjfnitialis rjl ipfius borr.inis. A^quc ita homo adhuc cji perfcSlehomo, (s' pcrfeifccits: 
indcquc iicc bactmpcrfcclioiic toUitur pcrfcHie tranfcendeutjlii.Scc. z. To[funt vocari 
cntia'ilmpcrfecla'] iomparate, quod fcilicct jiOHbabcantflfentiam tsinpcrfc^am0' no- 
bilcm, quam alia. Tta materia tQ imperfecta, quia mn fit, tarn mbilcensacJorma^Scc. 
Hxc igitur impcrfcciioiterum von ttUtt per fell iovem travfccndentalcm, quo mimls tran- 
fcendenter, perfect a dicamur qux fie [ant imperje^a, I . i .c 1 1 . 

In both ihcfc rcfpcds I confefs and maintain that our Righteoufncfs is imper- 
feft : that is 1. Our graces, holinefi, obedience, good works, are gradually imper- 
fedj yea eft mmcro, as well as gradu. i. The Rightcourncfs which we have in or 
from Chrifts pcricft fatisfadlion and merits, is a Rightcourr.cfs of a more noble 
and pcrfed kinde, then this inherent Righteoufncfs required by the Law of grace : 
for the later ftmds in fubordination to the former, as a neceffary meani, i.e. con- 
dition to make it ours. Omnctamenciiscjl perfecJum, von folumiu genere cutis, fed 
etiamingcncretalft ctitis,Scc. Et ficetiam materia, cifi in compantionc ad alia entia, 
fit fat if imperfecta, tamen in ftto genere hibet omnino perfect ioucm, veque fie deeji ci 
quicqiiam corum, quxad ipfiiis cjfcpcrtt7ient.Sch\h.ubi jupv.y ,^. 

The like doftrine haihCalovim -Ttlctapbyf.Divin. p. 246J&C. dc perfect me, fully : 
where of our imputed and inherent Rightecufncfs, he faith, Prior denominationc 
€xtrinfeca,poUeriorintrinfeca,utfaqueveri, Ct rcaliter,ipfis compctit. And thtfe are 
two of his ForifiT.esj Pcrfcaio non admittit migis (3" minus ; and Pcrfccto ntbilpctefl 
accedereveldecedere. Multirudcs might quickly be cited to the fame purpofe with 
thcfe abovcfaid, but that it is fo known a cafe. 

And thus I have done what at prcfcnt I thought my duty, that it might not be 
my fault that ycu are [in ignorance all over.] But I have faid the Icfs -becaufe I 
have lately more exadly opened the nature of our Righteoufnefs, in Anfwer to the 
Animadverfions of another Learned Brother. 

Youadde [ I never rook impcrfcft Rightcoufnefs to imply any fuch cantradi- 
ftion, any more then imperfect holinef*.] Reply: i. Holincfs is taken 1. For 
[the relation of a Perfon or Thing dedicated to God :] and fo 1 confefs it admits 
not of a magis or minus any more then Rightcouiiuls. 2. Bur our common ufe of 
the v/ord [Holinefs] when about perfor.s, is for the qualities or adions of a fpiri- 
tually-renewed man : and fo I further fay ; i. That this alfo hath its tranfcen- 
dental peifcdion, as well aj Rightcoufnefs. But here's the dirfcrence ( which if 




youaddcto what is faid before, you will more fully fee my thoughts.) Hcljnefs 
thustakcn is a quality, which though it have the truth of ISeing, yet is intended 
and remitted^ or dothrccipcre magU is' tninus. Rightecufnefs is a relation, which 
in fusformali is not intended or remitted. Nay if you will cxsftly open it, it will 
appear that the Righteoufnc's in qiieftion is a Relation founded in a Relation 
( the real conformity of cui Ads to the Law or Rule, as it dctermincth what (hall 
be the condition.) Ycauioie, ihn the \c:y fubjccfumprcximitmhujasreldtior.h, itcc 
intcnditur ncc remittitur ; and this is it that 1 mean by perfidion, btiulcs the fore- 
faid tranfcendental peitcdicn. But i bccaufe theft things a; c (XiBioris indigiti- 
onis) undcrllandihat the reafon of this my ailerticn lies here : The Law as it is 
the ruU' of obedience .doth requiic ptrfcA obedience in dei:ree ; and lo lictc is an 
impcrfcdion in ow adions in ihc degree, as being fhct of what the Rule riqui- 
rcth J and i: bcin;; tbefc aftionswith their habits that we call our holinefs {ibcffi- 
cicntc (S'' fine) thcicfoic we mult needs fayj Our holinefs is impcrftd ; And if our 
RiLhteoulnefs were to be denominated from ibis Law, commanding pcrfcdicn, 
we mull fay, not that fuch Righieoufnefs were imperfcft, becaufc the holinefs or 
obedience is impetfcd j but it is none at a'l, becaufc ihcyare iraperftft ; For ira- 
pcrfcd obedience or holnicfs is not a fubjcJl or matter capable of the relation of 
^Righteous] according to that perfcd Law which condemneth them, and ad- 
mitteth only gradually-perfcft obedience, as capable matter, without which the 
form cannot be received. And fo our faith, repentance, and finccre Gofpel- obe- 
dience, as compared to this perfeft Law, arc no pcrfcA Riehtccufnefs, nor any 
Rightcoulnels at all : And lo this being the matter of our inherent Righteoufnefs, 
I fay, our faith and obedience are imperfcft ( though not imperfcft Righteouf- 
nefs, bccaule none) as thus compared. Bu: then the Law as it is the determinec 
of the conditions, on which Chrill and lite fliall be ours, hath made the matter 
or immediate fubjcd, to be ?w punBo, as it were, fo that it cannot be more or lefj, 
becaufe it is the finccrity only ofour faith and obedience, that ismade the condi- 
tion of Life, and not the gradual perfcdion. So that when we mull be juftified, 
theQiicftion willnot be, [Haft thou believed and obeyed pcrfedly ?] but [Haft 
thou done it Truly.] So that no imperfedion of the matter confiftent with lin- 
cerity, makes it lefs capable of the form, nor no perfcdion of degrees makes it ca- 
pable of more of the form. The condition here is as truly performed, by true 
believing and obedience, in a lower meafure, as in a higher; yea and this true 
performance is as full a Righteoufncfs ( in relation to this part of the Law) as if 
the matter of faith and obedience weie more pci fed : The Itrongell faith doth not 
make you Righteous in a higher degree, then the wcakcft that is true: For the 
ftrongeft is but prxfistiocemiitmiu ( which is the Righteoufncfs in qucftion) and 
fo is the weakcft. It is not therefore from this ad of the Law (determination 
of theccndicion) that our graces or duties, are diverfificd as more or lefs perfcd 
in' degree, but it is in rcfped to the other ad or part of the Law ( determina- 
tion of duty, asluch.) So thatina word. Duty limply as duty, and holinefs, 
or fupernaiural grace, as luch, may be more or lefs. But holinefs and duty, 
as the uMatcriA rcqupta vel (ubjc^um proximum ^ujiiti£ , confjlit in indivi- 

Only let it be rf membred, that I fpeak this of the promife of impunity and glory 
cveilafting abfoluteiy conlidered, and not of a comparative degree of gloty : For ic 
may be yet conliftent with thisj that a greater faith,!ovc and obediencfij may have 
a promife of greater glory. 

G 3 Remem- 


Remember alfo I pray you ( ityou willdo me juftice) i. That I did only afr 
fcrc Jnniy Aphmifmcs [ i. A mctaphylicaf pirfedion of Being, and z. A pc:- 
fcdion oMuffi:ifncy in order lO i:s end] in oui- ri^htccarrvcl's ; a. And the 
fame tranfce.ndeiua! perfcdio.'i of Bcio:^, I affirmed ot hoirnefsic fclf, only ad- 
ding, tba:itbe:n^ a Qua'iiy may be" intended and remitted, but Rightccurncfs 
being a Relation canno: ex pirw/w. Now which of thcfe perfcdlions of Riijhtc- 
oufnefsdo you deny ? N?: that of fufticicncy as to the cndjatyou cxprcdy affirm. 
It muft therefore be the tranfccndcnia! perfcdion of EfTencc. An i if that be de- 
nied, then righteournefs is no rightcoufnefs : for fo omue enspcrfcHum ejl : Ani 
then you muft maintain that it is but equivocally called righteoufners, but indeed 
isnotl'n. But yet this I findc you no: about, but rather confefs the contrary, not 
only by affirming inherent Ri^hteoufneis, but alfo affirming a double pcrfedioa 
of it, which you are plcafed to call fubje(flive and cbjedive, and which can be no 
lei's then I here affirmed. 

§. 19. 
M' Bl.'-'^ r Saiah Imfure fxitb. All our Rightcoufnefs arc as filthy rags, 1(i 6/^.6. 
^Hs gfcitcr charge ofimpcrfcclion an lye Agiinfi the mofi imperfcH holincji, 
thevthe'ProphetUiesupjnourRighieoufncjS. ^'-^Heithcr do I underjlani htwbolniejS 
JJ}OuU be imperfeS tA^icn mxterinUy iHni rigbteeufneji perfect, taken formally ih reference 
to a Rule. 


§• 2^. 

Aphor. I afferted , ferre to warrant the Prophets comparifon, 
without our denying the perfedion of Being ? That is, that it is truly Righ- 
teoufnefs ? 

i. My opinion of that Text is, that the Prophet means plainly, [We are an 
unrighteous people,] or [wc have no other Rightcoufnefs to glory of, but what 
jsindeed no rightcoufnefs a: all, no more then the liltby ra^^s areclean] no nor To 
much J for they nay poffibly have fome part clean. Yet that this is called Righ- 
tcoufnefs, is no wonder, when the next words are Negative, q.d. [our Rightc- 
oufnefs is none j oris unrigtueoufnefs :] yea it is not imufaal to give the name 
either from common eilimation; or the perfons profeflion, and cfpecially from 
thofe adions which ule to be the matter of Rightcoufnefs, though the form being 
wanting, they are not now aduallytHe matter. So I think ?o/owzfl?j forbiddeth 
ovecmuch Rigtsttoufncfs. Further, it's confiderablc, what Rightcoufnefs it is 
that the Pfor)het there fpcaks of, whether univerfal or particular ? and whether 
Legal, confiilin? in abfolute pertedton > or Evangelical, confilUng in fincerity ? 
and alio whether he fpviak of himfclf and each individual, or only of the Jewilh Na- 
tion defcrioed according to the generality or main part of them. 

g. As for that ncxtpalHge, where you tell us what [you underAand not] I 
confefs it feems ftrangeto me: but I hope youmakjitno argument againft the 
opinion which you oppofc. If it were a good argument indeed, then the lefs a 
manunderftands, the better he might difpuce. Bat lee us fee what it is that you 
underftand not. i. [ How holinefs fhould be imperfcd taken materially ?] Sure 
you undsrftand that; for what elfe did you mean in the foregoing words, [No 



greater <h«tgc of imperft^ion can lye againft th* mcft impuTeftholinefs?] 
2. It is therefore, no doubtj theother brqr.ch that you mean, how [Rightecul- 
nefs is perkft taken formally in reference to a Rule] i. That Righteoufncfs in 
Jcnfu LcgaUis' jorevfiissi iclacionconfifting in a confcrmiiy, or congnicncy to 
the Rule, I luppofeyou underf^and, feeing both Schoolmen, and ProteiUnt Di- 
vines do fo commonly affirm !t: e.g. Scoius and Df TwiJ^ oh- z. That omnc 
em eft ^jfentiditcr fcrjcHwn, I fuppofe alfo you undcrfland : and io that this Rela- 
tion muft be a pcrfed Relation, or none at all : where there is the form, thercis 
ilie being > and thereiorc the word tRii^iJtecufncfs] fpokcn firmditcr of our 
Righteoufncfs, muft needs csptcfs that which is truly Ric,hteoufnefsj and not 
etjuivocally fo called. 3. Yial fuppofe you undcrftand, that Relations do not 
admit oimagU and mirm ex purtc fm, but cniy when they are founded in quality, 
cxpiiTtefitnhmcntivelfubjcHt: At lealHf any, would deny tfear, yet the relation in 
t^uettion, being of the nature of [Parixy,] and not of fimilitude ou y, (which 
are both implied in conformuy) doth not fo mi^ch as rati'eiic fusJr.nenti idmh oi 
imenfion or remiflit^n. Thefe things being all l6'gcr,cra!ly acknowledgedjyou leave 
ir.e only to admitt tVia: you Ihduld fay, Ycu cndeiftand thcrti not. 

W Bi:\Tl7Emay {fer ought I k^iovo) hsvpcU mafieholm^formaV, avdrefcrreit 
\ ^■'toa RulCi and. Rightcoufntjs mAtcruU, tn an abfelutc (ovlidcrati07i,vPiibout 
reference to xii). Rule laaU. 

3^B. i.T 7C /Heihcr ycu take hclinefs as fignifylng a Quality or ReIation,there 
V V j$ no doubt but it hath its form, or elle it could no: have a Being ? 
Did you indeed imagine that I had denied that ? z. But that holincfs in our 
coaamon ufc of the word, doth formally corflil in the relation of our qualities or 
aftstothcLaw, efpecially in that relation of conformity^that we arc now fpeaking 
of, I finde not yet proved. Holineis taken for the qualities and ads themfelv6s, 
is no relation. Hdlinefs taken for Dedication to God, is fuch akinde of Relation 
as Donation is : It referrcs to God as the tcrrmnm : For omne(u7i^um eft T)eofan- 
Ifum. But to be [Dedicated to God] and to be [ccntcrmed to the Law or Rule] 
arc not all cne. 5. If you or any man refelvc to u(c holinefs in the fame fenfe as 
righteoufncfs, if I once know your mindcs, I will not connadift you, forlfinde 
nopleafure in contending about words. But for my fcIflmuU ufe them in the 
common fcnfe, if I will be undei flood. 4. That ycu m.ay ufe the word [Righte- 
oufncis] materially, without relarionto any Rule, is as much as tofay. We may 
dcnomw3te a materia fijiefcritja. The form is relative. Ifyoamean, Wc may de- 
nominate that which hath a form, fvom th; matter, and not ficm the form, then I 
Hcply, I. Then you muft not denominate properly and logically : z. And then 
you mufl not caU it Righteoufiwfs ; except you mean ludtre xquivoeh^ and fpeak 
de^uftiiixpirticuliiri ethicu auafuim cuiqiie tribuitntu, when wc arc fpeaking de'^pfti- 
tiaLegdi,Civili,Forevfh called by t fee Schoolmen ^nfiitia unnerfalii in our cafe. 
I am not of the Papifts mindi. ihjt make our Righteoufncfs to be cur new quali- 
ties, 3ix\6. confound ^uftitiam O" SahMttutcm, (j'inde "^uftifieatmem (sr SmiBifcii- 

§. 31. 


§. ii. 

M' 2/. A '}(d in fuch confilerit'ton I do net hjtorv hove xhen cinbe pcrfcHion or inpcr- 
l\feclien cither in bolinej? or righieoufacf : It ;V i/s they come up to,orfaHJ}}ort 
tfthe Kule,tbit they biuc the demmiiution of perfect ton or impcrfeBion. 

R.S. ''AT the fii-ft view, the firlt lentence feemcd To ft'-angc to me, that I 
/ithoughc it mccteit tofay nothing, bccaufe it is Icarcc capable of any 
apt anfwer bat what will leem fliarp or unmannerly, For that which ycu fay you 
may confiJcr, is fomething or nothing : If foaicthing, and yet not capable jfper- 
fcdion or imperfection, it is fuch a fomeching as the world never knew till now. 
But upon fecond thoughts 1 finde that^e;«/fmi your words may be born: For 
it is nothing that you fpeak of. Legal Rightcournefs not relaped to the Law or 
Rule, is Hething: And 'l{othi7tg cannot be more pcrfed or lefs 3 mfi negativd. 
But that holincfs taken for fpiritual habits and ads, can have neither pcrfeftion 
or imperfedion j or that they are capable of no perfedion or imperfeftion in any 
other fcnfe, but as related > nor yet in any Relations to God, or the pcrfon dedi- 
catingjfavc only in the relation to the Rule J all thelcfor the firil reafon fliall have 
no anfwer but a recital. . ". , ■,„.^ "'" 

§• J*. 
M' 2/.p AulV GojpcLjrime, whether you voitl all it righteoufnefs or hoUnefs U fet out 
-*■ Iamfurc,Ilom.7.fnUofimpcrfeiiioni yetaUtkif ts in reference to the Rule, 
as is tinfrvcred, or fell flmt in conformity to it, verf.ai, I delight in the Lave of God 
after the inner mau. 

§. 3 1. 
21.3. i.TSnot [Righteoufnefs] or [Holinefs] as Scriptural, as Logical, as 
Aplainatcrm, and as fit for Difputants, as [Gofpel- frame ?] Till I 
know whether by [GofpeU frame] you mean. Habits, Ads, Relations (and what 
Relations) or what elfe^ I fliali pafsitas uncapableota better Reply, i. Did 
not I acknowledge exprelly as much imperfcdion as you h:rc affirm of TrfZi/ s 
frame? Why then do you intimate by your arguing as if I did not? J. There 
is a twofold Rule, or adion of the Law, which our Habits and Adions do 
refped, as 1 have ott fald. The firft is the Precept determining of Duty (imply. 
This all our Adions and Habits come lliort of, and therefore no man hath a 
Righteoufnefs confifting in this conformity. The fecond is the promilc, or that 
ad going along with the promife, whereby Gad determincth of the condition, 
Thisistwofold : One of the Law of Nature and Works ; and according to this 
no man is Righteous: for the condition and the duty are of the fame extent, it 
being obedience gradually perfcd, tha: is here the condition. The other is of 
the Law of G.acc i which determincth what fliall be the condition of our Right 
to Chiift and Life. Pm<1 never complaineth of an imperfc&ion of Eilcncc, ofthij 
laft. It is of the former that he fpcaks. Thcfe nccefliry things l^ould not be 




hidden, by confounding the fevcral Rules, or Offices of God» Law, which fo tf- 

ptrntl/ diffev. 

M' Bl. A Nd whereas a charge of igr.orance U laid even upon learned Teatbcrs, thit 

•^"^ commonly under/land the word iRighteoufMjS'] And [Kightcotu] at it r»- 
fers to tfre old Rule, IprofejS my felfto have little ofthctr Learning.bm I am voboUy theirs 
in tbii ignorance. 1 k^iorv no other Kulcbut the old Rule, the Rule of the TA^ral Law » tfr4l 
it with me a RmU, a perfeH Rulejaiid the only Rule. 

X;B.rjIther lam an incompetent jadge, through partiality, orclfe yeu had 
Cdonebu: the part of a friend,- yea of a candid advcrfary, to have taken 
inthcrcft ofmy words, which mull make up thefenfej which were thefe lAsif 
ibe godly vtere called Rigbteoia ( bcftdes their impiaed righteoufnefs ) only becaufc thtir 
fanHif cation and good worfit have fame imperfcH agreement to the Lawofxvor^s.'] I 
pray let the word [oa/y] be remembred. z. It is bu: in this one point that I (barge 
them with Ignorance. And who is not ignorant in more points then one ? If it be 
fo proud and arrogant a fpecch as fome other Brethren have affirmed it to be, then 
erery man is proud and arrogant that differs from another, and difputeth the dif- 
ference. For I cannot differ from any man unlefs I fuppofe him to Errc : And 
doubtlefs every man is fo farre Ignorant as he Erretb. Muft I then differ from 
none ? yea from no Learned Divines ? Why then when one aftirmeth and ano- 
ther denieth, I rauftbeof bothfideSj for fear of cenfuring one fide as Ignorant 
or Erroneous. 3« I confefs I was not well acquainted with the genius of many of 
my Reverend ani.4 truly Honoured Brethren. 1 thought that no godly man would 
have taken himfelf wronged, if a man told him, he had Error, no more then to 
tell him he had (in. I took it for granted that bumanum eft errare, and that we 
know but in part, and that fandifying grace had To farre deftroyed pride, and 
made the foul apprehenlive of its imperfcdion, that, at leaiJt, men of eminenc 
godlioefs could have endured patiently to hear that they are not omnifcient nor 
infallible, and that they have fome ignorance with their eminent knowledge ? and 
why no; in this point as well as another ? If any think that I arrogate that know- 
ledg,ctomy fclf whichldeay to them: I reply, So I do in every cafe wherein I 
differ from any man living: For if I thought not my judgement right, it wcec 
not indeed my judgement : and if I thought not his opinion wrong, I did noc 
differ from him. But if they will affirm that therefore I do either vilifie :he«, or 
prefer my felf in other things, I hope they will bring better proof of their affirms* 
tion. For my own part I unfeignedly profefs my felf confcious of much more ig- 
norance then ever I charged on any ofmy Brethren in the Miniftry : yea I muft 
profefs my felt ignorant in a very great part of thof« Controverfies, which ace moft 
commonly and confidently determined by my Brethren. I fpeak not all this as to 
M'fi/. but to other Brethren that have madefo {grange an expofition of this ono 
word, and of one more /)4g. 51. [Vulgar Divines] as that they can thence con- 
clude and publifh me a {lighter and contemner of my Brethren : As if they that 
knovi England, could be ignorant, that the Churches among us have many fucb 
guides, as may well be called Vulgar Divines : Take them by number, and 

H judg* 


jaclge ( in thofc Coumici thit I am acquainted In ) whether the greater nombet 
beofthc Profound, or Subtillj or Angelical, or Scraphital, or Iirefragablefott 
ofDoftorj? or equal to fome of thefe Reverend Excepters, tvhofc worthlcon- 
fcfs fo far beyond my mcafurc, that bad I fpokecrf ttcmas Vulgar Divines, they 
might well have been offended. But O that it were not true that there arc fuch, 
chrough tnoft oiEngUnd, Jf^ales, and JreUni ( if any) on condition I were beund 
CO Recant at every Market Crofs in England, with a fagot on my back > fo be h 
there were the fame number of fuch choice men, as fome of thefc my offended Bre- 
thren are in their flead. And then who knows not that the Vulgar or ordinary 
weaker Teachers, do take up that opinion, which is mofl in credit, and which 
is delivered by the moft Learned Doftors whom they moft reverence ? So that 
the fumme of my fpeech caa be no worfe then this ; [ It is the moft common opi- 
nion] which is all one as to fay [It is the opinion of the Vulgar Divines and 
foroe of the Learned, the other part of the Learned going the other way,] which 
is it that men ccnfure for fuch an approbrious, injurious Ipeech. Yet I will not 
wholly excufe ir, nor this that M'B/. toucheth upon. I confefs it was fpokea 
too carclefly, annaannsrly, harfhly, and I fbould better have confidered how ic 
might be taken. 

As for M'B/^tc's profefHon [That he hath little of their Learning, btt Is 
wholly theirs in this ignorance,] I did flill think otherwifc of him, and durfl not 
fo have defcribed him : but yet my acquaintance with him is not fo great, as that 
I (hould pretend to know him better then he knows himfelf j and I dare not judge 
butthat hcfpeaksas he thinks. Let me be bold to (hew him part of that which 
he faith he is wholly ignorant of : That [ our perfonal inherent Riohteoufnefs, 
is not denominated from the old Lav? or Covenant, as if we were called Righte- 
ous (beCdesour imputed Righteoufnefs ) only becaufe our fanftification and 
good works have fome imperfeft agreement to the Law of Works] I prov* 
thus : 

1. Ifno man be called Righteous by the Law of Works, but he that perfeftly 
obcyeth ( fo as never to fin ) then no imperfeft obcycr is called Righteous ( ki^ 
ie(}uJvoci) by that Law. But the Antecedent is true, Therefore fo is the con- 

■ i. If the Law of Works do curfe and condemn all men, then it doth not judg« 
them Righteous (^nifi aquivfce-) Butit doth curfe and condemn all men; There- 

3. If the Law of Works do judge us Righteous for our works (taking rigbte- 
•»» properly and not equivocally) thenwemuftbe juftified by our works, accor- 
ding to that Law : Lex (ii.) eft norma juiicii: <y ornnU -dcr) jujlus, eftjuflifcandua. 
^flificatio Legis e(i virtualiter jufiifcatio judicU. He thatcondemneththe Juft is 
an abomination to God. But we muft not by the Law of Works be juftified by out 
works : Therefore,^c. 

4. He that is guilty of the breach of all Gods Laws, is not dendminated Righ- 
teous (vifi aquivoci) by that Law : But we break all Gods Laws: Therefore. 
Yea he that offendeth in one is guilty of all. Rcade Brochmoud in ^ic.i.io. and 
^acob.Liurentius,iT\d'7aulusBurge7ifij (in Lyra) on the fame Text. Vtd.(^Plii- 
ttmm in Thtfib. Salmurienf. Vol.i.pag 29.§. i jjji/r. iVottw dc Rccondl' Part.i. l.i. 
c.5.n. 16. TveiJS. Vindic Grat. li.t. part.i.c.i 5. pag. {vol. minore) 2 14. col.z. See 
whether yours or mine be the Proieftamsdoftrine. Here, it ever, its true, thatflor 
9um eft ex caufts integjrif. 

y. If imperfcft works are all finnes or finfull, then they arc not oar Rightc- 
oufnefs according to the Law of works. ( For it juftifieth no man for his fins.) 
But the former is true : Therefore the later. I doubt not but you know the ftatc 
of the Gontrovcrfie on this points between us anel the Papifts. 

6. If the Law of works do denominate a man righteous, for imperfcA workj 
(which truly and properly are but a lefs degree of unrighteoufncfs) then it feems 
that all wicked men (if not the damned) arc legally righteous : For they com- 
mitted not every aft of fin that was Sorbiddcn them, and tbeiefore are not un- 
righteous in the utmoft pofiible degree. And the Law of works doth not call one 
degree of obedience [Righteoufnefs] more then another, except it be perfift. 
But certainly all the wicked are not Legally Righteous (^nt^ dtquiv^i^) There- 

7. If our Faith, Repentance and fincere Obedience, maybe, muft be, and is, 
called our Righteoufnefj, as it is the performance of the conditions of the new 
Covenant, or Law of Grace, then (at leall) not only as they have an imperf«.ft 
agreement with the Law of Works. But theantccedem is true? Therefore the 

Let us next perufe Mr. 2/rf^e*s Reafons, why [ He is wholly theirs in this ig- 
norance.] He faith [ I know Mother Rule, buttheold Rule, tbe Rule of the morall 
Law i that is vettb me a Rule, a perfect Rftle, sni the $nly Kule.'] Rep. Sei diftivgucn- 
dumejf. The morall Law is taken either for the entire Law of works confilting 
of Precept and Sanction ( and that either as it is themcer Lawefna'urc, or as 
comaining alfo what to Adam was fuperadded ) or elfe it is taken only for the meer 
preceptive part of a Law, which is not tbe whole Law. In the later lenfe, it is 
taken i. For the preceptive part of the Law given ^to ^iiw. 2. Forthe pre- 
ceptive part of the Law of nature redelivered by Mojcs. J . For the preceptive 
partof the Law of nature, now ufed by Chrifl: the Mediator, as part of his own 
Law. ». Wejnuft diliinguifh of a Role. 1. There is the Rule of obedience, 
orwhat fhall be </«c ^ow»4.« This is the precept (under which I comprehend 
the prohibition, it being but praceptumienonagendu.) i. There is the Rule of 
reward, determining what fhail be due to us: This is thccondhional promife or 
gift, fofar forth asitdetermineth ie f^/opr«»;ro. 3. There is the Rule of pu- 
ninitnem, determining what (hall be due to man upon his fin : This is the threat- 
ning. 4. There is the Rule of the condition of the reward or punifliment, and 
of judging to whom they do belong, determining on what conditions or terras on 
their parts, men fhall be faved, or elfe damned J (though the fame afts were be- 
fore commanded in the precept as they are duties, yet to conftitute them conditi- 
ons of the promife, is a farther thing.) Thisisthe promife and threatning, as tbcy 
are conditional, or as they conftitute their own conditions. I think the folidity 
and great neceflity of all thcfe diftinftions, is beyond Difputc. Thefe things be- 
ing thus, I. What confufion is it to talk of tbe moral Law being the only Rule, 
when it is not one thing that is called the moral Law ? and who knows what yoa 
mean ? i. How ftrange a thing is it to my ears, that you, even you, (hould lo 
w^o'/ own this, and fo heartily profefs that you take the Moral Law for the ovlf 
Rule? Forfuppofe youtake it for the preceptive part of the Law of nature only 
(as I think you do :) i . That is but part of that very Law of na-ure : Doth not 
the Law of nature, as well as the pefitive Law, determine deTiebitopam, as well as 
dcDebiioo^dif and isa RuIeofpHniflimcnc as well asduty. i. Or if you took 
it for the whole Law of nature, is that the only Rule ? x. What fay you f«r mattee 

H t of 

•f duty, to ihepofulve Precepts of the Gofpcl ? of Baptifnij the Lords Supper, 
the Lords day, tbc Officers and GoYtrnmcnt of the Church.^T'c. Is the Law of 
nature the only Rule for thcfc ? If you fay, They are reducible to the fecond 
Commandment : I demand i. What is the fecond Commandmen: for the 
Affirmative part, but a general precept to wot fliip God according to his I'ofirivc 
Inftitution ? And doth this alone fuffice ? Doth it not plainly imply that there 
are and muft be pofitive Laws inlUtuting a way of worffiip ? z. Do you take the 
Vtcccpzdegeticre, to be equivalent to the Precepts dejp<(icbuif or to be afuffici- 
entRule without them ? if the Moral Law, or Law of Nature, be to you, the 
9%ly KuU, and d^pcrfcSl Rule, then you need no other. And if God had only writ- 
ten the ten CommandmcntSj or only faid in general, [ Thou flialt worffiip God 
according to his pofitive Inltitutions] would it have been your duty to have Ba- 
ptized, adminiftrcd the Lords Supper ? (^c Doth the general Precept conltitute 
this particular Ordinance as my duty? If no: ( as nothing more certain) then 
the general Law, is not the only Rule, nor fufficient in omnipine (though fuffi- 
titni\n[uogenere,(^ adpurtcm proprilim) fortheconftitution of Worfliipj Ordi- 
nances, Churchj Offices, ei/'c. or accjuainting us with our duty therein. More- 
over, did Chrili in InlUtuting thefe Ordinances and Officers, do any more then 
was done before, or not ? If no more, i. It is fnperfluous. i. Shew where it 
vrasdone before, 3. Sure the fourth Commandment did not at once command 
both the fcventb day of the week and the firft. If more, then the former was not 
fufficient, nor is now the only Rule. 

Moreover, doth not the Scripture call Chrift a Lawgiver ? and fay. The Lnvf 
JhiUge outof2ion,8cc. Ifa.x.i. And is he not the Anointed King of the Church ; 
and therefore hath Legiflative power ? And will he not ufe the principal part of 
his Prerogative ? 

z. I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Aiim or written 
in Tables of flone,i s not a fufficient Rule to us now for beleeving in Jefus Chrift ; 
no nor the fame Law of nature, as ftill in force under Chrift. For a general 
command of beleeving all that God revealeth, is not the only Rule of our faith j 
but the particular revelation and precept are part. Aad a general command to fub- 
mit to what way God ftiall prefcribe for our juftification and lalvation, is not the 
•nly Rule, but that particular prefcript is part. And a general command of re- 
ceiving every offered benefit, is not the only or fufficient Rule for receiving Chrift, 
without the Gofpel-ofFer of him and his benefits. 

J. And I fuppofe you grant that as mans foul hath an undcrftanding and a will, 
the former being a paiTage to the later, in the former praftical receptions being 
but initiate and imperfed, and in the later perfcded j To Laws have their prefa- 
ces declaring the grounds and occafions of them, oft times > and fo the Laws of 
God have their Narratives, Hiftories and Doftrines, concerning the grounds, 
the fubjeft, the occafionj^;'*;- as well as the more elTential parts, vii^. Precepts and 
Sandion. Thefe I fpoke not of before in the diitindions. Now do you indeed 
think that the Law of nature, or what ever you now mean by the old Rule and 
Moral Law, is the fufficient and only Rule of Knowledge, judgement and Faith ? 
I take it for granted that you will acknowledge the afTenting act of faith to be in 
the underftanding : and that the Word of God is the rule of this aflenc. Had you 
in the old Rule or Moral Law, a fufficient and only Rule for youi faith, in the 
Article of Chriits Incarnation, Birth, Life, Innocency, Miracles, Death, Biirialj 
KcrnncftioAj Ai^enTion^ full Dominion in his huinjune natutc ^tdte. Was this 



Article in the Creed before Chrifts coming lExceptyt leleevc^at I Atn he, ytfhM 
He in yeur^nnes ?] Befidesj matter of faith is alio matter of duty : for it is our du- 
ty to belecve all thcfe Truths. Bat I think it was then no mans duty to believe 
that this Jefus the fen of Afdrj' was the Saviour, before he was Incarnate J or to 
believe that Chrift^was Dead, Afcendedj^c. Therefore that which you call 
the Old Rule, is not as you fay the Only Rule of our Duty in Belce* 

4. But what if all this had been left out, and you bad proved the Moral Law, 
the only Rule of duty ? doth it follow that therefore it is the evly^nlc? Sure it is 
not the only Rule of rewarding 1 For if you take the ^4cra^ Law, for the rriecr 
preceptive part of the Law of nature, then it is no Rule at all of rewarding j fol- 
ic is thcprcmifc, and not the precept that doth make due the reward. And if you 
take the moral Law for the whole Law of nature, ir is a very great Difpute whe- 
ther it be ReguU pramiandi at allj much more as to that great reward which is 
now given in the Law of grace by Chrill ( your fclf deny 'n,pJg. 74 ) I dare not 
fay that if we had perfcftly obeyed, Everlaliing Glory in Heaven had been natu- 
rally our due. And for Rcmiflionof fin, and the Juftification ©f a iinncr,and fuch 
like, they ai e fuch mercies,a$ I never heard the Law of nature, made the only Rule 
of our right to them. 

f , The fame 1 may fay of the Rule of puniftiment. The privation of a pur» 
chafed, offered Rcmiffi'jnand Salvation, is one part of the pcnalcy of the new Law, 
of which the Moral Law can fcarce be faid the only Rule. (1{onc ojihim thatrvere 
hiddtn jhall tafte vj the Supper. 

6. But the principal thing that I ifltend, is that the Moral Law is not the only 
Rule what fhall be the condition of Lite or Death: and therefore not the only 
Kule according t9 which we muft now be denominated, and hereafter fentcnced 
JuftorUnjuft. For if thcaccnfcr fay He hath not performed the conditions of 
the Law of grace, and therefore hath no ri'^^ht to Cbrifl and Life] or fay fimply 
that [we have no right to Remifl'ion and Salvation j] if we can deny the charge, 
and produce cur performance of the faid concitions, wc are then non-covdcmnandi, 
and the Law of grace, which giveth Chcilt and Life on thofc conditions, will 
juftifie us againlt that charge, of having no right to Chrii't and Life ; But I think 
fo will no: the Moral Law. The Law of works juftifieth no man but Chrift : 
therefore it is not the Law of works by which we are to be jiiftificd in judgement. 
But feme Law we muft be julfified by : for the Law is the Rule of judgement : 
and the word that Ghrift hath fpokcn fliall ludge us : therefore it muft be by the 
perfcft Law of Grace and Liberty. If it be then laid againll us ihat we are finsers 
againfl the Law of nature j we Ihall all have an.antwer ready [ Chriit haihmadc 
fufficient fatiifadion.] But if it be faid that we have norigiit to the pardon and 
rightcoufnefs which is given cut by vertue of that fatisfadion, then it is the Law 
of Grace, and not the Moral Law, that inuit juftifie us : Even that Law which 
faith [}Vbo[ttvcr beUcvctb Jl:dU iittperifi^Sic.'] Moreover deth not the Aprftle fay 
plainly, that Ichriii u the (Mediator of a better CavettMt, cfUbhjhed en better ptomifes : 
anitfthatfirft Covenant hxd been faultlej?, then fiieuldno phu have been fought for the 
fecond: but finding fault vwb them he j<«ifr, 7ich:ldihc dates come fiith the Lordthatl 
mkmalic a new Covenant, Sec.'] Hcp.8. 6^7,8. v\hich fpcaksnotonly of Ceremonial 
precepts, but principally of the promifory part. 

^ If yoa ftiould fay,Thi$ is th« Covenant and net the law. I Reply i .Then the law 
is not the enlj Kule. x.Its theiamc thing in feveral refpe^f that we call t-Law ^ a 

Us CovcntK 


Covenant (except you mean it of our Covenant ad to God, of which we fpeak 
not.) Who knows no: that pr^»i/4r«(ir'p«M«Vc are ads of a Law ? and that an aft 
of oblivion or general pardon on ccr:ain terms, is a Law : and that the promifc 
is the principal part otihe Law of grace. So that I have nosv given you I'ome of my 
Rcal'onsjwhy 1 pielunjcd to call that L^noraacc] which I di4 not then know thac 
you would to Wholiy own. 

§• ?4. 

M' Bl. nr* He perfe^ion of thU holfnefi axi righteoufneJS in mins integrity, floed in the 
J. perfeH conformity to thii LdW ', and the reparation of this in our regenerate 
eSaxe (in vhub the tApoUleplaceth tbc Image of g»i) muji have reference as to god for 
a pattern, fo to bis Law as a Rule. 

§• 34. 
R.B. 1. 1 T was the very tranfccndentall pcrfcdion which is convertible with its 
■■ being ( as to Righteouinefs ) which then itood in jperfed conformity 
to the I aw. Adamiiuvh'MRdlCm, was not only lefs righteous, bu: reut mortis, 
condcmnandua, and noc righteous in fenjuforenfi according to that Law. For I 
hope you obfe-rve that we fpeak not of that called Moral Righteoufnefi, con- 
liiHngin a habit of giving every man his own : but of 'fuUitiaforenfis. 

I. There is a partial reparation of our holinefs in regeneration, but no repara- 
tion ef our perfonal inherent legal Righteoufnefs at all. Is Righteoulnefs by the 
Law of works ? I take this for dangerous dodrine. 

§ 5?. 
Mr. 2/. \S AH Image carrying an imperfect refembUnce of its SampUr , k 
^ AH Image j fo conformity imperfe^ly anfwering the Rule, it conformity 

l{iB. i.jn Ither that Image is like the Samplar (asyoucalUt) In fomc parts and 
Cunlike in others, orelfeit is like in no part, but near to like. If the 
later, then it is but near to a true Ima»e ef that thing, and not one indeed. If 
the former, then it is nothing to our cale. i. Uecaufe it is ^ujlitiauuiverfAlis, and 
not particular is, that according to the Law of works mutt denominate the perfon 
righteous, and not-condemnable. i. Becaufc indeed no one word, adion, oc 
thought of ours is truly conform to the Law of works. 

X. Similitude, as Scbtbler tels you truly, doth lie in punSfo as it were, and ex 
parte fui admits not of magis or minus : and therefore flrOfe (^ pbilofopbite loquend» 
(faith he) that only is/fw'/e, which ispcrfedly fo : b\it vulgaritcr loquendo ih^it is 
called /Jwi/e, which properly is but minus difftmtlt. Scripture fpeab v«/gir/tcr of- 
ten, zni not jiriHi and pbJlofophici, asfpeaking to vulgar wits, to whom it muft 
fpeak as they can underftand. And fo that may be called the Image or likenefs of 
Godj wbich participatccb of fo lauch of his excellency as that it demonflrateth 
ii to othas, as the cft'cd doth its caufe, and fo is Ufs unlike. God. I dare 


not once imagine^ that a Saint in hearen is like God in a UnA tai proper 

3. If all this were otherwife, it is little to your purpofe. For in this confor- 
mity of ours, there is fometbing of Quantitative refemblance, as well as Qua- 
litative J and fo it hath a kinde of parity and equality in ic, as well as fimilitude to 
the Rule. And I hope you will yield it paft doubt, that parity admits not of magis 
dlfminiu, what ever (imilitude docb. 

§. 36. 
M' S/.^Inccrity is faid to be the new Rule, or the Rule of the new Covenan^ji 
^^ButtblfKnorule.but our duty, takirgthe abftraH for the concrete , fmceritj , 
for the finccrc vralfiing, and thU dccordmg to the rule of the Lavt, not to reach it, 
bux in iUfirts toiimat, and hxvc rc^icH to it. Then Iha'l I not be afliamed when 
I have refpe<a to all thy CommandmcmsjT/>/.i 19.6. jind this is our inherent rigb- 
tcoufHe^, vrhich in reference to its rule, Ubotirs under man) impcrfeeiiovs. 

§ 36. 
R. B.l 7t 7 Hen I firft rcade thcfc word:,which you write in a different charafter, 
V V and father on me, I was afhamed of my Kow-fcnfe, for they arc no 
better: but it came not into my thou hts, once to fiifpcfi a forgery in your 
charge: Far was Hrom imagining that io Reverend, Pious and Dear a Fiiend, 
would tell the world in Print, that I faid that which never came into my thoughts, 
and confute that foberly and deliberarely,as mine, which I never wrote > and which 
any man that would reade my Book might hnoc, is wrongfully charged on me. 
And truly I dare not yet lay that you are guilty ef this : For though 1 have read 
my Book over and over of purpofe in thofc parts that treat of this fubjcft, andean 
finde no fuch word as you here charge me with ; yet before I will lay fuch a thing 
to your charge, I will fufpeft that it may pofllbly be in fome odd corner where! 
overlookt it, or cannot finde it. But I fee (if I am not overfcen ) how unfafe 
it is to report mens words themfelves, much more their opinions, from the reports 
of another, how Grave, Sober, Pious and Fritndly foever. If when we are dead, 
men Hiall reade Mr. S/i^c's Book that never read mine, and there fee it written 
that I faid [Sincerity is the new Rule, or the rule of the new Covenant.] Can 
any blame them to believe it, and report it of me, as from him, and fay \_lVhjx, 
fliAllI nothckevefttihand fuchamav, that reports uinexprejS words ?'\ But let th$ 
go, with this condufion : If indeed I liave fpokcn any iuch words, I rctraft them 
as jio«- fenfe, and when I finde them I (hall expunge them : If I have not, patienc* 
is my duty and relief i and I have long been .learning, that we muft fufler from 
Godly and Friends, as well as from ungodly and enemies j and till I had learned 
that lelTonj I never knew what it was to live quietly and contentedly. 

The reft of this ScAion hath anfwer enough already. No doubt but fincerc 
obedience confifteth in a faitbfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of 
Gods Law,both naturaland poGtivc : But no man can by it be denominated righ- 
teous {nifi itqumc^) but he that perfeftly obeyeth in degree. 

S- if' 


" '■ §. 17. 

M' 3/. A 'F er feci ion ef fu^ciency to AUiin the end, T witlingly gnm, G»i ctrdcfcet' 
t\ ding through rich gfAce, to crovuxwciiiobcitence : in thU fenfe, turimpcr-' 
feci ton hitb its perfeHnejS : otherrvife I mujl {xy that our inherent ri^hteoufnefi it an iwi" 
perfect rightcoufncffe, in an imperfeSi conformity to the rule of nghteoufaeffe, dnd with- 
out thit reference to the rule, there it neither perfection nor impcrfcciiou tnA'iy dcfion. See 
Z>. Davenan: dijputingagainfl^uji-iflcstion by inherent rigneoufncffe upon the Account $f 
theitnpcrfeciionofitydtiniXk'bahk.p.i^g. attd how fully hevoi/s perfveiiedoftheini' 
ptrfcHion of this rigbteoufncjfe ippurs by fentences prefixt before two Treitifcj, as may be 
feen tn the margent. 

§• 57. 
Jt.3. I'^Outterm [othcrwife] isambiououi. If yoa mean that in fome other 
I rcfpeds you cake ri^hteoufnefi to be imperfcd, fodo Ijand that a licclc 
more then you acknowledge, if you mean that in [all] OLhcr refpefts you take 
thjj righteoufnefs to be impeifcd i why then do ydli wrong your Reader with 
equivocation^ in calling it [Righteoufnefs] when you know that tranfcendcnttl 
perfedion is convertible with its Being ? i. A natural perfedion or imperfedion, 
adions are capable of without a relation to the Rule : though that be nothing t» 
ourbufinefs, yet you lliould not conclude fo largely, j. Many a School Divine 
hath Written ( and ^z6iC«/ at large) that our adions are fpecifi.d 4/«e, and de- 
nominated Good or Evil, and fo perfed or imperfcd x fine more fpecially and 
principally , then a Lege. But this requires more fubtilty and accuratenefs 
for the deciHon, then yoa or I in thefe loofc Difputes do fliew our felvc$ 
guilty of. 

As for what you fay from Reverend "Davenant, I Reply, i . Do yoa not ob- 
ferva that I affirm that which you call Our righteoufnefs inherent, to be imperfcft, 
as well as Bi(hop Divenant, and that in more rcfpeds then one? yet one would 
•hink by your words that yon had a minde to intimate the contrary, a. Yea I fay 
more, that in reference to the Law of workj, our works are no true righteoufnefs 
at all ; And I think he that faith, They are no righteoufnefs, faith as little foe 
them, as he that faith they are an imperfed righteoufnefs. Yet, if the truth were 
known, I do not think but both 'Ddvemnt, and you and I agree in fenfe, and dif- 
fer only in manner of fpeaking. My fenfe is this : Our obedience to the Law of 
God is fo imperfed, that we are not juft but guilty, and condemnable in the fenfe 
of the Law of works : therefore fpeaking ftridly, we are not righteous at all in 
^(f»/a/(»rc«jJ according to this Law ; but fpeaking improperly, and giving the de- 
nomination i materia, or ab accidente diqua, (^ mn a forma, fo we may be faid to 
have an imperfcd legal righteoufnefs, while equivocally we call him juft, that is 
but comparatively lefs unjuft then another. For though righteoufnefs in fenfit 
forenfi, hire no degrees, yet unrighteoufnefs hath many, j. And I fuppofe you 
know that Biihop Davennt doth not only fay as much as I concerning the intereft 
of worksin Juftihcation, but alfofpeaks it in the very fame notions as I did. If 
you have not obferved it, I pray reade him deyuft.Hab.& AH. cap.io.pag.iS^,(^y» 

And then I would ask you buc thisQueftion: If the tccufation charge us to 



Jiavc no right in Chrift and Life, becaufe we died unbelicvert and impenitent, or 
rebels againft Chrill 5 muft not we be juftlfied againft that accufation, by pio« 
ducing our faith, repentance, and fincere obedience it felf ? and if fo (then which 
nothing more certain ) are not thefe then To farre our rightcoufnefs againft that 
accufation to be pltaded ? And if it be not a true righteoufnefs, and metaphy- 
fically perfed, and fuch as will peifedly vindicateus againft the accufation 
of being prevalently and finally unbelievers, impenitent or rebels againft Chrift, 
thereisno Juftification to be. hoped for from the Judge, but condemnation w 
endlefs mifery. 

Moreover, the Thefit that Vivenmt proves in the Chapter which you cite, is 
iiihterentem juftitiam nen ejfe caufim formalem ju^HficAtionU neflrte coram Dep, And 
ifthaibetrue, ihenit isimpoflible that it (hould have the formal reafon of righ- 
teoufnefs in it- For if there be vera format there muft needs be the fermatum, 
and he that hath true formall rigteoufncfs, muft needs be thereby conftituted 
Righteous, or juftified covftimivd, and then he muft needs be fcntenccd Juft,vyho 

But then note that Piucwiwtfpeaks of that univerfal righteoufnefs, whereby we 
arc juftified againft the accufation of being finners condemnable by the Law of 
works } ( and here Chrifts fatisfadion is our righteoufnefs ) and net of that 
particular Righteoufnefs whereby we muft be juftified againft the accufation of 
finallBon- performance of the conditiens of the Covenant or Law of grace : For 
there it is the performance of thofe conditions, which muft it fclf be our righteouf- 
nefs, and fo far juftifie us. 

Do6toiTmjfe againft Dodor 'fuckson, pag.687. faith, [ Trt I willingly grant 
that every fin h againft Gods good veill and pleafure, a/i it fignifieth hit pleafure rvbat 
jhall be our dnty to do i vehich « nothing elfe but bis commandment. And it is as trup 
that herein are no degrees j every fin is eqttaUy againft the (Commandment of God.'] I think 
I may with much more evidence of truth and neceftlty, fay it as 1 did of Perfonal 
Gofpel-righteoufnefs, then he can do of finne. And fo much be fpoken of that 

How farre unbelief and impsnitcncj in profejfed Cbriftians are yiolationt 
of the 'I{ew Covenant. 

BJB.\Mr.Bl.pag.i^$.c.ii. doth lay down a Corollary, That Impenitence and 
IVi Unbelief inprofe(fed cbriftians, is a breach of (Covenant. Though I take that 
to be intended as againft me, yet lam uncertain, becaufe he reciteth no words of 
mine. I have no more to do in this therefore bur to clear my own meaning. 
1. The word [Covenant] is fomccimc taken f^r Gods Law made to his crea- 
ture, containing Precepts, Promifes and Thrcatniiigs ; Soaictitjic for mans pro. 
mifetoGod. [Violation] is taken either rigidly for one thatJin judgement is 
efteemsd a »o«performer of the conditions : Orlax'y, (o: one that in judgement 
is found a true performer of the conditions, but did negled or refufc the perfor- 
mance for a time. Taking the w ord [Covcnaii:] in the later fcnfe,I have affirm- 
ed that man breaks many a Covenant with God, ye.i even the Baptifmal vow it 
felf is fo broken,, till men do truly repent and believe. But taking the word 


[ Cevcntm] in the former fenfc, and [Violation] in the ftrifter fenfc^ I fay 
that fo none violate the Covenant but finall unbelievers and impenitent j that 
Is, no other are the proper fubjeds of its peremptory curfe or thrcatning. I 
tkink nat my fclf called to give any further anfwer to that Chapter of Mr. 

R. S.\i|r. B/4te's ji. Chap. I take to be wholly againftme, and though I 
iVlknow nothing in it that I have not fufficiemly aafwcred, either in 

the place of my Book of Baptifm, whence he fetchech my 
ff^Ctber ]ujliffifig words, in the Appendix in the Animadverfionson Doftor 
faith be prercqui' If^iird, or before to Mr. Tombes, yet bccaufe I take it to con- 
lift to B^tijk, tain dodiine of a rery dangerous nature^ I will more fully 

Anfwer it. 

§. 39. 

M'3/. Ch-ix. A Dogmatical faith entitles to Baptifm, 

3.1 T further foUoTPs hy way cf Covfeliary, ihst a T^fgmitical f^ith {oriinirily ciUei 
^by the name of faith Hiftoneal, fuch that affents te ^ofpcl truths, thou:^h not affcciing 
the heart t$ a fall choice of Chrijl, andtherefsre rtas f\)ort of faith vchtchwM jufiifying 
and faving) gives title to 'Baptifm. The Covcjuntis the ground enivhich BaptifmU 
bottomed : ethervfife Church -member fl)ip rvould cvifice vo title, either in infants tr in 
men of years to Baptifm: Butthe Qovenart {tswc haveprevcd) U entered rvith mn 
tf faith not faviug : and therefore to tbem baptifm is to be admiaijired. How the confc' 
quent can be denied by tbofe that grant the antecedent } Baptifm denied in foro Dei, to 
men fhort of faving faith, when they are in Covcuant, I cannot imagine ,- Tet fomc 
xhat covfeJS their interefiinthc (Covenant, deny their title to Baptifm, anda^rm, llfmen 
be once taught that it is a faith, that is Jbort of jnflifying and faving jaiib, which admittctb 
nun to Baptifm,it wiU mah^e foul work in the c hurch- 

§• 19- 
Jl. 3.T)Iifore I give a direft Reply to thefc words, I think it necGflaiy that 
JDl tell youj How farre I take Unregcnerate men to be-in Covenant 
with Godj and how farre not : and that I alfo difcovcr as farre as I can Mr. 
BWie\ minde in^ihis Point j that it may be known wherein the diflPerencc 
lieth. «' 

The [Covenant] is fometimc taken for Gods part alone, fomctime for our 
part alone, fometimefor bothconjund, even for a mutual Covenanting. Asic 
istaken far Gods aft, it fignifieth i. Either fome abfolute promife of God, 
made i. Either to Chrifl concerning men, or on their behalf ( and fo the elcQ; 
inaybefaid to oe in Covenant before they arc born, bccaufe Chrill hath a pro- 
wlfe that they (hall be fared, and the wen-elcft are in Covenant before they are 
born, bccaufe Chrift hath a promife of fome good to them.) 2. Or to men them- 
ftlvcs:* And that is either i. Common, or a. Peculiar to fome. i.Common: 
as the promife made to fallea mankindethat a Saviour [fhould be fent to Rjcdeem 
thetn. The promife made to the people of Jfrnel that the Mcfitah ihould be of 



them accdrding to the fieili, and perfoiiall/ live among ibemj and preach the 
Gofpel to them. The promife made to titib and the world, that the earth fhould 
no more be drowned with water : The promife of preaching the Gofpel to all 
Nations (which is commonj though not abfolutely univerfal :) the promife of 
a Rcfurredion to all the world, and that cheyfhall be judged by Chrifl the Re- 
deemer, and (at leaft thoffl that heard the Gofpel) on the terms of the new 
Law, and not on the TBeer rigorous terms of the Law of entire nature : the pro- 
mife of a fuller and clearer promulgation and explication ^( the Law of grace, 
when Chrift fhould come in the fic(h : the promife of a ftjller meafure of the Spi- 
rit to be poured out, for Miracles to confirm the Chtiftian Doftrineto the be- 
holders, hearers and adors j that there fhall be a Miniftry Commidloned to Di' 
fcipleand Baptize all Nations, maintained to the end of the world (which gives 
Miniilers right and authority to Baptize them s) and jif there be any other the 
like promife of the 'tneitts necejjirilj anteceding faitb. Thus fatre many thoufands 
that are unregenerate, andnon-eled, may befaidtobe in Covenant, that is un- 
der thefepromifes. 1. Someof thefeabfolutcpromifes are peculiar to fome: as 
to one Sex ( though common as to that Sex ) as the mans fupcriority : to one 
Age: to one Degree in order of nativity ( as to the elder brother to have fome 
fuperiority over the younger, Gcn.4.7.) to one Nation, as to the Ifraelitcs were 
made many peculiar promifcs J andthofc before mentioned which I called com- 
mon as to all Jfraelt were peculiar te them (fome of them) in^exdulion of other 
Nations. And fome to particular perfons, good or bad : as for faccefs in bat- 
tell, or other cnterprifes j for avcrfion of fome threatncd judgement j for the 
abating of fome inBi&ed paniHiment $ for fome temporal or common bieiTingi 
of which fort |we finde many particular promifes which God by fome Prophet 
made with particular men. In all tbefe refpeds I fay wicked men have been un- 
der a promife, yea men not eled to falvation : and thus far they may be faid to be 
in Covenant with God. But this is but a tax and improper fpeecb, to fay ( fuch 
arc in Covenant) to be ufed now among Chriftians that have ufed to give the 
name [Covenant] by an excellency, to another thing. Alfo now wicked men 
are not under peculiar perfonal promifes of temporal things, asthen they were, 
becaufe now there are no extraordinary Prophets, or other the like Meflcngers or 
Revelations from God to make fuch particular promifes to men. (Yet I will not 
fay God hath reftrained himfelf from this, or cannot, or will not do it at all, or 
that no man hath fuch Revelations j but only x. That it is not ufual. a. Nor is 
God engaged to do it.) 

So for the abfolute promife of the firft fpecial grace (firft faith and repentance) 
to be given to all the Eledt (luppofing that there is fuch a promife :) this is made 
to none but the ungodly and unregenerate, though eled (unlefs you will fay, it is 
made to Chrift for them, or rather is a predidion of good eventually to be con- 
ferred on them.) 

But though in all thcfe refpeftj wicked men are under a promife, yet it is none 
of all thcfe that gives them right to Bapjifm. There is no qucftion of any but the 
laft : and for that I have proved in my Appendix againft Mv. Bedfori, that it is 
not that Covenant that Baptifm fealeth, Whithecl refer you to avoid Repetition : 
much mote eaiic is it to prove, that it is not that bare promife that gives right to 
Bapcifni. For many are Pagans and Infidels to vvho.n that promife belongs. So 
jpuch for the Abfolute promife.^ 

a. As for Conditional promifes to man, they ace ekhec 

I i I. PCCtt- 

I. Peculiar : a$ extraorclinary prcmiks of temporal b'cflings conditionally 
made to feme particular pcrfons heretofore. Of thefc 1 fay, as of the for- 
mer* Wicked men may be under luch proiuircs j but thcfegivc iwt ri^ht to Ba- 

a. Common: (uch as arc not made to this or that man more then others, but 
to all, at lealt in the tcnour of the giant, thrugb it be not prcmnUate toall. Of 
tbisfort I. Some fuppofc certain promiltsto go before the great Law of 'jracc. 
1, But T yet know not cf any bu: the Law of grace it felf, (anon to be defcirbed.) 
1. Thofethat do fuppofe fome fuch antccedancous prcmile, are of two forts: 
1, The Arminians and Jcfuites. ». Such as Mr. B/^^f about Ghurch-OrdiRan- 
ccs. I. The Jefuites and Arminians fpcak of two fuch common promifcs. 
1. One is of the giving of fupcrnatuial means of Revelation, to men, on condi- 
tion of the right ulcot natural Revelation. As ifG'-dhad promifed to all Hea- 
then and Infidels that never beard of Chrift, that they ftiall hare the Gofpel fcnt 
tbem, if they will ul'e the light of nature well, or wi',1 feck out for the Gofpel. 
1. Thcetherpromifc which they imagine is, that God will give fupernatural or 
fpecial grace (v/^. the firit grace of faith and repentance ) to men, on condition 
they will ufewc'l their common grace and means. I know of no fuch promifeas 
cither of thefe in Scripture ( of which fee ©iucwnrin his Diflcrtation of Uni- 
verfal Redemption.) \Vhenany Arminian will fhew fuch a promife in Scripture, 
we (hall yield. But yet I will tell you how far I yield, i, I yield that God doth, 
aftually give temporal bleffings to wicked men: But thisis no Covenarit or pro- 
mife. Yet it gives them a right to enjoy them ^e ^r«/irBfj while they do enjoy 
tbem 5 fo that it is not found Dodrine of them that fay, Wicked men have no 
right to the creature, in whatfoever they poflefs, and that they are but ufurpers. 
For if you fee one naked in the fttcet, and put him on a garment j he hath right 
to wear that and enjoy it, while you permit him : But yet beeaufe you promifc 
him nothing for the future, he is not certain a moment of the continuance of 
that right or poffefl'ion, for ycu may take it off him again when you will. So 
wicked men have right and poilcfTion of Gods mercies by aftual collation depra- 
fetttiy but not by promise de future, or by fuch proper donation, at givei them 
the full propriety ( for fo God ufeth not to part with the propriety of his creatures 
to any.) 2. I yield that God doth give to Heathens, who hare but naturallight, 
fome helps which have a tendency to their further advancement, and doth appoint 
them certain means to be ufed for the obtaining of a higher light, and that he 
giveth them fufficient encouragement to go on in the chearfull ufe of thofe means, 
jupoflibilitics and probabilities of fucceis i fo that they are unexcufabic that ufe 
them' not. Thefe Mr. CoK6Hca!s half promifcs (as who knows but the Lord 
may do thus and thus ? Twj therefore tf perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may befof 
given theCySi.c.'S But promilca properly they are not. God hath thought meet to 
keep bimfclfdifcngagcd from this fort of men. 3. The very [amcl yield of men 
in the vifible Church ufing common grace, as well as they can : that is, that God 
hath appointed certain means which lucb men are to ufe for the getting of fpccial 
grace: that ihofe that perifli, do julily periih, for not ufing thofe means fo well 
as they could, and fo for not bclceving : that he hath given rhem fuflicieat incou- 
ragcment to ufe fuch means by examples, experiences, the nature of the means, 
and fome half promifes of fuccefs : but no promifc properly fo called. 4. 1 yield 
that he aftually gives faving grace to wicked men : or cKc none could bare it.Biic 
this they can plead no right to before they have it. 


'' a. The fecond fort of prcmifes before the great Covtrtnt of grace, 5$ feigned 
by Mr. BUl{e (and if there be any c; her that go that wayjas feme do, and that wirh 
fome diftcrcnce among ihemfelvrs •) and that is A prcmife of Church-priviledges 
upon condition of a faiih not juftifying or faving. Here feme annex fpecial grace 
tothefe Chuvch-privjledges, and fo fall into the Arminian ftrain. So Dr. fTard 
a^ainft Mr. G<Jt<2^cr, doth make a ccmmon (not-juflifying) faith, the condi- 
tion of Baptilmj and then that Baptifm a means von fsjienti obicem of the certain 
Juftification of all the Baptized, andfo, at leaft, the infant* of all ccmmon pro- 
feflors, baptized, ihouM be certainly juftified. But I finde not Mr. Blalie any 
where owning this connexion of fpecial grace, and efficacy of Baptifm on 
fuch : therefoic 1 fuppofe it is but feme common mercies that he luppofeth this 
promifc to make over to the Baptized. But I will enquire further into his opini% 
on anon. 

X. The common or general promife-conditional, which I acknow'edgc, is the 
new Law of grace, or ot faith, whe.ein God promifeth [to be our God, lo we 
will take him for our God, and will be his people] and [ro give us Chrifland Life, 
if we will accept him as he is offered in the Gcfpcl] or [that he that repen'eth and 
beleeveth, fball be jkU fied and favcd] and he that doth not fball be damned: 
Whereto is alfo annexed, the prcmife of temporal mercies, f«j far as they are gocd 
for us J as appurtenances to the main bltflings of the Covenant. Now 1 will tell 
you how far wicked men arc under this great prcmife or Ccvmant. i. As it is 
a conditional p.omife on Gctis part, or a Law of grace enaded conditionally gi- 
yicgChrift and Life to al! men, fo All men are urder itj or the fvbjcds of it: 
that is, Ail the whole world, as tothe tencur of the Law of grace, following the 
mcer inching 3 and all that hear the Gofpel, as totbe p'cmulgation. i. So as 
it hath a pitccpt conjund, iccuiring thtni to believe andirpentlor rcmifficn and 
falvation,fo all are under it, that hear it. 3. So rrcthcy as to the annexed threat- 
ning upon their urbcliefai'd impenitency. 4. So 3$ the Pieschcis of theGcfpel 
do by Commiflion from Chrift, apply all this m them, ard 'nt: tat them, byname 
torepent and believe, and cftcr them Chrift and the ether benefis of the Cotc- 
nant, if they will rtpent and believe > fo wicked n,(n are liil! under the prtn'.ifeor 
Covenant, as to the Ntinciativc offers nnd cxfortaricn«, which is feme what mf re 
ihenameer Prcmulgation of it as a Law. All thcfewaies, orinthefc refptds, 
I yield that wicked men, or unregenerate men, maybe under prcmife, or Gods 
Covenant. But thisis not ftriftly to [ bein Ccvnant :] nor i$ this it that the 
right of Baptifm bclrngs to; For all this btlrnj;s not only to *Tagafis, but 
even to ohjnvate Pagavs that pcrfccute this GofpeT, and draw cut the blood of 
thofcthat thits lYeachit to them : whom I fuppofe, few Divines judge meet fub- 
jeds for Baptifm. 

And thus we have fpoken of Gods aft in the corditicnal prctrife. before the 
condition be perfornicii by man., and fobefore Gndspromife do sflually conferre 
right to the (inner. As for the aft of Gods Ccyenant afterwards, I ftiail fpeak of 
it anon. 

». Having faid thus much of Gods aft of p-cmife or Covenant, andfeenhow 
far the wicked may be laid to bt under that prcmile or C< vcnart, we muft next 
cenfiderof their own prcmife to Gcd, or the aft of Cover an' ing on their own 
part. Mans Covenanting With Gcd, or his en:ring the Covenant of God pro- 
pounded to him, is either i. to te ccrfidercd in lefpcft of the efficient ; i.orof 
theobjcft. As to the cfiiciem, it isfeither 1. The aftofthe whckman, J.f. of 

I }, raindg 


minde and body i z. Or of part only : and tha: x, cicher of the minde alone : 
i. or of the outward man alone, x. Objcdirely confidcred, it is either i. A 
true proper confcnt agreeable to the formall objcd ( or to the objcft in its abfo- 
liiteneceflaryrefpeds and nature.) z. Or it is an iaipcrfcd confent, analogi- 
cally or equivocally called [Covenanting] when it is not fuited to the formill 
nature of the objcd. Thiserrour is i. About theobjeft fimply in it felf con- 
sidered, i. About the objcd comparatively confidered : as God compared with 
tha creature. And both or cither of chefe errours is i. Either in the iatelled: 
when it doth not underhand the nature oftheobjed, and Gods terms on which 
only he offer* his blefTings j or at Iea{l doth not pradically underhand it> buc 
fpcculatively only. x. Or of the Will: when it doth not really confent to the 
objedj and terms of Godj though they be undciLlood,at leaft/pecalatively. 3. Or 
it isj both the errour of the under ftandine and the will. 

Having thus neceflarily diftinguilhedj I will lay down in thefe Condufionj, 
how far man is in Covenant with God as to his own ad. i. Man may oblige 
himfclf by Vows to particular duties, that are not of the I'ubftance of the Cove- 
nant, and yet be wicked, i. Yea maa may oblige himfelf to things indift'erent, 
and forae think to evil, as "fcpths, fo far as to cnfnare himfelf in a neceflity of 
finning, whether he perform it or not. j. That which God rcquireth of man 
on his part, asa neceffary condition, to his right in the benefits proraifed by Godj 
and that God may be, as it were, obliged adually to man, is the fmcarc refolved 
confent ofthe Heart or Will. 4. Yet he requireth for fcveral reafons, that the 
external profeffionofconfent be added, where there is capacity and opportunity. 
%. God doth as abfolutely require to our participation of his bleflings, and thac 
his Covenant may be in force adually to give us right to them, and he, as it were, 
obliged to give us the things promifed, that we underftand the ablolutely necef- 
fary part ouhe objed of our confent, or acceptance } and that with a pradical 
knowledge. 6, As abfolutely doth he require that we do really confent according 
to that pradical underflanding. 7. It iselfentialto God aa the objcd of mans 
faith, to be his fupream Lord and Redor as Creator, and his ultimate end and 
chiefeft good : and fo mud he be apprehended and willed by all that indeed take 
bim for their God : as alfo to be perfcd in Being, Wifdom, Goodnefs and Power, 
and of perfcd Veracity. 8. It is effential to Chrift as the objed of our faith, 
to be God-man, that in our nature hath Ranfomed us, by the Sacrifice of himfelf 
ontheCrofsfor uj, and Died, and Rofe again, and is now Afcended in Glory 
with the Father, and is Lord of us all, and will Judge according to his Word to 
Everlaflingjoy or Punifhinent. 9. It is eflentialto the objed of our faith, as 
fuch, to be confidered comparatively. As that God be taken not only as our 
good, but our chief Good, to be preferred before every creature : that hs be taken 
not (Jnly as our Lord, but as Sovereign Lord, to be obeyed before all other : that 
Chrift be taken for our only Saviour, and for our Lord-Redeemer, to be alfo 
obeyed before all creatures; particularly before and againft the devil, the flefti, 
and the world, la. Where thefe eflentials are not in the apprehenfion ofthe 
objed, there is not truly the confent, or faith, or covenanting which God hath 
made the condition of his Promife } and therefore fuch are faid (as tothe Faith^ 
Confent and Covenant fo required ) but equivocally or analogically to Confent, 
Covenant or Believe : when truly and properly it is to be faid, that they do not 
Confent or Covenarxr. Confent hath relation to the oSa : and if it be not the 
off«:ced thing (bat is confentcd tO) but fomewhit eife under chat nanie^ then it is ' 


not indeed Confem : for there is no Relate without its Correlate* Covenanting 
( in the prefent fenfc) implies Gods propounded Covenant and terms. For our 
cntring the Covenant, is not a Making of terms, but an Accepting of the terms 
made to our hands and tendered ( with a command to accept them.) Now if we 
donotconfent to the fame terms propounded, it is truly no Accepting, nor no 
Covenanting : For God never offered to enter into Covenant on fuch terms, and 
that which was never offered, cannot be properly accepted j nor can we Covenant 
with God in a mutual Covenant, on terms contrary to thofe which he propoun- 
ded. The Civil Law faith, Igncnntis noneftConfenfui. A God that is inferiour 
to creatures in Rule, or in Goodnefs and Delirablenefs, is not God indeed. And 
therefore he that takes God in this fenfc for his God, takes but the Name of God, 
and not God himfelf, but an Idol of his brain. A Chrift that is only a Juftificr 
and not a King and Governour, is not the Chrift that is offered us of God j and 
therefore no man is called to accept fuch a Chrift. To erre therefore about the 
veryefTenceoftheObjeft, asfuch, is to null the Ad, ic can be noConfent or 
Covenantor Acceptance truly at all, but equivocally only. ii. The fame may 
be faid of counterfeit Covenanting, when it is only crctentu, with the mouth and 
not the heart, ii. Yet may an oral counterfeit Covenanting oblige the party 
to the duty promifed (in our cafe) though it give him no right to the benefit offer- 
ed, nor ii God as it were obliged to perform his Covenant to fuch. ij. The 
like may befaidof the forefaid equivocal erroneous Confenting, Accepting, Co- 
venanting. If the crrour be through the fault of the man hirafclf, his ad may ob- 
lige himlelf, though God remain difobligcd, and though he have no right to the 
thing promifed by God. Thus much I thought meet to fay,for the cpcning of that 
branch of the Queftion, How far men unregenerate may be in Covenant, as to 
their own aft. 

But the great Queftion is yet behind. Whether thefe men be in Covenant with 
God, as to Gods adual engagement to them : fo far as that Gods prcmifeisin 
force for conveying aftual right to them as to the promifed bleflings ? and fo whe- 
ther it be a mutual Covenant, and both parties be adiially obliged ? And thus I 
fay that wicked men are not in Covenant with God, that is, God is not in Cove- 
nant with them ; Neither have they any right to the main bleflings given by the 
Covenant, vi\. Chrift, Pardon, Juftification, Adoption, Glory : Nor yet to the 
common bleflings of this Covenant, for they are given by the fame Covenant 
and on the fame conditions as the fpecial bleflrings : So that though they may have 
right to them at prefent on the ground of Gods prefent collation, or truftingthem 
with them (asafervant hath in his Mafters ftock) yet have they no right by 
Covenant." For it is Godlincfs that hath the promife of this life, and of that 
tocomCj as being the condition of both > and it is feeking firft Gods Kingdom 
and RighteoufncTs, that is the condition on which other things ffiall be added to 
us. The fame holds of Church-priviledges and Ordinances quoad po(feJ[i»nem not 
proper to the faithfull. 

So that in theconclufion, I fay, that though wicked men have manypromifcs 
from God, efpecially the great conditional promife of Life, if they will repent 
and believe J and though they arc alfo obliged by their own imperfcft, equivocal 
Covenanting with God j yet God remaineth ftill unobliged to them, and they 
have no adual right to the benefits of his promife} becaufe they have not perfor- 
med the condition of their fiilt right, that iSjhave not Covenanted truly with Godi 
«r cntrcd the Covenant which he propounded } having net confenicd to his terms, 



nor xccep'cd Cbvift and Life as offered in the Gofp^l : Aad therefore h is the moft 
proper Ua^ui^c to Uy, tha: none but lincere belecvcrs are in Coveninc with God ; 
Fortherclt liavc bat equivocally Covenanted with God, and God no: ad-ially 
engaged in Covenant svi:h -.hem (for while the condition is unperformed there 
is no actual obli^aaon oa the promiies) and lo it is no proper mutual Covenant. 
And confcqucntly thcle mea in proper Itrid fcnfe, arc no true ChrilUans, but 
analogically only. 

Yetbccaufe we have no accefs to their hearts, and therefore muft judge of the 
heart by the profcflTion aixd outward figncs, therefore we muft ju jge thefe probably 
to Covenant with the h^arc, who do profefs :o do fo with the tongue i andthofe 
to Covenant cndrely and wi.hout erroar in the elfentials, whoprofel's fo to do : 
and therefore we muft juige them probably to be true Chriltians, and truly godly 
men (till they re:rad that profeffion by word or deed ;) and therefore we muft 
judge them p:obably to be truly in Covenant with God, and fuch as Gad is, as ic 
were, obliged to juftifie : and therefore we muft give them the name of Chrifti- 
ans, and men in Covenant with God : and therefore we muft ufe them as Chri- 
ftians in works of charity, and in Ordinances, and Church co.n.nunion : and 
To muft ufe their children as C^riftians children. The warrant for this ufage and 
Judgement, 1 muftdefire the Reader to take notice of, in what I have written to 
M' T«mbes Ob)cA'iot\s on iCor.j.i^- and to Dr. /furi, and againft WXombet 
Prccurfor more fully : For to repeat all here again would be tedious and unnecef- 
fary. When Chrift faith to us, llfi Brother repent, forgive him^ here by [Repen- 
ting] doth Chrift mean plainly Kepemng, or the profcrtianof it ? No doubt, 
repenting it felf. Why, but how can we that know not the heart, know here when 
out Brother repenteth ? Will M:.B/. fay therefore that none is obliged to forgive ? 
Ra:her we know that man muft jud-;e him to repent that profelTeth fo to do : and 
therefore forgive him that profeflech it. No: becaufe profeffing was the aftigned 
requifite condition : but a fign of that condition: and therefore we are to accept 
of noprofeffion, but what probably fignifieth true repentance. Forifwcknewa 
nsandiflembled, or jeered us in profeffing repentance, we arc not bound to do by 
him as a penitent. So God commandcth us tolove and honour them that fcac 
the Lord, that are faithful!, that love Q\\t\^,(3'C' But we know not who thefe be : 
Ace we therefore difobligcd from loving and honouring them ? Or will Mr. S/. 
fay that we muft not honour them, left we miftake and give that honour to one 
that hath no right to it ? ( as he faith about the Sacrament ; herein joynlng with 
t/it.Tunhcs.) Thofe that profefs to fear God and love him, we muft love and ho- 
nour as men that do feat and love him : yet in difFerent degrees, as thefignes of 
theirgraccs are more or Icfe propable. In fome common profefliag Chriftians, 
we fee but fmall probability : yet dare we not exclude them from the Church, nor 
the number of true believers, as long as there is any probability: Others that are 
more judicious, ieaious,diligeat, and upright of life, we have far ftronger probabi- 
lity of j and therefore love and honour them much more. 

Mr. B/j^c therefore in my judgement had done better, if, with that moderate. 
Reverend, G»dly man ^'c. Stephen MirJhJill , he had diftinguilhed betwean 
thefe two Queftions, [Who are Chriftians or Church-members ?] and [Whom 
are we te judge fach and ufe as fuch ?] and to bring in the unregenerate in the later 
rank only. 

N^'xt we are to fee what is Mr. Blik.es judgement herein, that we may not argue 
againft him before vre underftand: which yet I think I Ihall in fome meafure be 


forced to do, or fay nothing, i. I finde it very hard to underftand what perfon* 
they be that he takes to be in Covenant : x. And as hard to underflani what Co- 
venant he means. For the firft, 1 findc it clear that negatively he means, They arc 
not truly Regenerate pet Tons, but Pofuively how they muft be qualified I finde 
not fo clear. Tog. 189. he laitb it was with ail that bore the name of Ifrsel (which 
^ no further true then I have laid down in the former Conclu(ions) fo that it may 
feem that he takes all to be in Covenant that bear the name of Chriftians. What? 
thoUjjh they know not what Chrift or Cki iilianity is ? l& taking a name, entering 
into Covenant ? The post Indansihn by thoufands are forced by the SpAHtirds to 
be baptized, are faid to know fo little what they do, that fome of them ferget the 
name of [a Chrilfian] which they aflumcd. 

Piig.i^z. he laitb [All profeffed Chriftians, focallcd, are in an outward and 
finglc Covenant] r.VVhat ? thofe that are called profefled Chriif ians,3nd are not? 
No: fure that's not the meaning ;elfe mens mifcalling might put them in Cove- 
nant. It is then thofe that are fo, and are called fo: But will it not ierve, if they 
are fo, unlefs called io ? 2. He means either thofe that profefs the name of Chri- 
ftianity, orthe Thing. Of the infufficiency of thefirfl, I fpokebeforc. For the 
fecond, ifthey profeCs the whole EUcncc of Chriftianity undillcmbledly, I think 
they are truly Regenerate. Ifthey profefs but part (as to the Matter both of Af- 
fent and Confcnt, of which I fpoke before in the Conclufions, and which we have 
in this County lately fet down in our Profeflion of Faith^ then it is not Chritlia- 
nity which they profefs : for part of the effence is not the Tiling : where an ellen- 
tial part is wanting, the form iiabfent. If it be the whole matter of Chriftianity 
that is profclled, but Diflembledly j then as he is equivocally or analogically a Be- 
liever or Chriftian, folyicldhe iiamember ofthc Vifible Church, which fo fat 
St it is only Vifible^ is equivocally called 'JThe Church : of which I have tullicr 
fpoken in Anfwer to M' Tembcs Pracurfor. I know M' B/.thinks, that there may 
bean undiffemblcd Profeflion, which yet may not be of a faving Faith. But then 
I yet conceive it is not an entire Profeflion of the whole elfential objed of Chrifti- 
an faith, vii^. of AfTent and Confent. It will be a hard faying to many honeil 
Chriftians to fay, that a man not juftified may believe every fundamental Article, 
and withall truly profefs Repentance of all his fins, and to Take God for his So- 
TcraigntoRule him, and his chief Good to be enjoyed to his happinefs > and to 
take Chrift for his Lord and only Saviour, and bis Word for his Law and Rule, 
and the holy Ghoft for his Guide and Sandifier, and the reft which is eUcmial to 

Pag.ipt. He faith of all that externally make Profeflion (Thefe engage them- 
felves upon Gods terms.] But ifthey do fo fincerely they are fincere Chriftians : 
If not fincerely, they arc but equivocally Chriftians. Some think that in the 1 1'''' 
Chapter of the 3'^ part of my book of Reft, I gave too much to an unregenerate 
eftate : and yet I think there is nothingcontrary to this that I now fay. Hcthac 
profeflcth not to prefcrre God and the Redeemer before all other things, prottikth 
not Chriftianity : and he that profcfleth this and lieth not,is a Regenerate juftified 

^Pag.ioo. he defcribcth his unregenerate Chriftians to be fuch [as Accept the 
terms ofthc Covenant.] And this none doth indeed but the fandified. IfMr.B/. 
will fay, that the unregenerate may doit, he will make them true believers : For 
what is true faith but an Accepting of Chrift and his Benefits on the Covenant 
terms ? Though I confcfs others may falfly fay, they Accept him. 

^ag.iio. he faith [Laws rcndred by a Prince, and received by a People, make 
up the Relation of King .n-.d pccplc (yet indeed, that's not true, for it is the Re- 
ceiving the man to be our King which is antecedent to the receiving his Laws,that 
makes the Relation.) A marriage Covenant tendred by a man, and accepted ky a 
Vi-gin, makes up the Relation of Husband and Wife: Covcnanr draughts be- 
tween man and man for fervice,make up the Relation of Maftcr and ScrvamrNow 
the Gofpel Covenant is all of thefe between God and a People.] Rep. The Ac- 
cepting Chrift in this Covenant is true Juitifying Faith : If an unregcneratc man 
have this indeed, thenheis jullified, and Faith and Juftification are common 
things, which I will not believe. If Mr.B/. mean that the external profcflion of 
this Acceptance, alone, doth make up the Relation, I fay, as before. It may ob- 
lige the Profcffour, but makes not up the Relation of Real Chriilians, becaufc 
God conlenicth not, nor is adually in Covenant and obliged. The differences 
Mr. B/.muft take notice of, between his humane Covenants, and ouri with God, 
or eh'c he wiil marre all. Men know not one anothers hearts, and therefore make 
not Laws for hearts, nor impofe Conditions on hearts : and therefore if both par- 
ties do profcfs Confent, though diflemblingly, they are both obliged, and the Co- 
venant is mutual. But God offers to Confent, only on Corrdition thit our hearts 
Confent to his terms J and therefore if we profefs Confent, and do not Confenr, 
God Confenteth not, nor is, as it were obliged. 

Next Mr. B/. proceeds there to tell us^ that the Accepting the Word preached, ig 
the note of the Church. But that is a more lax ambiguous term then the former. 
Some call it an accepting the Word, when they a e content to hear it : Some when 
they fpeculatively believe the truth of it. Thefe are no true notes of true ChrilH- 
ans, or Chuichcs (in the firft fenfeof the word Church.) O hers Accept but 
part of that word, which is the nccefiaiyobjeft of Faith, ofwhom the like may 
be faid. It is the Accepting Chrift and Life in him, offered by this werd, which 
isChriftianity it felf, or true Faith; and the profefllion of this, is that which 
makes a man a Member of the Vifiblc Church fHe may accept it for his Infants 
alfo.) So much for thcindagationof Mr. B/'$ meaning about the delcription of hi« 
vifible Chrifiians. 

N«xr, what he means by [Covenant] I confefs I defpair of knowing. Sometime 
he fpeaks as if he meant it but of their own ad of Covenant, whereby they ob- 
lige themfelves. But ordinarily,it is evident,that he fpeaks of a mutual Covenant, 
and makes God-to be alfo in Covenant with them. But what Covenant of God is 
this? Pag. 1^1. He faith [they are in an outward and fingle Covenant-] But 
what he means by a fingle Covenant,! know not. He there alfo chooleth to txprefs 
himfelf in Taricwj words, who dilHnguifheth inter beveficii feeder k (which he deni- 
eth thein_J and ^us foederis fwhich he allowech them.) But I tonfcfs I know not 
what ^usfcederis is, except one of thefe two things : t.A Right toen er Covenant 
with Chriff : and fo have Infidels, z. Or a Right to the Benefits promifcd in the 
€ovenant : and thishcdcnicth thcra. Ifhcmeancth (as Far »« leems) a Right 
to beefteemed as Covenanters, andufed as Covenanters, by ihc Ghurcli ('though 
indeed God is not in Covenant with them) this we eafily grant. 

But Mr. 2ii's common phrafe is, that they are [in the outward Covenant] and 
what that is, 1 cannot tell. I know what it is to covenant ore »«««, only outwardly, 
or by a dillembled proftfrion,or elfea profeffion maimed,or not underftood j and I 
have faidjthat hereby they may further oblige themfelves (io far as the creature can 
be faid to oblige it fcif, who is not fui fwH, but wholly Gods; and is unJer h'.s ab- 


folutc obligation already.) But it is Gods Covenant aft that we are cni^ulring af- 
ter. In what fenfe is that called Outward ? i. It cannot be as if God did as the 
diflembling creature, ore tt%m, with the mouth only covenant with them, and not 
with the heart, as they deal with him : 2, I know therefore no poffiblc fenfe bui 
this, that it is called [Our ward] from the Bleflingspromifed which are outward. 
Here therefore, 1. I fhould have thought it but reafonablefor Mr.B/.to have told. 
«s what thole outward Blcflings ave that this Covenant piomifeth. i. That he 
would have proved out of Scripture that God hath fuch a Covenant, diftinft front 
the Covenant of Grace, which pmmirethjuliification and Salvation, and having 
Other Conditions onour patt.For b-Jth theft 1 cannot finde what outward blcflings 
he means but Church Ordinances and Piivi!edgcs. Tlirfe confilt in the WordjSa- 
cramentSjPiayerjDifcipline. For the \Void,God oft beitowcth it on InfidclSjand in 
'EngUniihtit are men that deride the truth of "-criptu'Cjaud cftecm ii a htbonjand 
yet for credit ot menjCome ordinarily to the Congregation. Thefc have the Word 
given thcm^and lo have other unregenerate men ; but not by Covenant that 1 know 
of. Even the godiy have no Covenant alluring them that for the future they fliall 
enjoy the Word, furthcrthcn it is in their hearts (txctpt that promife wih a le- 
ferve. If God lee ir Goodjfir'f.j Where hathGod faid. If thou wilt with th/ 
mouth profefs to believe,! will give thee my Word preached ? z. For Baptifm, It, 
IS part of ourprofefTionit felf. And though God hath commifiloncd us to Baptize 
fuch profeffours and their feed, yet that is not a Covenant with them : Nor do I 
know where God faith, I will give thee Baptifmjil- thou wilt but fay,thou bclicveft, 
or if thcu wilt profefs ferioufly a half faith: Muic ftiall be faid againft this anon. 
3. For the Lords Supper the fame may be faid. God hath no wheie made a Cove- 
nant, that they fhall have the Lords Supper that wi!l piofcfs faith. To feign God 
to make a Covenant with man,whofe condition Hiall be oral! profeflion,3nd whcfc 
Bleflingpromifed, is only the nudum figmm, a little water to waftimen, and a little 
biead and wine, without that Chrilt, and Remifllon of lin, Moi.tificati<m and 
Spiritual Life, which thefc Sacraments are in their Inftitution appointed to figni- 
fie, feal and exhibit, this is, I think agroundlcfs and prefumptuous couifc. 4-The 
fame may be faid of Difciplinc : which alas few Churches do enjoy. I dclire there- 
fore that thofe words of Scripture may be produced where any fuch outward Co- 
venant is contained. I take outward Ordinances and other blcffings to be a ftccnd 
part of, or certain appurtenances to the bkfllngs of the great Covenant of Grace, 
and given by Covenant onthe fame coridition(ortrue faith) as Jullification it felf 
is : but allowed or given by Providence, where and when God pleafeth, and fome- 
time to Infidels that never made profcfficn, as to fome of them (the Word and 
temporal merci.s) and not alfurcd by promife to any ungodly man, that hom Pro- 
vidence receivcth them. 

At laft, after this neceffary explication, I come to Mr.B/'s words which I pro- 
pounded to Reply to. And firft, when he faith \_\ dogmatical faith cntitleth to 
Baptifm] I reply, i. A mecr Dogmatical, Hiitorical fai:h, is only in thcun.'er- 
ftanding ; and that not Pradicnl neither. New if this be the contrition of the 
outward Covenant, then it may confilt witha P..tnouncing Chrift, and open dil- 
claiming himjVea a perfecuting the veiy Chiidian name : For a man may fpecu- 
lativcly and flcightly believe the word of God to be true, and yet mav open'y pro- 
fefs [I love the world, and my plcamre, and honour, fo much better then Chrift, 
that 1 am refolved ] will be no Chrillian, nor be baptized, nor take Chrift on the 
terms that he is o^'ercd en.] At kaft, he that profclVeth Aflewt only, and will not: 

K X profefs. 

profefs confcnt alfo, doth not profcfs Chriftianity: For Chrirtianity and true faith 
licth in the VVilscoiifentjas well asthe underlbndings A (Tent. z. And how can 
Mr-B/ call this Dogmatical faith, a covenanting ? wnen covenanting it known to 
hethecxpreflioii otthe VViU confentjand not the profeflion of an opinion. 3. If a 
Dogmatical faith be the condition^ and make a man a Chrillianj then he may be a 
Chrillian a^ainft hii Will : which was yet never affirmed. 

ButMr55/.in his explication of this Dogmatical faith, addcth by wayofexdu- 
fion [though not affeding the heart to a fi^ll choice of Chrill.] Where he fccms to 
imply (though heexpicl'sit not) chat the faith which he meanuh doth affed the 
heart to a choice of Chrift which is not full. But if fo, then i. It is much more then 
AiTent, orameer Hillorical Dogmatical faith. 1. But is the choice which he in-» 
timateth Real, as to the Aft, and fuited to the Objed ? That is, the real choice of 
fuch a Chiiftas is ofiered,and on fuch terms ?Ifro,it isjuftifyingfaith. Ifnot, ei- 
ther it is counterfeit as to the Ad, or but nominal as to the Objed,and is indeed 
oochoofing of Chrift. Though perhaps, it may not be fuited 10 the Accidentals 
of the objed, y«: to the Eilentials it mufl,or elle it hath but equivocally the name 
as a corps hath the name of a man. 

He faith, [The Covenant is the Ground of Baptifm, otheewile Church-mem- 
berihip would evince no Title, Gr'c-] Repl. i. I take Gods precept to be the 
Ground of Baptifm, as it is offictum a Duty, both as 10 the baptixer and the bapti- 
sed ; and his Promife, or his Covenant Gram, to be the G:ound of mens Right 
to it, as it is a Benefit given diredly by God ; and their own true confcnt, faith or 
covenanting (which with me are all one, for all that you fay againft it) to be the 
condition of tiiat Right. But then I think that in foro EccUfia a difjiemblcr may 
claim that Right which flridly he hath not, and wemuft grant him what he claims 
when he brings a Probable ground of his claim ; And in that it i> Minifters duty 
to Baptize fuch, they rray indiredly, and quoid Ecclefiiim be faid to have Right to 
be Baptiied. 1 lay Indiredly, yea and improperly : for ic is not the rcfult of Gods 
Covenant Grant to them i but of his precept to his Minifters, and his Inftrudi- 
ons, whom they ought to Baptize. 

2. I argued from Right of admiflion to Church-memberrtiip, withMcT. and 
that Right I take the heart-covenant (of Parent or parties themfelves) to be the 
condition of, as to the Invifible Church-ftatc, and the ProfefTion of that Cove- 
nant, not alone, but joyned with it, to be the condition of true Right before God 
to Vifible-memberfliip ; though men are but to ufe him as one thac hath true 
Right, who by an hypocritical profefTion feems to have Ri^h:. 
, Where he takes me 10 grant his Antecedent, that [the Covenant is cntred with 
Oiea of faith not faving] be doth me wrong : For in the properclt ftiofe {i.e. as if 
Mfk^ were adually, as it were, obliged to fuch, in the Covenant of Grace, I never 
^b^ it : ^^^^ how tar fuch are in Covenant or under promife, I have by neceflary 
ailiindion explained before : and I think it befeems not a ferious Treatife of the 
Covenants, wherein this Queftion is fo largely of purpofe handled to have con- 
founded thofe feveral confidcrations, anddifpute lo fcrioufly before the Reader 
can tell about what. 

The words which Mr.B/.qaeftioneth, I confefs are mine, againft Dr. /fW, 
and I did not think in fo groi an opinion Dz.WAfi would have found any fecond 
to undertake that caufe. 




S. 40. 
Mr. Bl. I. 

ALL that hdth been faidfor the latitude of the Covemnty may fitly be ap~ 
flyed in oppoficion to this Tcnm, for the 10^6 latitude ef Baptifm, 

§. 40. 

K, B, nPHcrcfore did I fay the more of rhc Covenant before, to fticw your con- 
* fufion and miftake in that. It is not every Covenant or Promilc 
that Baptifm is the Seal af . 

§. 41. 

Mr. Bl. ALL the ^bfurdities foliomng the re^raint of the CovenAnt to the 
^* Eli^yt» men of faith favingandjufiifyingy foUorv upon this re- 
fitaint ef intcrcfi in Baptifm, 

§. 41. 

X. B, rW7Hat Abfurdicics follow fuch a reftralntof it to found believers, as I 
have aflcrtcd, I fhouJd be willing to know , though with fome labor I 
fearched for it. Bear with me therefore, while I examine what you refer mc to. 
It ispag. 20^. where you charge thofc Abfurdities. And the lirfl is this, i. Thii 
vefiiiciwn of the Covenant (tofl)iiteHtatlthcno?i-rcgcnciate) maizes an utter con- 
fu(ion bctveceu the Covenant itfclf and the conditions of it : or ( if the cxprcfiion d» 
not plcafc ) the Covcnam it fe!f und the duties rcqutredin it-., between out entrance 
into Co^<^^^nt, andourobfcrvaiionofit,orv.-'aH(mgupinfaithfuhKfsto it. All l^novf 
that a bargain for a fumme of money ^ and the payment of that fumme % the covenant 
with afcivantfor labor ^ and the labor according to this covenant j arc different things, 
Faithful men tiuit mai^e a bargain, l^ccp it ; enter covenant^and fiand to it : But the 
malting and l^eeping ; the entering and obferving are not the fame ; and now actor dm^ 
t$ thii opinion. Regeneration u our entrance into Covenant , and Regeneration I'ifiur 
peeping of Covenant ; bef$re Regeneration we mal^e no Covenant , after Regeneration 
jve brcati no Covenant, there is no fuch thing as Covcnam-breal^ing. . ^U this maizes 
nn utter confufionin the Covenant. 

Reply I. 1 have feldom met with a complaint of confufion j, more unfeafontJ- 
bly, where the guilt of it in the plaintiffe is fo vifible as to marr all the work 
fo much. a. I cannot give my judgment of the intolerablencfs and great 
danger of your miftake here manifefted, without unmanncrlinefs. I will there- 
fore fay but this 3 It is in a very weightie point , neer the foundation, where- 
in to erre, cannot be fafc. In my Aphorifms 1 gave my realons (pag.zi$) for 
the contraric. It is a truth fofar beyond all doubt, that our own Covenanting is a. 
ffincipal part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace, as that it is, in other 
terms agvcat partof thcfubftanceof thcGofpel. i. The conditions arc im- 

Aa pofcd 


pofcd by God, and to be pcrfoitncd by us ; the fame aft therefore is called thv 
f6W^/ifi</?.'5 rsilic pcrfoimti.^, and Getis crnditicns ss the Impoftr and Promifcr , 
giving his bkfliiigs cnely on thclc impofcd conditions. Mcft proper Jy thty arc 
called the condiiiors of Gcds Covenant or Promilc, rather then of ours : for 
our own Piomilc is the fiift pait of ihcm, and otir performance of that Pro- 
mifc but a feccndaiy part. tori. Gods Covenant is n free gift of Chiift wrf 
Life t9 the n'oilficn ctndit/en of their ^Icccptcfcc: ihis oui Divines againft ihc 
Papiflson the Doftiinc of n-.crir, hr.ve lulJy proved. Onely this Acceptance 
nnift have thele neccflaiy modifications, which may conftiiuic it futable to the 
quality of the cbjift, nnd Ibtc of the receiver. It muft be a Loving, Thank- 
iuil Acceptance : and it being ihc Acceptance of a Soveraign, and Sanftificr, it 
crniains a Refolution to obey him. Our Acceptance, or Confcnt, is our Cove- 
nantirg, and cur (aiih. So thai cui Covenanting with Chrift, and our faith is 
ihc feme ihir g : thai is, our accepting an offered Saviour on his terms : Or a 
Confcnt that he be ours and we his on his terms. And who knows not that 
this Faith, or Covenanting, or Conknt,is the condition by us to be performed, 
that we may have right to Chrift and Life offered? 3. Indeed ibcrc is here- 
with joyncd a piomife for future duty : but mark I. whati 1. and to what end j 
I . It is principally but a prcmife of the fame confcnt to be continued, which wc 
already give : and jcccndarily, a prcmife ot fincere obedience. ^. It is not 
that thcic future promifcd tfts fliall be the condition of our firft Juftification, or 
right to Chrift j but onely the condition of the continuance of our Juftification, 
it being certainly begun, end we put into aftateof favor and acccptance,meerly 
en cur 6tft confcnt or covcnantirg, that is, believing or receiving Chrift. 

That all this is no ftrangc thing, ( that cur own Covenant Ad ftiould be al- 
fo the Primal y condition of Gods Covenant)may appear by your fore mentioned 
Jjmilitudcs, and all other cafes, wherein fuch Relations are contraftcd. If a 
King will offer his Son in marriage to a condemned woman and a beggar, on 
ccndition that ftjc will but have him, that is conlcnr, and fo covenant and marry 
him : here her covenant!) g, confentiiig or marryir g him, is the performance of 
the condition on her part, tor obtainri g her fii ft Right in him and his : but for 
the continuance of that Right, is further rcquifitc, Primarily the continuance of 
that confcnt ; fccondarily the addition of fuhjedion and marriagc-faithfulnefs. 
Yet though confcnt begun, ai.d confcnt continued, be both called confcnt, and 
arc the fame thir g, it is only the beginning that is called marriage : fo is it only 
begun faith, which is our marriage with Chrift, and conftitutcs us Regenerate, 
01 converted. And therefore you do not well to talk of •7vf^<^»fi'vr/ioa bcitJg the 
kjepifig of our Covenant. If by Kcginerat'ion you mean not Gods Aft, but our re- 
penting and believing, ihenit is our keeping Gods Covenant,by ptrformingthc 
condition, i. e. Our obeying him in entering his Covenant j but it is not the 
keeping ofour own Covenant: for our making or entering Covenant, is our 
principal condition, on performance whereof we are juftified j yet in fo doing, 
we promife to continue that confcnt or faith : and fo the continuance is our Co- 

As for your inftances of the Covenant of paying money, and doing work, had 
I ufcd fuch inftances, what fliould I have heard from thofe men that already 
charge me with giving too much to works in Juftification ? you fliould have con- 
fidered, that our Covenant i. is not principally to pay, and to labor, butto 
'>ec€»vc. a, Tioiisiiondy defuthro, hui de prtefmi ; A confcnt to hare Chrift 



for our Lord, Redeemer, Saviour , Head and Husband In prcfcnt and for tij« 
time ro tome , though the very relation confentcd to, doth indeed oblige us to 
the future duties of that Relation. By this time, 1 leave it to the Reader to 
judgc,who it is ihat introduceth confufion about the Covenant, and whether this 
bean error of the lower Ilze > 

As for that you addc, that then there is no Covcnant-hreal^ing;! Reply, i,^iiaad 
effcutiam^ p0fsibilitatcr»ihcvQ IS. i. ^oadi'xifiejiiiam, there is a breakuigof 
meer Verbal and of Erring halt Covenants, But if you think that found Cove- 
nanting may be utterly broken, then you arc againft the tcrtaintie of pcrfcve- 
rancc. As for the texts you cite, I fay i . The Ifraelircs broke Gods commands, 
which a re called his Covenants, z. They broke their particular Covenants, a- 
boutretorming Idolacric and fuch particular fins. 3. They broke their Verbal 
and equivocal Covenant 01 Pronufe to God , wheicby they feemed to Accept 
him on his tcrms,but did not; and therefore had not hii. obligation again to them, 
but yet thereby obi ged themfelTCs. 

Your I. Ablurdicic ]s,ih2t then there arc no Hypocrites, Reply, Rather, Then 
all unrcgmeratc piofijjors arc Hypocrites. They pretend meerly to real proper Co- 
venanting, and they do Covenant but Verbally , and equiyocally. Your An- 
fwers to the objc ft ion therefore, pr^. iii, -ii. have not the Icaft ftrcngth , 
where you fay, The Covenant which they enter is their pretence for God i I 
Reply , they do therefore but pretend to take God for their God , which is tht 
proper Covenanting. How clfe could you next fay, that they arc guilticof hy- 
pocrifie ;• Doubclels they had hypoctifie as well in entering the Covenant, as 
after in pretending to ftand to ic. Is it not you rather, that confequentially (ay , 
There is no Hypocrites (among thefe at leaft ) i\ Covenanting, who make them 
all to Covenant truly and unfcignedly? And where you fay, that then they do but. 
pretend to the fi^g<-') <««^ ^0 hypocrtftc : Ic is a ftrangc feigned confequence,without 
the Icaft flicvv ot proof. What 1 is he but a pretender to Hypocrifie, that takes on 
him a Chriftian, when he is none ? ( Suppofc he never Covenanted ) or he that 
takes on him to confenc or covenant in heair, when he doth it but in words, and 
wilfully diflcmblcs ? Yea, if tliey think they A.cc.-pt Chrift , not knowing what 
Chrift is, and (o do net Accept him as he is offered them, and yet go on in a fup- 
pofition that they arc Chriftians ; thefe fccm to have done what they did not, 
and to be what they arc not ; and therefore are Hypocrites, though not pur- 

For your 5 . Abfurdity, I have faid enough againft that charge to Mr. Tembesy 
which Ihall ft.rnd, till you confute it, as the confutation of yours. And fo much 
for your fcign.d Abfurdities. 

Mr. Bl. "T*© ma\t the Vtfibk Seal of Msptifnti whieh is theTrivUedge of the 
^ Church yifblcy to be of equal latitude with the Seal of the Spiritytvhich 
is peculiar to inv'iftbU members 3 is a Taradox, 

A.r $.4:. 


5. 4^. 


BUtyou take itfor granted thnt wc do foiwhich Is too eafic difputiog.Wc 
give the Seal of Baptifm to all \lutfetm found Bclievcis,and their ftcdi 
and wc lay , the Seal of the lanftifying Spirit, is oncly theirs that AiC fuch Bc- 
licveis. But if you fpcak onely ot Covenant- Right to Ba.pt\{m , Coram 
'Deo, by h's {;i;'t of Covenant, then I make them of the lame extent ; fuppofing 
that by the Seal of the Spirit, you mean fomtwhat common to every true be- 
liever. 3 . But if it be the forma'h Kaiio of Scalingjthat you look at , I fay, God 
fcalcth to the wicked his Covenant or Promifc as it is made to them, (of which 
before) : He fcalcd the conditional Covenant, which they fecmcd to Accept , 
(which if they had not fecmed to Acetpt, he would not have commanded the 
anixxlngof the Seal; : and fo God may be faid to do it, in that he command- 
cth his Miniftcrs to do it. But it is not fuch a fealing, as leaves God aftually ob- 
liged to fulfill the piomlfc, as he is to them that perform the condition. But of 
this more in its own place. 

S- 43. 

Mr. Bl. TPHf peat conditon to vrhich Baptifm (Jigageth,ii not a preycqu'tfite in bap' 
itjm. This w plain 5 no man is bound to mal^e good his condition , ic- 
fore engagement to tsnditisns : 710 fcrvant is tyed to do his vpooJ^ , befere he hath re- 
ceived his carncft : no Souldler to fight before he ishjledy or hath given in bis name. 
But faith that is Jiifify^rg to Accept C h/ijl^is the Cor.diticn to ychich Bapiifm ivgageth. 

§^. 43. 

T{.'B. ^^Hatisthe conclufion > therefore J itfiifying faith isnot uprertquifitein 
Baptifm : or according to the (\mi\c,theicfore no man is bound to accept 
Chrifi to Jti^ification before he is bapt!\cd. 1 confcfs , the reading ot fuch paflages in 
Grave, Learned, Godly Divines, and that with fuch confidence uttered as un- 
doubted truth, and that in zeal to fave the Church from the errors of us that are 
contrarie minded, doth very much convince me of humane frailtie, and that the 
beft of men do know but in part, and in a little part too : and ic makes me lefs 
angrie at thofe unlearned miftakcn men^ihat have of late fo troubled the Church; 
and to fay with Seneca^lniqum eft qui commune vitium fingulis ebjicitj &c. quanta in. 
his Juftwr Vcniajit, qua per totum genus humanum vulgatafunf- Omnes inconfuki , 
lb' improvidi fumtti ; omncs incerti,quef'uU,ambitiofr, ^id lenio/ibus verbis hI' 
cus publicum abfcondam ? Omnes mail fumus. ^iicquid itaqke in alie reprchen- 
ebturftdunufquifqueinfuo finuinveinct. ^iiilluts paSorem ? iliius maciemno- 
tas ? Tcftile?iiiae(l. Tlacidiaresitaquc invuemfumits. Mali inter maloi vivimus. 
But to the matter. 

J. Thenitfeems, If a man believe fincercly and favingly , the main ufc of 
Bapiifm, asengaging, is paft already. Miift any found believer then be Bap« 
cifcd ? ©r oncly unfound believers and Infidels that will proinife to believe here- 
after ? 


after ? But I will fhcw the foulncfsof chis error anon , and therefore kt irpaft 
now. i . But you fay. This is plain ; to whom ? all men have not the truth, that 
are confident tfiat they have it j I fee that you fay , No man is bound to ma{e good 
his Cond'tiion before- evgagcmml i &c. very dangerous : It is not our condition on- 
ly nor piincipally, as to the efficient obligation, nor at all as tothe Juftification. 
Arc we poor worms , our own Gods and Lords, that we fliould be difobliged till 
we will be pleafed to oblige our fclvcs > Our faith is Gods Condition as the Im- 
p^fer J three feveral Bonds hath he la. d upon us. i. As Lcglflator of the Law 
of Grace , he hath commanded us to belieyc in, and accept an offered Chiift. 
And is Gods command infufficient to oblige Us, till we oblige our felvcs ? then 
more happy are Pagans then I imagined, i . As the Donor of Chrift and Life, 
and the Author of the Promifeor Deed of gift (and fo Chriil as Teftator) he 
hath made our finccrc faith the condition j faying ■■, If thou belicvfythoH fhalt be 
favcd. Hereby we are bound to believe, as a neccflary means to falvation. This 
is but a fanftion ot the firft obligation. 3. The like may be faid of the threat- 
ning , He that bclitvetb jigt puU be damned ; which God addcth as Lcgiflatorto 
this Law, fo that every man is bound to found Believing, as thencccflarie con- 
dition of falvation, before he doth confcnt himfclf, or oblige himfelf to it : even 
^y an obligation which is ten thoufand fold flronger then any that he is capable 
of laying on himlelf. 

3. It IS alfo a very high miftakc, to think that our Covenanting or Confent j 
(which is our aftual believing) is none of our condition, when it is the great 
and pi incipal part of our condition ; yea all the condition of our begun Juftifi- 
cation ( not taking the word Faith too narrowly). You will perhaps fay , Thefc 
are our conditions as fubjcds, but not as Covenanters. Reply. They are our con- 
ditions as lubjeds called to Covenant, as we arc the perfons to whom the Cove- 
nant is offered : They arc conftituted by G^d as Donor, Benefaftor, and Author 
of the Covenant or ProMiife, and not mcerly as Reftor. It belongeth to the Do- 
nor to determine of the conditions of his own gift, on which they fhjjl become 
due or not. Yet Joth God make no tranfaftioiis with men but as with fubjeds j 
and therefore even when he deals with us as Bencfaftor and Donor in free giftsj 
it is flill as 'Dominm& Keilor Bcucficiens : he lays noi by his Dominion or Sovc- 
raigntie, nor thcfe Relations to us. 

4. For your inftance of fervants and fuuldicrs,they leave out the great part of the 
condition of the Covenant of Grace : which is, that we confent to b? fervants 
andfouldiers. The Relation mult fiifl be entered i God muft be taken /or our 
God, and Chrift for our Redeemer, Lord, and Saviour j the Holy GhofTfor our 
Guide and Sandifycr : This is Faith and Covenanting. This goes before wor- 
king and fighting. But this Covenanting is the great condition of Gods Cove- 
nant. As when the forcmentioncd Prince is offered in marriage (with his Digni- 
ties and Riches) to a condemned beggar i as it is a gift, and covenant propoun- 
ded on his part, and actually to be entered, ic is confent, or marriage-covenant- 
ing on her part that is tlie c edition j yea, and airthe condition of her fir ft 
right to him and his riches and honors^ Som your inftance .* It is the fervants 
confent or covenant to have fuch a 4nan for n is m after j and the fouldiers con- 
fent and covenanting to have fuch a man for his General j that is thecondition 
on which one hath all his firft right to the Priviledges of the family , and the o- 
th;r tothe Priyiledgcs of the Armie. Is not this confent cccflarie in our pre- 
font.cafc ?" If you would have fpoke to the point, youthould have faid thus, 

Aa 3 N9 


7(0 fervent u tyedfacerely t» ardent or covenant to be afervanty btftre he have re- 
feivedbtf carue^ : Ho fouldia u tjed tKonjeulor covenant truly to l/c a Joiddter 3 
till be be Lfted , which arc both plainly falfc. Bjptifm is as ihc iifting j Con- 
fcnt (which is fa ving Faith) is die heart covenant, prcrcquifitc to lifting , and 
not the work to be done after , except you fpcak of the continuance of confenr. 
Bdptirm is the fjIcmniT rgour mirii gc wiih Chiift. A;id it is a ftrange mar- 
riage , v.h.rtin r he woman doth only promil'e thac flic will begin hcreahcr to 
take that n;an for her hu^band, but not at prcfent. Nay where fuch prcfent con- 
lent is not Rtquifitc , is a fc gned ornominal, or half-confcnt, the condition on 
which a woman hath Right to the man and his tllaic , and a tull confentherc- 
aftcr the thing that ihe is engaged to. 

5. In ycur minor. But fMth thst u Jujllf)ing to Accept C^ifli u the cenihiento 
vohkh Bapt'tfm cngagcth , cither you mean only the continuance of that faith, 
and that is true, (but not your meaning I think ^ Or you mean, the beginning of 
that faith (as doubtlefs the foregoing woi ds ihew that you do) j and then why 
had we not one word tending to the proof, which would in this place hare 
been very acceptable to me. 1 will anon make an argument of the con- 

You fecm to me in all this to miftake the very formal nature ot a condition , 
as if it received its denomination from our promifc to perform itj when as,by the 
confent of all Lawyers chat 1 have read of it, it is denominated from the deter- 
mination of the Donor , Teftator , or other Impofcr ; and moft evidently and 
unqucftionablyit is fo , in unequal contrafts , where one is the Bcnefaftor, and 
hath the abfolutc power of diipofing his own favors. 

$. 44. 

Mr.Bl. ITHat Faith u f on which Simon Miigus inthe primitive times was bdp- 
ti\cdf u that which admitieth to Baptifm ; Simon himfelf believed and 
WM Bapti\cd, Aft. i.i^.But Simons Faith feSjfjort of favmg andjuitfying. 

S. 44. 

K.B. ^^Oncedo totum ; fed defidecatur Conclufio j That may be faid to admit to 
V*-/ Baptifm, which fo qualifieth the pcrfon as that we are bound to Bap- 
tize him, as being one that feemeth found in believing , as Stmon did. But this 
is noi Etttitulingi or yhzv'ing Coram 'DCO& a ftederey Right to Baptifm : nor doth 
prove that it is notfaving Faith which God in his Covenant makes the condition 
prcrequifiic to fuch a Right to Baptifm. 

$. 4f. 

Mr.Bl. tf.TN' (^4fe only juftifying Faith give admifsitn to Baptifm, then none is able U 

^■bapti'^ifeeingthu by none u difcerned:and to leave it to oht charity,afj^rm' 

i*g that we may admit upon prefumfUon of a title when God denies 3I h(ivefpok.en Jttne- 



what. Chip. »ndl rtftf to M-. Hudfon in bU Vlndieaticn , vpbom Icamtd 
Jtf '.Baxter fo highly comnunds^to (hew the unreafonabiefs (fit. 

S. 45. 

Tt.B, I . CEing you have read what I have faid to Mr.Tombes againft this Objedi- 
tJon, I lliall take it as needlefs to fay more, till you confute it : 2. 1 (ay 
noixhix. onely jujlifjiftzrdith grjcs AdmiJJion to Bspufm. I lay tUat the feeming, 
or Probable Proteflion offuch a faith gives Admitun^e. j.Nor is it left to out 
Charity, but impofed on us as a Duty to Baptize tbefc that profefs found be- 
lief ; but whether the profeflion be probably fcrious,. or not, our underftanding, 
and not our Charity muft judge. And if you go not that way too, then i: feems 
you would Baptize a man that ihould apparently jcftor deride Chrift under co- 
lour of profclkng ; which were to Accept that as a profeflion which Is no pro- 
feflion. For it is no further a protcmon then it feems to be linous and 
cxprefs what is in the heart. 4. Though God deny 'he juftnefs of the hypocrites 
Title iiforg D i, yet he doth not deny it to be oui duty to deal with ihem, for 
their profeflion , as with thofe whofe Title is juft. 5. I kno not what Chap- 
ter it is that you refer us to for more. 6. Having lent Mr. Hudfens book out, 
I have it not now by me, and therefore cannot confult him : but 1 fuppofc you 
would ufe the Arguments which you thought ftrongefl. 

5. 4^. 

Mr.Bl.TTErc it k ohjeTred : i . When Chrift faith, j\/<^; me T)ifci>l(s of aS Nmi- 
rijni ybapti\inglhcm, he meant finccre Difciples, though we cannot ever 
know them to be fincerc. / Arfxver-, In C^fe I mtl^e this fir fl Objection bought sgainli 
me/ny fcunth and Ufi Agimmtfoi me^ n veill fully difco^ir the wesi^ncfi of it ^ and 
thus I form it.^iU that a>e Difciples unto Cirijljaiid made "Difcipks for CbnftyMre tt be 
bapti-\cd : But fome ate made Difaplis to Chrifl,thai arc fbji t »f F aitb faving andjufii- 
fyiHfi its hath been proved at la>ge : Thu Di/tiplipj:p thai Chrifi here mentions ^ fuch «f 
which rvhole Nations are in capaaiy , as u plain in the Coftaiifim ^ t^vrhich thu 
Nation (with others) hath happiy attained ace or diTig to the manifold Pi tpbe^cs bfm 
fore cited : Oftbefe the whole Vnivrrfil viCdtle Church con ft He th, fo irrcfijgahy 
proved by ^IrM'^dCon in his Treat ife of that fdfjeJIy and hk V.nduation. Nofrif 
whole Nations , yea the whole yH:vcrfai yipble Church (confifling of diap.'ed Na- 
tions) were all Believers, it w:re a great happimfs ; the E'e^lion would kt as lagi 
as yocatioiiy when Chrifi faith. Many are called, but few chcfen. 

5. 45. 

K.F.I TO vindicate my Objcftions ! If i: be not finccre Difciples that Cl^rift 
means in that Tcx', then no Apoftle was bound by that C'Omhiiflrpn 
and great Precept to endeavour the making of fincere Difciples fbut only coiui- 
tcrfeits and half Chriftians:; But the Antecedent is fa]fe,thercfore,&c.i.For your 
Argunicnt, I grant the Conciufion 3 and what wswJd you have more r B;it knew 

5'ou not ihat'itlsnottVicthingin '>ucllion > 3. I grant the Minor, taking the 
word Difc pkscquivocnllVjas a Cnps is called a man ; and I confcfs it iilual lb to 
t^ y^ the u Old : bur oihciwifcLikny.ihc Minor. To be ChriftsDifciplc (as to the 
agcu) :s to b.: one that hath uiifcig,ncdly taken Chrift for his Maft>.r,toTeach him 
and Rule him, renouncing the contrary guidance of the Fkfti, the World, and 
Devil : and it iiiiplyeth that he hath already learnt his ncccfTity of Chrifti Gui- 
<lancc,and who Chrift is, and what a Maftci ,& to w h^t End it is that wc m«ft l.'arn 
of hirfj, and what arc the great conditions on which he rcceivcth his Diioples. 
And I think they chat do this fjnccrely'., arc juft;ficd : and they that do not,are 
but fecmingDifciplcs ; blit if you will call fuchDifci pics (as we muftbccaufc 
they feem Co) then you may lay, They arc Really fuch (fecmingj Difciples, 
4." To your confirmation, I deny the Minor : and 1 fay, that it is lb new Do- 
Arinc to affirm that vvholc Nations are not capaWc of being found Believers, 
that it dcfci ved one word of proof. Wuch lefs fl^ould you have hid your Minor, 
and turned it into "iSegAt'io exlfUnt'nt^ when it {hould have been but a Ncgatio 
CapidtatU. Doth it follow that a Nation is not capable of found faith, bccaufe 
they have ic not ? or wiU not have ic ? f . Do you think Preachcis )ct be not 
bound to endeavour the faying Conycrfion of whole Nations ? If you fay , No ; 
you take them off the work that their mailer hath fee them on. If you fay, Yea, 
then you think they muft endeavor to perfwade men to chat which they have 
riot a capacity of. 6. If there be any Nation uncapable of Faith, then God can- 
not make them Believers. But that is not true,thcreforc,&c. 7. You fay not well 
that the whole llniverfai Vifible Church confifteth of Difcipled Nations, if you 
mean [only] as you feem. For then poor fcattered Chriitians in a Heathen 
Nation, fliould be no part of the llniverfai Vifible Church. 8. Vocation un- 
efteftuaJ, is common to Pagans, Vocation throughly cfltdual, is of the fame 
extent as juftification, and (I thinkj Elcdion. Vocation which is effcAual on- 
ly to bring men to an outward Proteffion of faving Faithjis larger then Elcftion, 
and makes men fuch whom we are bound ro Baptiie. 

S. 47. 

Mr. B]./^B/Vr7.i. When he faith,He that BcJicveth and is baptized (hall be fa- 
V:/vtd, here Faith goes before Baptifni i and that not a common, but 
a favingFaithj for here is but one Faith fpoken of, and that is before Baptifm, 
Anfw.i. This is the ti^cal^cftofaU ^rguwents^to reafonfor a precedency of one before 
another, f I om the order m rvhich they are ylaceA in Siripmre.Sotvc may jay, John 
Baptized before he preached the Baptlfm of repentance, for his biif>ti':;jfig is rrentivued 
befvre preacl.ing of Eaptifm, Mar. i .4. So we mtfy fay , We mufi have gloiy fir(l,and 
Vertue after; for fo they are placed by the ^po(iU, z Pct.i.5. All that cxn be c«l- 
fe^ed,ify that roe wuftia Gods ordinary way of conferring falvation , have both Faith 
and Bapiifm; though there be not thelii^e abfohite neccftty ofBaptifm us of Faith: Bap- 
tifmbcifig vccefary, ncccffitatc prarcepti , Jefus Chrifl havnig InSituted and com- 
mandcdit\ but Faith necejfary both ncccflitate medii & prxccpii, feeing Chriftnot 
cnely tommandcd ity butfalvntiencan at no h»nd be obtained (by men incapaiciyof 
it) without it: And it hath been ■u>eliobferved,that in the wordi following, the lil^e 
firefs is not laid on Baptifm as on FMth: Vot [he that is not baptized] i«/ [he that h^- 



§. 47. 

K, B. TF affirmations be good proof of the weaknefs of Arguments, then this 
JLis fufficicntly confuted. Biu to the reft : i. I confefs there may be a 
Hyflcren Protcron in the Scripture: and In fuch a cafe wc may not gather the rcall 
picccdency of that which is fiift named. But otherwife, I know not whence wc 
ihould better gatha the natural order then from Scripture order In expreflioB. 
If I may by tin. order of your fpccchcs gather the order of things m your con- 
ception and intentions^ then may 1 oblcivc the Holy Ghorts order alfo to the 
like ends : for I f ippofe you fpeak not more orderly then the Holy Ghoft. But 
I may furc to that end obfcrve the order of your txpreflions, therefore. More- 
over, this is not one Text going againft the order cxprcJkd in moft ethers : but 
contrarily, the fame order is iifually obfcrved n\ other Texts that fpeak of Ftith 
and Baptifiii, putting Faitiv firft. Furthermore, this is not a nicer Hiftorical Nar- 
ration, or tircumftantialby-palTage , butit is the very fum of the I-awof Grace^ 
I'olemnly delivered by Chrift to his ApolUcs ( with their grand Commifllon^ 
before his Afccntion ; and where may we cxpeA if not here 5 where in fo few 
words is cxprcfltd the fubft.ir.cc of the Covenant ? Moreover, it is not dodrinal- 
ly and in general precepts onely, tnat thisodcr is held, but ia particular pre- 
cepts, dittd.ng in prefcnt matter of execution. TheEunuch mull Believe with 
alibis heart, and fo others commonly muft prokfs belief, before they muft be 
Baptized : and the Scripture gives no hint that this Is one kinde of Faich, and 
that anothei, iVf.ir. 1.4. ihcvvs firft In General what /o')« did in the wilder nefsj 
zi\. Baptize : and i. in what order he did it, ^'.\. fii ft preaching that Bap- 
tilin of Repentance to them. That z Pet. i, 3. is fpoken in perfed Logi- 
cal order : It fpeaks not ot Chrifts order of Execution, and our order ot Alfe- 
cution, but ot Gods and our order ot Intention. If it had been faid that he 
givcth us gloi-y and vertuty it had been a Hyficron Protcron : but it is only, be caUcd 
Hi to p/«,) a-:d vcrtue : And of ends the Ultimate is the firft in Intention, 
and all ends are fo b;;fcre their means ; and therefore may well be fo in expref- 

X. Ithink as Baptifm hiTuly ^tedium ad falutefK -, fo it may be faid to bene- 
Ci^Hxiy, ?trccfiiiat€ medusas \yc\l asfiic'fsitaic pacipu : only with a diftinftjon 
of ncccfliiic,accrding to its Degrees ; Faith is abfolutely 1 cceffarie ; as fine 
qua non , and Baptifm is of an inferior Icls neccffir'.e, foinc'Ime but adbcn" cjje 
& UiLcmnnatcm, Laftly, the command foregoing , Bifc'plc me aUNanms., Bap- 
tiyng them : fetteth Faith ( in prefent or pcribns at -ige thcmfel vcs) before Bap- 
tifm, as included in Difcipling : And if this text which contaijis the Coni- 
miflion, put not Faith before I'aptifm, its like others do not , .nnd then why may 
not any Heathens that will, be baptized : and the text fpeaks but of one faith, 
for ought I can finde. 

§. 48. 

Mr. Bl, z.T Lt Peter xvhcrehe fpsa\s of fahat'ion Sy baptifm y inter p-m the fe 
JL^ r(>§Yd%i Baptifm doth now alio (faith he) fare us by the refur- 

B b region 

rcfllifjifif IcfusChrift, i Pet. 3.11. and then exflaiVsVimfclf. Not the putting a- 
»ry the tilth of the fljlij biittncanrwciof a gooil confcicncc towarrfi God ; ihis 
iirfwc-iorn{lij--u'a!ion (n thr ounvrtidadwimfiraiio'tiof Bapliiniy ii that tvhich fol- 
lotvs tiponBapuffKjbiit Jnf^ifyi'/ig Taith u that rclhp.iLitiofi (at lca(} a piVlipd branch 
ff'it ) and ihtrtferc thcic is no mcefsitic lb.it it ^0 before, bnt a nccejsiiie that it mii^ 
follow fftii baptifrn. It n iruc that in tTicn cf ytars^ Juftifying faith fomctinits poc^ 
btfcrc baptijm , /75 i/i Abraham it rvent bifiri C^rcumcifon : but it it iwtof 
nicfct'uy -icqidrcd to Inicrcft us in a Kght, n-.ithcr rf B.iptijm nor Circtnncifion. 


75. i. T Will not row ftand to enquire of the fi nefs or unfitnefs of your term, 
J- '^e^ipidaticn, ashcrculcd. Kajrouicih /ic/?/;'/^^// as being the lame 
r.ft z% fiipi:!a)i ; and Civilians ufc it but rarely. In every ftipujation thty 
make two parties , the Stipulator (which is he ihat asks the qucflion ^ and 
thcPromifcr ^ which is the anlwcrcr, that obligcth hjmfelf). Though larcJy 
and unuiiially alfo, the Piomillr be called Stipulator. But I luppofc it is Re- 
fponfio Promfl'orisy that you mean by Rcftipulation,flnd not another Intcrogation 
whereby a double ftipulaiion is made; fuppoling this your meaning I Reply : 
J . Why did you not give us one word for proof , that this Rcftipulaiion is a 
thing following Baptilm ? This is too dilute and cafic difputing. I took the 
contrary for an unqutftionabk truth. The bcft Interpreters Judge, that P<:/f>- 
means here, the Anlwcr whereby the Promifer in Baptifm did lolcmnly oblige 
himfclf ." which was to two Qucftions. CrcdisinPatrem , fHium& fpiriiifm fan- 
clum f Crido. ^brcnuncias T^iabohim, niundiim& Cf^'^cm ? Abrcmrncio. And 
vrho knowcth not that thefe went before the application of the water ? (of which 
more anon. ) Doth not mutual confent cxpriflcd go before the fcaling 
of ihe Covenant > Doth Chrifl bid us Baptize men into the name of the Fa/- 
thcr. Son, and Holy- Ghoft ; and would you have us do this before they profefs 
their confent ? Ihallwc Baptize them firftj and ask them whether they believe and 
confcnt after ? 

1. 1 gratefully accept your Conccffion, that J unifying Ta'nh is that T^Jlipida- 
lien. "Which is your minor ; ( that is, juftifying Faith, profcflcd). And thence 
I concludcjthat then Juftjfyirg faith is EflicntiaJ to the mutual Covenant, and fo 
without it, God is not thus in Covenant with men: For who knows not,that ever 
read Civil Law,that there is no ftipulationj/wc Pyomifsi one ywhkh you call Cond fo 
do other Divines) Rcftipulation ? and that this Rcftipulation is an cfl'cntial 
part of the contraft, called ftipulation ? This being paft doubt, it follows, 
that Juftifying Faith being our Reflipulation , is an 'Eflcntial pait of 
the contraft or Baptifmal Covenant. And it is apparant that Peter 
meant not any other contraft which was to be entered between God and man, af- 
ter the Baptifmal Contraft , and different from it -. for then he would not have 
faid baptifm fayeth la i and have interpreted it, rffjf<s^.i vefponftonc vd premifsionc^ 
^ nondc yiud.i lotione . 

3. The Conccffion which you wcre.forced to, about men of ycarsj how it doth 
€W the throat of your caufcj I fhall flicw you anon. 


-.'bi.)v §.49 



Mr^BI, /^Bj. 3 .That faith cd which the promifcof Remifsion and Jciftificat'ion 
\y is made, it miift alfo be fcaled to, (or that faith which is the con- 
4itionof the Promifc, is the condition in foro T>ei of the Title to the Seal). But 
it is only folid tiue faith which is the Condition of the Promife Cof Remiflion) . 
Thciefore it is that only that gives Right in foro Dei, to the Seal. Anfiv. Her^ 
isanarrumc»tfir(ipropofcd; *. ina parenthcfts pxraphrafcd : For the propofilioU, 
I fry, Va'ptb is not fcaled Co, but Remifsion of fms, or falvation upon condition of Faith', 
4 profijfor of Faith that gocs no further^ may aigage himfdfto advcly tvofking Faith^ 
and upon thofe terms » God engages for., and puts his Sea! for Remifsion andfalvatm. 
For the parenihefisi That faith which is the condition of the Piomife , is the con- 
dition in foro Bei of Title to that Seal •, Ijudjj the coJiirary to be undeniable , that 
Faith which is the condition of the Promifc, is not the condition in foro Dei, of Ti- 
tle to the Seal. ^4n aiknoveledgmcnt of the Kaepiiy offuch faith , vt>ith engagement: 
toit, is fufjicient fof aTitle to the Seal, dfid the performance ef the cendUien of like 
vccffsity to attain the thing fcaled. To-prowifefrvice andfidelhic inwf.^ is^cUiu^k 
to get lificdi as to dofi>vicc » ef ncccfsity to be rewarded. 


^•^' ^- VX"^^^ Sacraments rightly ufed, are a miJtual Scaling to the mutual 
O Covenant, A'i in the Lords Supper j Taking and eating , is' oiir 
Scaling, profcffing ^fiion ; fo in Faptifm , receiving the water applied , is otp: 
Seal and proftffing Pafljon : ( For weare morePaflivc inou-r new birth, then 
moi^r feeding for growth). So is the prefcnting our pcrfons, or our children , 
of our delivering them up to Chrift, as his Dlfciplcs. It is i^ercfoic our part , 
as well as Gods, that is Scaled to. 

I. Wl^rc you fay, Aprofeff^r of Faith may eagaieto a. lively tvorJiing Faith j 
you mc;^!}, cither aProfiffbrofthatlivclyfaith^oTafrofcJfgrofadcad, not ivorl^- 
mg Ya.it,i\, If the fiiftj it is a contradiction to fay , Ht profejjcih to have <t lively 
Faith J '^n^l^con'^y engagetJ* fotobciievehcrcafkr. For if he profefs to have ic 
already, then he can engage only to the Continuation, and not the Inception of 
ic. If you mean the latter, then I fliall ihcw you anon , that a man profcfling 
a Dead, not-working Faith, is not in Scripture called to Covenant with Gjd in 
Baptifm , to believe lively far th- future, {inceplve) and to believe for the 
future with a working F^iith. In the mean time, this (hould be proved , which 
yet I ncvei^' ^aw. You fuppofe then, fuch a profcflor as this, coming to Baptlfmj 
laying, Lord I befme that Thou art Cod atone andchriif the only T^e dec mcr, and 
the Hi)!y-Gh«^,ibe GHidf-and^a niii^C iMflb^^iafk^^ndthat the u-o.ld,Fkfh, mi 
'Devil is to be renonnccd for thee : but at prcfcnt ihefe are fo dear to mo, that 1 will 
iiQtforfakc them for thee ; I will not taf^s Tk«e for my Gnd,to Rule me,nr be my Happi- 
ncfs^nor wiU I tal^e Cb/i^ to Govern me, and Save me in His w ^y^nor w: Hi be Guijied 
or SmHi^edbyUie H{)ly-Ghof(\k(itl)pe<ifter I wiU,& tht/cforel cofge ip be Baptised. 

3. Tlvvtwhich you judge undeniable, you fee 1 deny. It is not thcrcfojfc (ic 
faiio vni^n'k^)?k, Wl^cn you and I can each of us attain to fuch a heieht <;,f 

Bb X coflft4vn<;<?> 

confidence, of the Vciity of our fcvcraiCQiuradidory Propoficionj, in a mat- 
tci ot fuch moment, and about the Piinciplcb of the Doftiinc of Chflff, which 
the Apoftlc rcckoncth as the nulk of Babes, who arc unskilful in the word of 
Rjghtcpujncfs (Hill. 5.11,13,14. and 6.1. zj it cncrcafcth myconviftionof the 
great ncdclVity of toleration c-f fomc gicat errors, even in Preachers ol the Go- 
Jpd ; For cither yoiHs or mine fcem luch. I findv no proof ot your undcny- 
ablc Propofition. i . The Seal is but an affix to the Promilc: therefore that which 
is the condition of the Prcmifc, is ihc condition ot the Seal. 2. The ufc of the 
Seal is to confirm ;he Promifc to him to whom it is Sealed : Therefore the con- 
dition of the Promifc is the condition of the Seal. ^ .H the Promife and Seal 
have two diftinft conditions, then there are iwo diftind Covenants (for from 
'the conditions, moft commonly are contiatfts fpccificd : and thcrctorc Jl'cfin- 
beclniii and fuch like Logical Civilians, call it the form of the contraft,or ftipii- 
lation to be either Dura vcl in dic?fi, zclfub condiUoHC^ and thofe fub-conditions are 
fpecificd oft from their various conditions). But tlrcrc is not two Covenants, 
thcretoici but of this more anon. 

4. Is it not agajnft the nature and copfmon ufc of Scaling , that it ftiould be 
in order before the Promifc or Covenant j and that men Ihould have firft right 
to that Seal on one condition, before they have right to the Promife i and then 
have right to the Promifc after on another condition ? y. If it be lo undcny- 
able, that thai Faith rvhich it the condition of the Tiomfcyis not the cendition in fo- 
ro Dei of Title to the Seal jas you affirm: why do you then build fo much againft 
C^lr. Tombcsy on that argument from Aft. 2. The Tromfc is to you and yenr chil- 
dren J arguing a Right to the Seal, from an Intercft in the Promife? 

6 . Where you fay, that ^a ac\norvkd^cmciU of the ncccfity offuchfaithy tvith en- 
gagement to it J isfiiffcient for a Title to the Seal. I Reply, then thofc that at prc- 
fent rcnoimce Chrift, fo it be againfl their knowledge and confcience , and will 
engage to own him fincerely for the future, have right to Baptifm. A convin- 
ced pcrfccator may acknowledge this ncccffity, and engage* that before he dies 
he will be a true Believer, and yet refolve to be no Chriftian till then , no not fo 
much as in profeflioru 
7. Your inftancc of fervice & fidelitie In war, runs upon the great miftake which 
1 have fo often told you ot.Thc forrHal Reafon ard denomination of a condition, 
is from the Donors conftitution or impofition, giving his benefits only on the 
terms byhimfelf afligned j and not from our Promife to perform them. And 
therefore our Promife it fclf, is the chief condition of Gods Promifc, and ('to 
fpeak as your felf did). Our Juftifing faith being our Reftipulation, that Refti- 
pulation is not only part of our condition , but the whole as to our firft Right to 
Chrift, Juftification and Salvation ; though that Right ffi.nll notbecontinued,nor 
we aftually glorified, but on condition both of continuing that faith, and of adding 
(ifthercbeopportunitie) fincerc obedience, in perfeverance to the death. 

§. 5°. 

Mr . Bl. 4, AS for the argHmem ad hom\ncm,framed again^ thofe ypho nia\e ini- 
•^ tialor common faithy fufficicMt to eutitlelo Baptifm i and yet affix 
7{tmifsim of fins to all Baptifm, evtnfo received rvithout any performance of further 
ingagemtm i / leave to them to d^enidjwho mainmnfufh Vs^rinh <*»<^ tofpcak to the 
Ahfurdities thatfoiiew upon it, $. J o. 



71; B. TpHough you avoid the dint of this argument, by forfaking Dr. Ward 
here, yet it may perhaps appear thai your own way is clogged with 
more Abfurditics then a few. 


Mr. Bl. y. 'TTnatof Philip to the Eioiuchyfeems to carry moli colour ; The Eunutb 
wufi believe rvith aM his hearty before he muft be baptised 3 and I 
have t(^nowH it trouble fame, that a, c fully convinced , that a Dogmatical faith gives 
title to baptifniy fatisfymg thcmfelvcswittj this anfwer, that hoTvfeever Philip calltd 
for fuch a faith which leads to f'a'vMio?Jj yet did not exprefs himfelf fo farythat no faith 
fhort of this gives title to baptifm. 
-It maybe anfwercdithat-a Dogmatical faith is true faith, (uogencvc, as well as 
that vfhich Jitllificth ; therefore I Jfc«o»' not why men pjonld give it the term offalfe 
Faith, feeing Scripture cads it Faith, and fuch as thofe Belierers, and the heart in 
Jtich a Faith (as to an entire affeni) is required, if we loot(^ int» the Eunushs an- 
fwcr,in which Philip didre fi fatisficd,and froceedec( upon it to baptifmfit Tvill tal^e <i- 
way allfcniple : his anfiver is, I believe that Jcfus Christ is the Son of Gad'. There 
is no more in that then a commen Faith •' this is believed by men net jufiified : yet thii 
Faith entitles to baptifm, and upon this confifsion ef Faith the Eunmh is baptised. 

§. Ji. 

7^. B. 'TTHat will not trouble you, which troubleth others. To your anfwer I 
i^cply, I. When we do,with the Scriptures, enquire after Faith in 
Chrift Crucified, we may well call that a falfc Faith which pretends to be this, 
and is not this, however true in fuo gtnerc. Faith in Jupiter. Sol, Mahomet, is true 
in fill) gcHcrc : andfo is. humane Faith : yet I would call it a falfc Faith , if this 
Ihouldbc pretended to be Faith in Chrift. To believe in ChriA as man only, or 
as God only, or as a Guide to Heaven only, and not as a Redeemer by ranfom, 
or as one that is to juftific us, but not to bancflifie or Rule us ; each of thcfe is 
true in ffogencrc, butfalfeif they pretend robe that which Scripture calJs Faith 
in Chrift, and which denominateth Believers. So is it to believe with the un- 
dcrftanding fpeculativcly and fuperficially, and yet to Dilfcnt with the will. I 
thinV, if a man fay, This is the Son, lb6 heir., came let us t^iU him,and the mheritante 
P^.tU bevurs ; we wi-il not have th-s man Reign over us : that thcfe are not true 
BeU«*vcr5,-nor have right to BaptifitJ, (hough their belief that he is the heir, be a 
Ddgmacical Faith, true in its kindc. 

2. As Amefius Medulla \i. i. tap. ^ . $ 20. ^amvis in Scripturis aliqimndo Af- 
fenfus veritati qua eft de Deo & Chnfto, Jeh.i .50. habetur pro vera fide, includttur 
lamen femper fpccialis fiducia, atque adeo omnibus in tocis ubi fcrme e(l defaluturifi- 
de,velpr<efufpnitur fiduciain ^efUm, &indic^itHr tantum dcterminatiovel ap- 
plicatioejus adperfonam Jefu Cbrijii, vel peraffenfum iUimdcfigmiHT, tanquatn sfm 

B b 3 fcQuin 


fc^ii>M ptY fudtn caufa>». And as f.^oris of Knowledge and Afftnr, do In Scripture 
ofc im ly nffcSion and confcnt, fo on the contrary, words of confenc and afFcdion do 
alwaies imply Knowledge and Affem. And therefore Faith is foraetime denomu 
natcd ffoiTi" ihe Intellectual aft Bdievivg , and fomctiqie from the Wills aft /Jivei- 


3 . Do you not know how ordinarily even favlng Faith It felf is dcnomiaatcd from 
the Intclleftual Ad alone ? when yet you'l confefs the Will Is neccffarily an Agent in 
ihii ? many texts might quickly be cited to that end. Thofe thzt 4 me Jt us ckcth 
rnay fuffice : Jeh.i^. ^5J '-6, i?- He that bcHcvcth in me ftjall live. Believeft thou 
this i yea Lox^^ I bciu vc that thou an that ehrijl the Son of god, that wtu to come /». 
to the voM. Such was tlaihanicls faith. Job. 1. 49, 50. 1 Job. 4 . 1 J ..iVbofoevir (hall 
confefs that Jcfiu U tl)e Son of God . Goci drvcUeth in him^ and he in God. And 
1 Joh. 5. X . whojoever believetb that Jcfus ii the Chrift, is born of Cod. Here is more 
then Right to Baptlfm. The great doubt was then whether Chrift were the true Mcf. 
y«j/j, and therefore this was the greateft and moft difficult part of Faith, to Aflenc 
CO this i and therefore the whole is denominated from it, it being fuppofcd, when they 
believed him to be the only fuffickm and faithful Phyfitlan, that they were willing to 
be healed by him in his way. 

4. If you think, as you fecm by your anfwer to do, that a man may AflciM to the 
Truth of the Gofpel with all his heart, and yet be void of Jullifying Faith, you do 
not lightly err. Though an unregcnexate man may believe as many truths as the 
Rcgenerate,yet not with all his heart jChrlft faith Math, i j . The word bath not rooting 
in him, Doubtlefs, whether or no the Praftlcal underftanding do unavoidably de- 
termine the Will, yet God doth not fandific the underftanding truly , and leave the 
Will unfanftlfied : which muft be fald, if the Dogmatical Faith, that is the Intelle- 
ftual Affent of a wicked man, be as ftrong as that of a true Belitvcr. Dr. Downam 
In his Treailfe of Juftification, and againft Mr. Pemble hath faid enough of this , to 
which I refer you. 1 take that anfwer as equal to filcnce, which yet Mr. Bl. fo highly 
values, as to fay, It will take away all fcruple. 

U Aving Replyed to your Anfwer, I fhall be bold to trouble you with fome more 
Arguments to this point. Mr. B/^j/j-e affirm eth , that Juflifying Faith is 

the great Condition to which Baptifm cn- 
lUvet In Animad.In Annotat.Grotli gageth, and therefore not prercquSfite to Bap- 
In CafTandr. in arr.4. p. ij fol. tifm 3 and that an acknowledgment of the 
Fides qute non farit obeditntiae propo- Keceflity of fuch Faith with engagement to 
fitum, nan efi vera fides. Hac cum ky Is Aifficient for atltlctotheSeal : andfo 
frimum ingeneratur cum foenitcntia it U a Dogmatical Faith which entitles to 
conjm£la efi, qua non potep efc fine Baptifm ,' in which Baptifm wc niMft engage 
obcd'cmia pYopofito. Fidei formata to believe with a lively and working Fairh 
&infoymis apud ^eteics Catholicos hereafter; Againft this Dpftr/ne I argue. 1. 
Tie yeftigium quidem reperUury fide From Authorky ( beginning with the lowefl 
fide jufiificante& falvifica, &c. Argument^. The Reverend Aflembly in their 

Advice for Church GoYcrnment, Printed after 
the DIreftory, pag. f 8. of the Church fay thus, Particular Churches in the Primitive 
times Wire made up of yffihk Samts, viz, of fnch asbeingof /igc^profeffed. faith 



C95 3 

in chA^tMdobed'uncc Uftto chri^j auording totheRu!c «f Tj'itb and Life] taught b^ 
Chrift andbU Apojiles j aad oftbcit cbildfen: and they eke A£l. t, 38, 41, laft /com- 
pared with A^. J- 14- I Cor, 1 2, compared with 2 Cor,^, i ^. Now if the Pro- 
feffioR of this Saint-ihip in Faith and obedience according to the Rule, were necfffi- 
ry,tbentheprofeirion of Juftlfying Faith wasncccflary ; Forthlsis jaftifying Faith 
without doubt. And if fo, then it is not a Faith Ihort of this which is the condition 
of Church member.fhip j for then the profcflion of that other impcrfed Faich might 
fuffice i of which more anon. Seeali'othe AlTemblics Confeffion.cap. 28. §.i,6. 
and tha two Catechifms of Baptifm , where i. obferve the ends of Baptifm , that ic 
Sealeth Remirtion, Regeneration, Adoption, e>f. 2. thefubjeft, that none are tobe 
Bjptized at age till they profefs their Faith in Chrift and Obedience to him. Which 
if they do fincereIy,no doubt that Faith is no Icfs then juflifying. Sec alio what that 
truly ludiclous, Learned, Reverend Divine, Mr, Gm&ilcr hatli Replyed to Dr. lizard, 
( vi\* agalnfl thofe words which I confuted,not knowing that it was Mr. duai^er that 
iheDodor dealt with) in Ms, Gatal{C,s Defccpt.uio de ISaptifmaiis Infamdis vi ey* 
cfficaciaf^y^. 71. whete healfo cites Luther,, Calvifi, Sucer, n'hltclier^ Sec. and there- 
fore I will cite no more, (Mr. May(hal in his lace Sermon for Unity , I mentioned 
before.) A hundred might cafily and truly be ciced to this pur{ ofe. 

Argir. 2. My Second Argument fiiall be from the Teftimony and Pradiceof the 
pureft Antiquity, i. ^uliin Martyr in his fecond Apologie, relating the Churches 
cuftomin Uaptlzlng, faith, As many as being fcrTwaded do believe the/e things to be 
true rvbiih tve teach, and do promifc to live according to them, they fir (I lea/n by prayer 
(ini fn(ih'g to beg pardon of Gad for ibeir former fins, our /elves alfo poping ear prayer 
and fifi'i'!g '• r/7r?; they are bi^ought to the tvater and bom again, in the fame way as 
we our felves were born again : So for the other Sacrament he addeth , TbU food we 
call the Eucharift, id which no man U admitted , but be that belicveih the Truth of our 
D<?<3' ine, being wa(hed in the Laver of Regeneration} for Remifsion of fin, and that (9 
livHh as Cbrifl both taught. 

2. lrcK(t:is I. 4. c. 1 3 . fliews that Abrahams Faith by which he was juftified, is the 
fame with the Chriftian Faith, yea with that whereby we begin to be faved. And cap. 
76. having reference to the Baptifmal Covenant, wherein men deliver up themfelves 
to Chrift, he faith, Siigitur t?adide-ri4 eiquodtuumeji, idefi , fidemineum & fub^ 
jc^onem, pcrcipics ejus aitem^& cris perfedum Dei opus : fiautcm nm credidem «", e^ 
fugeris manus ejus, erit Caufa in te, &c. llie enim mi fit qui vocarent ad Nnptias j qui 
autem non obeiierunt ci (cmetipfos privaniM regui c^nd. 

3. Athenagoras inUgit.pro C^rifiianU p. 3. ihU i^ -x^iTKi-vU -mmcit (^ «s 
V'SiDKfii'S,^ Tov K'o)fiv. NuUus enim Cbrijiunm malu^ c(i, mil banc prcfcfsiencm fimu-' 
l.:v:rit. He therefore that ©nly profeffeth ,is but a counterfeit Chiiliian j and he that 
profcffethany thing lower then Holynefs or an obediential Faith, doth proftfs fome- 
what ihort of Ghrlflianity^andnot Chriffianity itfeif. 

■4. TertuUian Apolog. cap. 44. Speaking how the Heathens were fain to piinilli one 
another in Prifons and houfes of Corredions, addes,^'i■wo;7?.r Cbjftiafjui, vifi p'ane 
t.iittumCbrifliantu,autfi& aliiid, jam nen Chnfi amis ; No Chiiltian comes there 
unlefs mcerly bccauf: he isaChrifiian : or if othcrwi(s (i.c.as3i wicktd liver ^ 
then he is noChiiliian. And de B.iptifmo,ksiihht (csp. 6, J Ita & angdusbap' 
tifmi arbiter fupervtnturo fpintui favHo viasdirigit abiutione dehftoiUK-i quaca fi^des im- 
pctrat, obligiata in Patre& Fdio& fpiniufando. Many places mis,ht be cited in 
him,that fliew, they took the baptized for juftified Believers. 

5. Cyprian Epi(l, 2-3 • l^mcum Dominns d:xci:t mnominc ? atris , f/,'/i & Spirirus 


fm^l genui t'mgl i &inBapt'ifmo^prteterita peccata dlmUti^&e. And Eplft. i. §.'a. 
Sed psjiquam undcgenhalU aaxitiofuper'mU <tvi labe deter fa, tn expiatum pcHus ac pu» 
rum defuper fe lumen iHfuditypoflquam ctelitui fpiritu hmfio in novum me hominem 
Nutivitas Secundareparavit, &c But it Is fo well known a CafCj thjt Antiquity 
runs wholly thi> way, that I think 1 may fpare thelabor of tranfcrJbing any more. 
1 had a: hand ihe full tcllimonies oi Clemens Alexand- Origen, Epiph.wiiu, AthinajluSj 
LMrdiiHiiNa':^vi':^cn,NyffLri^ Bijil- Cyril oi Alexandria^ Cynl of fcrufatcm, Sync/iu4t 
Hiomr', '^iacifius , Enfehins. with divers others, which I now calt by as tedious and 
usincceifaryj but Hull produce quickly,, if I once findc it of any ufe. Yet two or 
three brief ones I will ai^d , which ihew that It is tha Covenanting or Profefllng of 
true Obedience , and conlequently of a lively working Faith that Is required , and 
not the profeflion of an unfound faith only. 

6. I^i-^ian-^en 0/ .J^ 40. p. 641. vol. i. (Edit, ^forcl.) faith, Fortdfumme up all 
in a words s'^ ought to judge, that the force and faculty of Baptifm, u nothing elfe but a 
Covenant entered with God, for ( or a Promife made to God »f) a Second Life , ( or a 
new Life ) and a more pure courfe of living 1 And therefore that rvejhall all exceedingly 
fear^ and with all diiiqeme k^^p our Souls, left we be found to have violated this Covenant. 
And doubtlefs toenterfuch a Covenant Gncerely, is the work of a Faith not fhort 
of juftifying : and therefore it is juftifylng Faith which in Baptifm is profeffed, and 
thereto required. 

7. ^jfil. Amph. c. 9.As rve believe in the Father^ Son and Holy Ghofl , fe arc we 
Sapti\td into the name of the Father,5«n and Holy Ghofi. And Confcfsion as Captain 
leads the rvMy to falvation : and Baptifm /eating up our Promife (or Covenant) faUoTv, 
eth. (It is then a ^eal of our Promife, as well as of Gods ) 

8. Chryfoftom, Tom. 5. Homd. ad Neoph. iVouldwe did anfwerably go on j and 
thofc Symbols and Covenants wherewith we arc bound, did liicli in our hearts j rvc have 
confeffed Chrifls Government ; we have renounced the Devils Tyrannic ; This Hand' 
TViiting, this Covenant, tbu Symbol we are taught u con/cribed : See that we be not again 
found Debtors to this handwriting. 

9 . Hierom , Dial, adverf. Lucif. faith again and again that Baptifma non cfi ( e&» 
nuUum e(l) fine fpiritu fanUo : which faying,thouglil approve not, yet that and ma- 
ny more paflfagcs in that Dialogue fully (hew his judgement in this point. 

\o. Salvian de Gubem. I. 4. initio, laith. Nam cum hoc fit hominis chriftiani fides , 
fideliter Chrifit mandatafervare,fit abfque dubio ut necfiiem babeat qui infidelis eft, nee 
Chriftum credat qui Cbrifli maniiata conculcat. Ac per hoc totum in id revolvitur , ut 
qui Chnfliani nominU oput non agit, chriftianui non ejfe videatur. Nomen etiim fine a£lii 
atque officio fuo nihil e[l. Et lib . 5 . p. 66. ^uid efi igitur C^'edulitas vel fides ? opiaor 
fideliter hominem Chrifto credere , id eft, fidelcm Deo ejfe, h$c eft, fideliter Dei mandata 
fervarc. pag, 67. Infidelu fit neceffe eft, qui fidci commiffa non fervat, 

ArgU' J. If it be required in Baptifm that men do finceiely promife for the fa- 
ture to Btlicv^ favingly, and to obey Chrift fincercly, then luftifying Faith is re- 
qaired in Baptifm. But the Antecedent Is acknowledged by Mr. Bl. ( except the 
word rmcercty.^ He yieldeth that men muft in Baptifm engage to do tr.is hereafter. 
Now I would know of him, whether God require them to make this engagement fe- 
rloufly, fincerely, &firmato ammo, or not ? if not, then God calls them but to 
Differablcj which is not trae. If yea ; then I fay. This is jultifying Faith it felf , 
or at lead comes from it , if it be a Promife to do this prefently without delay. For 
he that will heartily engage kimfelf toobey Chrifl ashis Soveraign,and reft on him 
for falvationj muft needs be refolved To (e do . But he thac isfo refolved , is a ftue 

Believer : 

Bdltfter : For k!s will Isfandifitd ; or elfe he could notbethusr^folred. But If it 
be only for fo long dmehenccj tkic 3 min protnifech to believe and obey (incerely » 
with a rcferre and rcfolutloa to lire wickedly till then, I hope few will believe 
that this Is the condition of Baptifm , or the true Bapcifmil Covenanr. 

Affjt. 4. They that are to Renounce the World, Flellij and Devil , are to be true 
believers ^to juftificatlon^ } but they that arc to be bapti3t«d, are then to Renounce 
the World, Fleih and Devil .• therefore &c. The major Is evident, in thi: renouncc- 
Ingthefe,i$ arenoanceiog them as Rulers that would command us before God, or as 
worldly, flertily pleafaies or profits,might fccm our chief good , to be preferred before 
God. Now It is none but the lincere believer that can To renounce thefe. All ethers are 
fervants to them, and make them their end Tlie Minor is proved thus. 1 . There can 
be no tnotiu to the Tertnims adqucm, but there muft alfo be a Tcrminm I quo. The 
World, Flclh and Devil, are the TerminKt a. quo } withou: which we cannot be faid to 
takeGodtorour God, or Chrift for our Lord- Redeemer, i D:fi£l3y this Abre- 
nunclatlon hath been ufcd in the Churches Baptifm, ever (ince the Apoftles days> as 
far as we have any Hiliory to guide us. TertuUian, Cyprian^ and all Antiquiry uno ore 
that write of thefe things, puc that pift qucftion. And I dare not think rhat Chriits 
Church hath ever required that as neccUary in Baptifm, which was not rcquilite till 
afterward. And if vlr. B'. fay, that they did buc promife for the future ^ not to fol- 
low the Wo Id, V^lefh and Devil before Chrift .- /Reply, They renounced them at 
prefenc, and thereby (hewed the prcfentconverfionand Refolution of their hearts, 
that it was afterward that this was to be minifefted in adion. 

Ar^u. J. They that are required to believe fincercly lo the Father, Son and Holy. 
Ghofi , are rfqui.ed to believe to J unification. Bu: fuch are all that come to 
baptlfm. Therefore^ lor the major, it requires no mere proof, but to exp'ain what it 
Is to believe in the Father, Son and Holy-Ghoft. And our Divines agalnft the Pa* 
plfts have enough proved, that the phrafe of Believing in, comprehendech the %Gt of 
the will as well as of the undcrthnding. To bflieveinGodfis to takehimfor our God: 
to take him for our God, is to take hi,n for our Soveraign, Ruler and Chief good. This 
none but a found believer can truly do. Mr. Bl. confeflethelfwhcre, that thisis the 
lummeoftheCovenant,totake God for our God, & giveupourfelves to be his people. 
Forthe Mino- : They tlwt are to be bap: ized into the name of the Father , Son, 
*nd Holy-Ghoft, are to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghoft. But all that 
are bapn'ted, are to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and floly- 
Ghoft.} therefore. 

Wcreitneceffary. many Texts might be cited that prove it is not only Afient, 
but a believing in Chrift, thit is rcquilite. The very Creed diews it, whichhath 
Credo mDeiint, &c. which Creed, forthe tsain Articles of it, the Church hath ever 
required all to profefs, that would be bipcizcd , before the application of the water. 
And then that this is required to be done^wcr/f.'yjneeds no proof -with them thar will 
not believe that God commands or loves diffembling. So that I conclude^ This 
fincere Faith is required in and before baptifm, and not only to be promlfed that wc 
will perform it hereafter. 

Argu. 6: 1 hey that are required to repent fincerely are required to believe to juflL 
fication at the faaietime. But all thit coaie to bapti^n ( at age ) are required to 
repent fincerffly; therefore. 

The major Is evident, i. In that lincere Repentance and true Faith arc infcpar^ 
able. z. In thnt Rcmiflion is promlfed to all that truly Repent, as well as to them 
thatbsllcye. X^cMjQor is proved fionifcveral pl^in Scriprurej, Ail< i. 38. ^&, 

Cc t'C/it 


pKt.^tdki "Bafn^ichve-'ytnccfjDii mihc y.imccf J<fus Cfirtjl f»r the 7(cm'ifApM 
if jjtis : Anii ir was no l^ali oi corrnion Rcpcnrancc that he caJls them to ', for 
Kuv-iflion ct fins was to be its Conftqiicnr. If Mr. B/. fay here tlfo, That 
It is the weakiR ofall A:giiircnts, to a !guc from the order cxprtfli:d in Scripture* 
1 fliall fay I wJJi not believe him i bccaufc 1 fiJppofe Scripture in fuch Piadical 
dirccticns, fpcaks not move cos. fiilcdjy or prcpoflcirnfly then he orl \sould do-' 
^n. 11.18. It is called Repentance unto lite, which ihcGcmilshad before and 
in their Baptifm .' ycaihcy had firft the HoJyGhoft, ^(7, 1 o, 47. And Ktb. 
6. 1 . Repentance jvorn deed irov/^j is a Trincipk. Vanl, tlic jaylor, and all that wc 
read of thci were Baptiz-cd, did repent or fcemcd fo to do, and were rehired to 
doit bcfoic Bapti'ni. If Nir. B/. 1. y, It is a Repentance (hort of that which is 
lavir.g, that is here required ^ 1 would he would dcfcribe it to us, and tell us 
\s herein it is {l-.ou ? 1 . Objcftively, I hope he will not deny but it is every fin . 
ibat iTiCn fhould rcpcntof. 2. Si:bjcftivc!y , it is doubtkfs , fincere, and not 
countcilcJtj thoi is required. 1 conclude therefoic, that feeing, laving Repen- 
tance is prcrcquijitc to Baptifm, by Gods appointment, and not only to be pro- 
mifed to be afteiward peifoimed, we muft fay tl e fame of faving Faith. 

^igh'. 7. If favir.g Grace be not required in Chrifts Baptifm, then it rcqiii- 
reih Icfs then Jel.rti Baptifm did. But the Confcqucnt is falfc : therefore fo is the 

The Conlcqucnce of the major is all that requires proof. Which I prove from 
n'.any Texts, ^lat. 3.2.^, &. He 6rft prcachtih Repentance, and caufcth them 
to confefs their fins, and rcprchcndcth the Tharifts that came in Hypocrific, or 
with unfcimd Repentance. And it was true Repentance^ for Rcmiflion of fins 
was annext, jv;»v. 1. 4. Ami it may not only be required after Baptifm, but be- 
fore ; and it is called the Baptifm of Repentance, bccaufc in it they profcflcd 
Repentance. SoA'A. 13. 24 and 19. 4. 

Aifu. 8, If Faith-Juftifying be required before Rcmiflion of fin, then is it 
required of God before we come to Baptifm (or in us before we bring our In- 
fants ), But fuch Faith is prcrcquifire to Rcmiflion ot finj therefore. 

The confequencc is proved thus. Rcmiflion is the end and immediate con- 
fequent of Baptifm, where men come as God hath required them. Therefore , 
if fincere Faith be prcrcquifite to Rcmiflion, itisprercquifite alfo to right to 
Baptifm. '■ 

I prove the Antecedent ; AB. 12.1^. Ananias faith to Vaul,TVhy tanycftthtM ? 
arife and be bapU\cd, and tvajh atvay thy fins. This was a prefent Rcmiflion, and 
not a future only . So Afi. 2. 3 8 . «e bapi'fx^d ci;C;y one of you, in the name of Jtfus 
Chi ft for the Kcmifsim of fnis. And it is a Faith which hath the Promijc of Rc- 
miflion which Teter rcquirci of the Gcntils before he baptize them. Ail, 10. 
4-3, ACl. 13. 39. the Apoftle tells them , All that bdivc are Ju^ifcd , when he is 
perfwading them to believe. It is therefore a believing to juftification, which he 
was perfwading them to. Kom. ^.3,4. J\}ioTvye not, that as navy as recrc ^ami^id 
hto Jrfus CL',^Jl,ive;ebaptiyd into his dtalh ? tbcrtforcvn are buiyed with him, 
by baptifm inte death, that lil^e as Chrift ypas raifid upJYcm the dead, &c It is there- 
lore m the aft of Baptifm, that wc are buried and rife SacramentaJly, to fignifie 
the prefent change of our flare from the Grave of fin. So Col. 2. 11,1 2,15.. 
<nd I P<^ 3.21. Baptifm is faid to fave us, bur not the external wafliing , with- 
out the anfwcr of a good confciencc j which afFordeth two argumtnts. One In 
that Baptifm favcdb and therefore Jeavcs not man ( when rightly ufed ) a chUdc 



of vrrath afcerward. i. Inthatthc Anfwer of a good conrcicnce is required to- 

concurrwIthBaptifm : for fo the Apoftle plainly intimates , and the bcft Ex- 
pofitors underftand it, and not of a thing ro follow, as Mr, B/. doth. Eph. S» 
r^, i4. Chrift loved the Churchi and gave himfdf for it , tkatle m'lzjn ptrjciifie and 
clcanfe it with the w.ijblng of water by the word. Wherefore Taal fiippofcth them 
<leanfed that arc Baptized .' i Cor. 6, ii. Such were fame of you, but ye are 
wafif^dy but ye are fanStificd, but ye arc fupfiedin the name of the Lrrd Jcfm , Sec, 
And Expofitcrsjudgcthat the Holy-Ghoft refers to the fign as well as the thing 
fignitied, to the Sacrament as well as Subftancc, when he makes vvailiing fo ne- 
ceirary,and fpeaks of wathingus from our fins in the blood of C'uift, Rcv.i.i, 
ThoiigJ) he malic them ml cqiutl at ncce(sity. Joh, 3 . y . Sxccpt a man be born of wa- 
ter^ Sec. Hcb. 10. ii. Let us dra^o necr with a trite heart, m fuU ajjuran:e offnitbj 
having our hearts (fridl^'e d frgtn an evil confci:nccyin.i our bodycs w.ifli:d wUh fure 
•water. If >t be the end of Baptifm, to walh our hearts from an evil confcicnce, 
(i. e. a Confcicntia mail ) then it is the end of Baptifm, to Seal the prefent Re- 
miflionof fin : But &c. therefore, Ti^ 3 . ?. He favod tti by the wafij:ng of Re- 
'generation : It is a faving work that Bapcifm is appointed to do. By Regene- 
ration I underftand, our new Relative ftate, at lead principally. He that is in 
Chrift is a new creature j old things arc palled away ; behold all things are 
become new. He hath a new head, is a member of a n^w focietie, the old guilt of 
fin is done away , the old enmity between God and us; we have a new Father , 
new brethren,ncw right to farther bLrtings, as well as a new heart. Regenera- 
tion is too narrowly taken for a Renovation of the heart alone. So that I 
think Remiflionand Reconciliation and Adoption, arc meant by Regeneration, 
inT»r. 3. f.andCj/. i. n, li. The fpcaking of Baptifm , and the heart-cir- 
cumcjfio:! therein received or profcff.-d, faith , they put off the body of the fms of 
the fl(fji by the circitmcifion of Chri(i, being burycdwnh him in Baptifm y &c. So in 
2 Pet. 1.9. The Apoftle faith , He that lacl^cth thefe things is blinde, and cannot 
fee jar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old fins : that is Sacra- 
mcntally, and as far as the Church could go in purifying him : wiiich Ihews that 
tlic end of Baptifm is ( by obfignation and folcmnizaiion ) to purge men from 
their old fins ; or as Pj«-' fpeaks , The fins that are paft, through the forbea- 
rance of God, &c. Rftn. f . So that Remiflion of fins at prefent , being the end 
of Baptifm rightly received, it muft needs follow that Juftifying faith is prerequi* 
fiteco the right receiving it, and that it is notfomc other Faith, nor is it enough 
to promifc Juftifying Fauh for hereafter. 

Artu. 9. If the Apoftlcs ufc to communicate the proper Titles of the Juftified 
to aUthat are Baptized, ( till they fee them prove apoftates or hypocrites^ then 
they did take all the Baptized to be probably juftified ( though they might know 
that there were hypocrites among them, yet cither they knew them not, or might 
not denominate the body from a few that they did know ) But the Antecedent 
is true ; therefore. 

I need not cite Scriptures to prove that the baptized are called by the Apoftlcs, 
Believers, Saints, Difciples,Chviftians : Mr. B/a^e hath done it already , chap. 
i8. Now who knows not that falvation is made the Portion of Believers, Saint*, 
Difciplcs '". Butwhat, is it another fort of them > or doth Scripture ufc to di- 
vide Saints, as the Genus into two Species ? Not that I know of j It is but as an 
tequivtcumin fua aquvocata. : The Apoftlcs naming men according to their 
appearance and Profefsion, and calling them futh as they probably might be. 

Cc 4 Why 

[ ICO 3 

Whyelfc ftioiildihcy canthimfuchjhadicuhcyrccmcatobcfachj and pro* 
ftflcd it .? Tl-c n.inics tlcicfore do not P.in arily ?gitc laihtfcasa true Species 
of licl-cvi!<, ba,nt<,D;fcJpks, Chi.ft;arli ; tut fccondaiiJy, as the name of 
a man to a corj s, ci as tl>c name of a Habit to a difpofiiion, by iranflation, or 
Annie gic. 

But to }iut (he mattci beyond doubt, 1 wlfli Mr. fi/. to confider, that jts not 
only ihtfc foiti>Knticncd titles , but even ihc reft which he will acknowledge 
piciKi to the Ri generate, which arc given by the A|^oi\lcs generally to the bap- 
rized. Adoption is afciibtd iotlxn,,Grt/. 3. J-^, i7- Fiyycc are aUlht children 
of God by Vmh in Chifi J, (if, : for as rcoD-j vf yon as have bitnba^ii\fdinto CbriP, 
have \>iit on chiip. 1. .'i-hc latr.c " cxt alcribtth to ihcm Union with Chiift ) 
7f e hcze fut on Chi if. 3 ." And Unif n wali hii boJ y . yc arc cM om in Chrip Jcfw. 
4. Yea (hcnixt vcifcaddes, ^4vdif yc Ic C]},ifs,yc an Abiahams/If</, (3«<<ki/-i 
M.cciY»ir,glo ihe Tremfc, What niore pre pci to the tuily fanftificd > So the A- 
poftlc faith to all the e hurchcs of Colltif in general. J. That Ihcy had pHt off the ^ 
body of fill i being binytd n^ith Cbrift hi Bapfifm, wherein a/jo they were 1 ifcn with him, 
throiiz})the V,iuhvf the operation of Cua j Col. i. 1 1> 1 *. ^« Yea in i Cor, €.. 
1 1. He tells the CorinthtarSi they wi;e w.-jhcdyfan^ifedy and jufifiid m'thenamc 
of the Lord Jcfiis; fothat Juflilication it ftlf is afcribcd to them, Co'. 1. 13. 
The Apoftk: tells them, God had qt/icl^ned them with fhrifiy having, fargizen thtm 
alltyejp/iffes. 7. Yea the like he iaith of their falvation , i Cor, IS. i. JE-ph. t. 
y , 6, 7, 8. yea he tells thcni vcife i ^, New therefore ye are no more gangers and 
furrtircrs, lutfeiiove-CitivvswiththeSaim5avdf{thehopfholdof God \ and kft. 
any fl-«ould think that Saints and C'tti^cns^ and the houfhota of God, do hciC fign-- 
fic but cc-mmon Pnvikdges of the vifible Church, he addcs , ^nd arc btd'.t upen, 
the foundation of the ^pejllis and Prophets-, Jcfus On'fl hiwfelf being the chief 
coiWr-Slone, in whom aUthe building fii ly frafred together, groweth to an holy 1'cmplc 
in the Lord ; in whom you a'foarc builded together for an habitatkn of. God through 
the Spirit, Where moft planly the Church is manifcfted to be but onc,and that 
one to have faving Priviledgesjandconfcqucntly, thofe thai have not thelcjto be 
but equivocally Chriftians. 

Many more texts might be produced, where the moft particular Priviledgcs of 
the Saints arc given to whole Churches in common ; which {hews that the 
name is by Analogy or equivocally given from the fincerc, to the reft , bccaule wc, 
are to judge and denominate on piobabilitics. 

^rgu. 10. If the profefsion of Juftifying Faith be rcquifitc in Baptifm j. 
then the Fauh fo protcfTed is r'.quifite to the right receiving of it ( and not on- 
ly to be performed hereafter.) But fuch profession is rcquilicc; therefore. 

The major is as true, as that God rcqujrcth no man to Jyc and dificmble, and 
to profefs that with his mouth which is not in his heart : nor doth he make lying, 
the condition of his Covenant, (let them call it an outward Covenant, or what 
they will : if it be Gods Covenant, this can be none of the condition.) For, 
it muft fiift in order be a Duiie, before it be m.ide Conditional. And no lye is 
aDutic. Piofefslng is a Dutic to them that have the thing they piofefb : but to 
others , immediately and in fenfu c(m[ofiio , it Is a hainous lin, and no duty. ; 
though it be their duty ftill to get Faith firft, and then to pxofcfs it. 

The minor is proved already, in the foregoing arguments , and more flull be 
anon. It is no lefs then juftifying Faith that Chrifts Church hath ever to this, 
day rcquircd.ihc Baptized to profcfi bcfarc the application of the water. To 


believe in God the Father^ Son and .Holjj-Ghoft , and profcfs Repentance /br- 
ail fins, and to renounce the wprJd, the flefti and Devil, &c. And when 
Mr. Bl. makethptoftfilon enoueh to give Right t« baptifm, I would know whe- 
ther he nrcan the profcfsion ot Juftitying-f aith, or not. If yea, then :juftify- 
ing Faith is prcrequifite, or clfe the profcfsion of it could not. If not, then the 
p^ofeUion of true Chriftianity is norrtquifirc ; but of fome part of it. For, 
as 1 h,ivc ilitwtd, it is not the true Chi iftian Faith, but fome part of it only, if 
itbefliortof that Faith which is jV)ftifyi«g. Ajidlctmen fay no more, that 
profcfsion is it that entitles to Bapiiim , without the thing profefled , when 
they take even piofcfjionit felf of true Chriftianiiie to be confcqucntial , and 
not prere qui lite. 

^i'g'i. II. If Baptifin be the folcmnlzing of the myfiical marriage between 
Chrift and the baptized, then tiue juftifyingFaith isof God required thereto ; 
but the Antecedent is true ; therefore. 

Therefore is it faid rhat wc ait b.iptizcd into Chrifiy and into one body. And thc| 
Ciurch hath ever held the Antecedent to be true. The confcqucnce is evidcnti 
in that no man but the found believer, can truly takcChriftas a Hiisband and 
Head jforfo to do,Isjuftifying Faith. It ;s Chrift himfcif firft in ordcr,and then 
his benefits that arc offered in the Sacraments. The main bufinefs of them is 
to cxhibite Chrift himfck" to be received by a marriage Covenanting. Thefigns 
axe but ^Kans and inftiumcnis, as a twig and turfc and Key in giving polTcfjioni 
When the miniftcr in Clirifts name faith. Take, Eat, &:c. it is not only biead 
that he bids men take, but fiift and principally Chcift by Faith. JoalnmM 
Vadimm Q\Aphorifm. dc Eucbarifl..li. 5. p/ig. 8 1. ) much commendcth a laying 
of Chryfoflitms, viz. Jf thou hadfins body, Then Ch/tU would have delivered thcc aH. 
thcfe gifts n^k^d'y { or immediately ) : itutbccaufe thy SoiU is conjoyncd rvitb a body ^ 
be haih delivered them in (indmih thcfefenfibkthif^gs. Ic is one of the grcateft 
errors that can be committed in the Sacraments , to overlook Cliirft himftlf 
who is oflired, and to look only either to the figns or to his other gifts. Wc 
receive him firft ss our Saviour^our Sovcraign, Redeemer, our Head , our Huf- 
Hafid;.oiir Captain and Guide. He therefore that comes to thefc ordinances , 
doth pretend thus to receive Chrift : and doubtlefs to receive him thus finccrely, 
is true juftifying faving Faith : and therefore it is faving Faith that is called 
f-or to the due Rcceivirg of the Sacraments. And doubtlefs God means a fin- 
cere, and not a feeming, diflcmbled, nominal Faith, inhis command. 

.4rf,«. I 2. If tlicic be no fuch Covenant mentioned in the Scripture, (Tpcci- 
aily to be fealed with baptifm) wherein men engage themfelvcs to perform here- 
after their firft aft of true Repentance and juftifying Faith, then Mr. Blal^es Do- 
ft 1 ine is unl'ound : but tJiere is no fuch Covenant ; therefore. 

Men arc oft in Scripuirc called to Repent and Believe j, but nowhere (thct 
1 know of 3 to Covenant with God that they will hereafter begin to do 
n finccrely y much lefs is there fuch a Covenant fealed WJth Baptifm. They 
that affirm fuch a thing, let them prove it, if they can. . . ; 

^rgit. 13', If according to Mr. 2i/<7it« Doftrinc no true found Belicvci , or 
Penitent perfon, can regularly be baptized;; then his Doftiine is unfound. But 
vlic Antecedent is true i therefore. 

The conftquence is proved before. The Antecedent is proved thus •. Ac 
carding to his Doftrinc, faving Faidi, accepting .Chi iff to Jiiftification , is the 
great condition to which Baptifm crgsgeth , and is not prcicquXuc therein. 

Cc 3. Therefore 

Therefore he that already pcrfoTmcihtliatcondkioiv, Js paft fuch cn^pgeing fo 
do it inicially hcrcafccr : and fohath no ufc for baptifm as to chat cngjecment 
to the great condition : fo that if fiJch a peifonbe baptized, it muft be to other 
ends then the Ordinance is appointed tor, and fo not Regularly. The like may 
be faid of Gods part f for to Inch a Believer God ihould Seal Reinilsion paQ or 
prcfcnc J whereas accordii g to Mi.it'. the Ordinance is inftituced to leal Rc- 

^ygn. 1 4. If the Doftrine Oppofed be tnic, then the Gofpcl preached bcfoic 
baptjfm,\vas not inftiiiucd, nor h to bw ulcd as a means ( at kaft an ordinary 
means) of favirgconverfion (J. c. of producng faving Faith and Repentance) 
But thcconfcqiicnt is falfc i theielorc fo is the Antecedent. 

It Would be tedious and needkTstothe liuclligent, to heap up Scripture proof 
of the minor, zii^^. that the Gofpcl preached before baptifm, is appointed for an 
ordinary meani ot working true convcrfion. Wc fee it was ordinarily done 
elfc Preachers could not endeavor it, or hope or pray for it. The consequence 
is manifcft, in that Mr. L7, makes this true juftifying Faith, and confcQuently 
true Repentance, to be not^prercquifite to baptifm, but to be engaged 
for as to the future performance. And therefore regularly it muft be 
only the word after Baptifm that muft truly Convert , or not at all, 

Argu. I f. If Mr. Blades Dodrine be true, then regularly it muft be fuppofed 
that allpcribnsarcinaftateof damnation immediately on their.bapcifm ^ and if 
they then dyed , ftiould perifli. But the confcquent is falfc j therefore fo is tlic 

For the Confcqucnce j if Mr. Blaise mean, that it is anyfpace of time after 
baptifm that we engage to begin our juftifying Faith in , then the conjcquencc 
isundcnyablc : for till then , thcperlbn is unjuftificd. But if he mean that in 
baptifm they muft engage to believe to Juftification in the fame inftant of time 
then this is to make fuch Faith ncceflary in the inftant of bapt.fm ; and this is 
but an evident vanity, to fuppofc a man not behcving to juftification , who yet 
can and muft proraife to do it in the fame inftant, or the next. 

^rgu. 1 6. If it be only true juftifying Faith that gives men right coram Des 
( by vertue of his Covenant) to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and fo be 
prcrcquifite to that Sacrament j and not only to be promifcd tor the future • 
then the fame may be faid of baptifm. But the Antecedent is true j there- 

• The confcqucnce is proved , i . In that the Sacraments are both Seals of the 
fame Covenant, z. It is right to Churth-priviledges in general that Mr. Bl, 
afcribes to his Dogmatical Faith, and therefore to one Sacrament as well as the 
other. For the Antecedent, I think our brethren that would fo fain keep the 
Church and Ordinances pure, would hardly admit a man to the Lords Tabic , 
that they were furc did not take Chrift for his Lord, or that would fay, I believe 
all the Creed and Word of God, but I will not have Chrift Reign over me at 
the prefent, but I promife that hereafter. I will feeDoftor D/VJi^e againft Mr. 
JHumficyi whether they would admit fuch. Hierom argues thus, from Baptifm, 
to the Adminiftration of the Lords Supper : therefore I may do it as to the 
lece'iv'mg.^amobrcm orote utcntfatrificandiei llcentiam tnbuas cujus baptifma pro- 
has, au[ reprobes ejus baptifma, quern non exl^'mas facerdotem. '^(eque mm fieri 
foteft , ut qui in baptifmate fan^ui ejhfi^ ''/'«<' ^^tare peccator. Bier. Dialo?, adv. 

Argil, tr^ 

A'l^u. 1 7. That Dodirinc which feigneth an un-fealcd Covenant for giving 
right CO the Seal of the Covenant of Grace 3 is unfound : But fucii is Mr. 
EUl{CSs therefore. - 

No Scripture can be brought to prove fuch an outward Covenant of Gods z 
And it is againft the common reafon and cuftom of men , that a fecond Cove- 
nant fiiould be drawn to convey right to the Seal of the firft Covenant , feeing, 
right to Covenant and Seal go together : and if there mull be another Cove- 
nant to give right to that , then by the fame reafon -there muft be another to 
give right to that, and another to diar, aod ^o in infinitum. 

To the Antecedent, it is apparent that Mr. £/. diftinguilTicth ex parte Tici^ht- 
twccn the outward and the inward Covenant. It Is probable that he thus di- 
Ihibutes them from the blcfsings promifed, whereof fome are inward, and fomc 
outward : for though he e?cplaan not himfelf fully, yet I know no other fenfc 
that it will bear. It is evident that his outward Covenant hath no Seal, Fol: 
\t\%3.Coy:mnx.dc figiUnconfe-fcadn. If therefore it hive a Seal, it is cither tlic 
fame which is promifed , or fome other. Qi^her I never heard of: they no- 
where tell us what is the Seal of their oiiftWai'd Covenant. The fame ic 
cannot be .' for the fame thing cannot bj the mnerU fedcru or the Legacy 
it felf, or the benefit given j and the Seal too of that Covenant whereby 
it is given. 

Argil. 18. That Doctrine which makes it the regular way inBaptlfm for all 
mentopromifc that which they can neither fincerely promife nor perform , is 
unfound : but fuch is Mr. «/^/;m i therefore. . . .' ^. ,0 

The difabilitie which I here fpeak of, is not fuch fts i^in'a Godly man j to i6 
any good without Chrift and the Spirit , as is in the fecond caufc to aft with- 
out the fiift : or in a partial cauie, to aft without its compartial ; but fuchasis 
in an unregencrate man to do the work of the Regenerate \ or In any broken 
inftrument, or difabledagentjtodo its own partof the work till it be altered^ 
and made another thing, as it were. For the confequctice, it is evident in that, 

1. No man iTiould ever perform Gods command concerning covenanting* 

2. And no mans word were fit to betaken concerning the pcrtormflncc of h}« 
own Covenant, i. Whether God may or do coinmapd fom^mcn, orallnKU, 
that which they have not abilitic to perform, is nothing to the point, For yet 
he gives fome of them abilitic, a«d caufeth them to perfcrm it , when he makew 
itnecellarie to falvation. But in this cafe God fliould enable no man ('regularly) 
to that Bapcifmal Covenant which he commandeth,nor lliould any obey his com- 
mand. For he commandeth them finccrcly to take him for their Godj and pro- 
mife to Love, Believe, and Obey him hereafter, ( For to dilTniblC) he com- 
mands no:ie). Butthis no unrenewed Soul cm do, or ever did to this day. They 
cannot rcfolvc it 5 therefore they cannot finccrely promife ic • and if juftifying 
Fath muft legularly begin after baptifm ( as being the great condition to which 
it engage?!} and not prertcjuifite ) then ic is only unr'cgcnerice men that are the 
rcgulai' fubjcfts of baptilin. r. And its plain that he who cannot finccrcly pro- 
raiie, C and therefore doth it dlflcmblingly, or with a half heart j nor is able to 
perform his promife, is not to be credited. God himfelf never cnableih an un»- 
rcctncnite man, to believe and repent favingly, while he Is fuch , infc/ifu compct- 
fito : and therefore is it likely that it is ordinarily and regularly fuch dead men 
that muft Covenant to Repent and Believe to juftification ' Renewirg Grace 
mvift intercede, which is not in their liand ; how then can they pronurc to do 


1 104] 

^hc Works of ihc truly Gracious. God may invIretftA'commanci rfic deai f» 
live, yea and to do the works of the living, bccaufe he gave them life , ^4 
gives them means fori cvival. Bit 1 know not where he calls fuch men to pro- 
jnjfc to do jc : much Ids is the conftant Bajnirmal Covcnalit liich. 

sArgu. II). If she Diftiibution of the Church into vKible and inviiibic, be 
Jbut at tJie luhjcC^ by divers Adjunfts, and not of avGe^/winco irs Species, then 
chat part, or thofc members which arc meerly vifibic, arc indeed no paitor 
members of the Church (o diftfibuted, (but arc. only C4quivocal!.y called a 
ChurchjChriftians, Ghurch-Menibcts»&c. ^ But the Antecedent i&<crue j there- 

The Antccedenr is not only tl)e commo;i Doftrinc of the Reformed Divines 
againft the Papifts, but is exprefsly affiimed by Mr, Blaise in this his Book. The 
confcquence is undeniable, in chat Adjunds areno partof ihc EOciice , much 
Jefs the Form, ur the whole Eflcncc ; and therefore cannot denominate , ( but 
equivocally) inftcad of. tlie Eflcnce, Note* that viftbiU is not the fame with 

^rgu. 2o. If the man without the Wedding Garment, ha.d coram Deo Right 
to be there , then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a 
friend, how camcfi thou in hUhcr,not having on a rveddmg Garmcac ? If you will hc'p 
him that was ipeechki's to an anfwcr, and fay for him, Lofd, be was compelled to 
come in at thy command ; 1 Reply , He that compelled him by invitation, did 
not only bid him cwwc, but ^o fome j not only to come iu, but to come in as a 
Grt£/2yfco«W, to honor and not difgrace the Feall. At left it fliould have bcca 
known as implyed. Itwas no unrcvealcd thing. 

Argii. zi. If Circumcifion were the Seal of the Righteoufncfs of Faith, 
even a Juftifying Faith already in being; then fo is Baptifm j but the former i^ 
certain, Rom. 4.11,11. He received the ftgn of Circumcifion, a Seal ofihe T^jghte- 
oufnefs of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcifd : that he might be the 
Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcifed , that Righteouf- 
ncfs night be imputed to them ctlfo. The laft words confirm the conic- 
4juence alfo. 

^Ygu. 2i. Many texts of Scripture Ihew that it was Juftifying Faith that was 
Jby God required in the aged in baptifm : which I will cite together , and not 
ftand to fetch an aigument from each alone. ^^. 1.3 3,39. was before cited, 
.Vcrfc4i. Itwas they that gladly received the word that were Baptized, /tJf.S. 
37. alio, is before fpoketo j It mufi be believing with aB. the heart. Mir. 16. i y, 
1 6 , is very plain ; firft Chrift commands them to preach the GofpeJ : then he 
enaftcth that on this preaching , He thatbtlicvcth endis baptiy:d,fhalibefavcd. 
It is then a laving Faith, It is plain that Chrift purpofeJy putteth it before bap- 
tifm, as its due place, even as that preaching to which Faith is here related is pijt" 
before j and in that he gives us here the exa^ compendium of his new Law. 
And if it be not this faving Faith tliat goes before baptilni, then Chrift doth not 
fo much as mention it. And to imagine thtit in this fumme of his Covenant, 
he dotli both leave wholly unmentioned that Faith which is the prercquifite con- 
dition of Baptifm , and alfo put in its place another Faith \vh.ch isconfcqucn- 
tial, this is to fuppofe Chrift toclogg the moft effential parts, and cleareft com- 
pcndiumsof his Law, with fuch inluperable obfcuriiics that it cannot be under- 
ftood. And fay the like by all other Scripture, and you will make it more dark 
then the Papifts acculc it to te, «/i<S?. i^, 3 ' > l^f 33» The Jaylor asks what he/ 


1x05 3 

fhalldo tobefavedj T^w/ anfwers him, BeheveintheLord JcfusCbrift, and then 
^altbefuved andthyhoiifc ; towliichcnd, they fpa^c to him thcnrord ef theLord^ 

and to all that were in huhonfe ; and foj He ivat Bapti-T^ed ^ believing in God with 

aU hishoufc. The Faich that P<t///^herc commends to him , was a Hiving Faith 

cxprcfly : He that is laid to believe upon that command and inftiudion , is 
fuppofed to behcvc with the Time faith that was fo required of himj/if?. 10.4.7,48. 
The Gentiles theic were not only true Believers, but had the Holy-Ghoft before 
baptifm, ^£1. 16. I J. The Lord opened Lyd'/as heart ( which fccms to figmfie 
a Ipecial operation of the Spirit) bi.foic flic was baptized. Act. 18. S.Ci'fptH 
and alibis honfc bAicvcd ontbe Lord, which flguifieth more then an Hiftorical 
Faith. So ^t?. 19. 4, j. It was b;licvjng on Chriftj and in his name , that was 
the Antecedent to their b-iptilai. 3lat. 2.8, 19. GoyDifciple all Nations , bap- 
n\tngthem; that Difupli g which is here com:iiandcd, is in order to go before 
bapcifni : but it is making men iincere Diic'.ples that is here commanded j 
therefore. It is prefiipporcd, what ever DIkipling ii be, that it is not the Event, 
but the Endcivoi that ib here made their dutie. And if it be only common 
Diiciplefliip,dun the Apoftles and ocaer Preacher^ of the GofpL-j, are not com- 
manded to endeavor to mak • men true found Believers and Difciples , till they 
had firft baptized tlicm, which is untrue. Moreovcrthe Baptifmal Faith, mufi: 
be a Faith in Chrifts blood j for the application of the water fignifi.th tlie ap- 
plicattcn of Chrifts blood ^ and thcicfore their reception of the one, fignifieth 
the other : But Faith in Ciirifts blood, is Juftifying Faith , Rom. \.Z'),z6. 
The Righlcoujncfs of God wlrch is by the Faith of f'^fus Chri^, u unto all and upon 
4// ibem that believe^ T^m. 3. z J. It is therefore but equivocally called believing 
in Chrift, as being but lomc part of that belief", which attaineth not this Righte- 
oufncfs. How' many times over and over , do Chrift and his Apoftlcspromife 
pardon and lalvation to all that believe in Chrift, without diftindion of belie- 
ving ? whence it fecms cvidcnt,that it is but improperly and equivocally called 
Bc//ct;Wgi>/C/;>ij/?, which is not Juftifying and laving. Sec Job, 3. if, i^T, 18. and 
1 1. 2 J, 16^. and 7. 3 8. and n. 4<?, 44. and J. 14. and 6. 3 5^, 40, 47. and 14, 
li. I J4)h, J. I, J, 10. I Pet. z. 6. Rom. 9.33. and 4. j . and 10, i i, Aff^i^, 
48. Moreover, howeafic is It to bring many Texts that prove that it was true 
Taving Faith it felf that Chrift and his Apoftlcs preached to men , and endea- 
vored to bring them to before baptifm ? Nay finde any one of them that ever 
did othcrwifc ; whereas according to Mr. Blal^es Dodrine, they fhould have pcr- 
Twadcd them to a Dogmatical Faith only before baptifm ( I mean, to 
be before pel formed ) and a juftifying Faith after. But I vvill addc no more 
of this. 

^yg.'i.il. Jhe Church hath ever Tuppofcd baptized perfons to be favcd; 
ilnlcfs they afterward did violate that Covenant. Therefore they fuppofed them 
to have the condition of falvation. Faith and Repentance. 

Hence thofc high clogics ot baptifm in moft of the Fathers, wherein they arc 
now mif-intcrprcted by many, as if they aicrlbed Icto the external ordinance, 
whereas ihty prcfuppofe, as the blood and Covenant of Chrift , fo the right 
qualifications of the partic ba^:ized ; upon which fuppofition ( which 
we are bound to entertain of all that make a probable profeflion ) they 
did fo predicate the glorious efFefts of Baptifm, as well they might. 

Atgfi. 14. Mr. Bla{(cs Doftrinc of Baptifmal Faith, leaves us in utter obfcuri- 
tie, fo that no man according to it, can tell whom to Baptize. Hv hath not 

D d Tthac 

It 1^3 

Cibai I ^3J^ fi"<it) given i;s any defcription otihatFaithAvhich entitles to bap- 
tifm •, andl vciily think is not able to tell us what he would have himfclf to 
be taken fo; i:. It it wiic a mccr D( gmatical Faith, then ihofc fhould be bap- 
iizv:d that were uticily unwilling, or at kaft unwilling to take God tor their God, 
or Ch'.ift for ihcir Lord and Saviour, and the Holy-Gholt tor their SanftiHcr j 
and fliould openly piofcis , I iviUiiot have this mm rcirii over me., for J cannot yet 
(pareihc plcaj'iirc of my fm. If Mr. 2J/. mean that there is rcquifitc fcmtwhat of 
the will and confcnt, tliough not fo much as to juftific j why did he not tell us 
what ads ot ihc Will they be that arc ncccflaiy > Is it only a confent to have 
God called thcii God, and thcnilelves named his j-ecplc ? I will not be fo un- 
charitable as to think ihat is hismeanirg j Is it only a confcnt to be baptized, 
and to hear the V/ord, and receive the bacramcnts ' then might it ftand with the 
fcrcfaiddifclaiming of the Government of Gcd and the Redeemer, and foot 
obedience. 1 think by that time Mr. B.'. hath but adventured to give us an ex- 
aft definition or defcripcion of that Fa'.th which he makes piertquifiic and fuf- 
ficient to baptifm ( which 1 hereby inircct him to do ) he will have fct Ui up fo 
fair a mark to floor at, that with a vciy little skill it may be fmittcn to the 

A,?u. 15. 1 /o'-'. 1. 19. They viHnt out [,om uiibut they -were 7iot of us : for 
]f they had been of us, thtyyvonldiw doubt have eonilmiedmth us : but they -went 
cut, that it might be made mm fefl thai thiy yvcre not aH of us. They wire not 
therefore truly Chriflians, Difciplcs, Church- Members , but equivocally. 

Ay?u. 16. I will end as I begun, with humane teftimony. i. Our Divines 
againll the Papifts, do generally plead that hypocrites arc not true members of 
theunivcrfalChuich , out as a wooddcn leg ;s to the body. I am loth to turn 
over books and iranferlbc without need, but 1 fliall foon do it , if it be denied. 
1. Our Divines againft the Arminians, do fuppofethe firft aft of believing to 
be the firft time that God is as it were engaged to man in the Covenant of 
Grace ; and that it is dangerous to make Gcd 10 be in adual Covenant with men, 
in the ftate of nature, though the conditional covenant may be made to them, 
and though he have revealed his decree for the fanftifying his, cleft : but he is 
fuppofed to difpcncc his m."rcies to the unrcgencrate freely, as Dominus abfolutus, 
or as KeClor [upaleges y and not by giving them a Legal or Covenant-right. 
And indeed, in my opinion, the Tranlitionis very eafie from Mr. Blal^es opinion 
to A: minianifm, if not unavoidable, fave by a retreat, or by not feeing the con- 
nexion of the Confequcnts to the Antecedent, For grant once that common 
Faith doth coram Dee give ilght to baptifm, and it is very eafie to prove that it 
gives tight to the end of baptifm, God having not inftituted it to be an emptie 
iign to thofc that have true Right to it. And it will be no hard matter to prove 
that it is fome fpecial Grace that is the end of Baptifm , at left Rc- 
miflion of fin. And fo upon the good ufc of common Grace, God 
fliould be in Covenant obliged to give them fpecial Grace : which is taken for 

'Rj^Hen I had Replycd thus far to Mr. Blal^ey I was much moved in my mlnde 
^_ to have Replycd to his anfwei to Mr, F; rmin on the like fubjeft : and alfo 


C 107 ] 

to have then provid that the children have no Right to baptlfni.cxcept the iramcdiace 
Parent be a believer, for the fake of any of his Anceftors : and that the children of 
Apoftates and wilfull obftinace wicked livers, Hiould not be baptized ( as ihiirs ) • 
and to haveanfweied whatMr. 8/. hath fa id to the contrary ; and 'this meerly in 
love to the Fiuth , left the reputation of man (liould cloud it ; and in love to the 
Church and the luftre of the Chriftian name , left this fearful gapfliould let in 
that pollution that may make Chriftianitiefcem no better then the other Religions 
of the world. For I fear this loofe Doarinc of Baptifin will do more to the pol- 
lution of the Church, then others loofe Dodrineof the Lords Supper • or as much. 
But I am very loth to go any further In ControverIi?,then I (hall be ncceflitated : And 
if Mr. Firmin be living, I conjedure by his writings, that he is able eafily to vindi- 
cate his own words ; Not that I have low thoughts of the abilitie> and worth of my 
dear and Reverend friend Mr. Blaise , but that I take, his anfwers on thofe fubjeds 
tobe very dilute, fi pace tantiv':riitadicam : fogreac a difadvantage is an ill caufe 
tothemoft learned man. Mc. Firmin I know not any further then by his Booka- 
galnft Reparation But in that Book I fee fo much Candor, Ingenuitie, Moderation 
Love to Feace^ and fome convenient terms for Peace difcovered that I am heartily 
forrlc that there arc no more to fecond him,and that his incltcmentstoaccommodatlon 
arc no more laid to heart. But the Peacemakers fliall be blefled In the Kingdom of 
Peace, how little foever they may fucceed in this tumultuous world. For as where 
envy and ftrifc Is (contentious zeal) there is confufionand every evil work * 
fo the fruit of Righteoufnefs is fown in Pcace of them that make Peace. 

§ J4- 

I Had thought alfo at the fixH view, that It would have been ncceflary to have 
confuted Mr. «/j^« ji. Chapt. when J found this Title : A man in, 
covenant tviih God , and received into the Vnivcrfal church FlfMe , -needs na 
more to give him accefss to , and interefl in particular ytfible Churches. But 
I know not whether he mean the accefs and intereft of a ftranger in paflagc 
or a Traufient Member, or of a fixed Member. If of the latter, I Ihould 
have proved moreover that there is Neceflary , both his Cohabita'tion , and 
his Confenc to be a Member of that Church ; and his confent to fubmit 
to the particular Paftors of that Church as his Teachers and Spiritual Guides 
in the Lord. But I findc In the following pages, Mr. B/<?4e doth acknowledge all thi 
himfelf " s 

I fliall therefore pafs on to fomc other Aibjed j only remembering Mr. Bl. 
that as it is not Number of Arguments but Weight that will carrie the Caufe , fo It 
is not Number that 1 truft to : and therefore if any one of thofe i6 Arguments 
foregoing be good, though 15 be bad, I muft needs think the Caufe bad which I argue 

Dd a S. yj. 


whether Faith and Refentance be Cods IVorkj. 

Mr Bl. /^Hap. ij. so Mr. Baxters ^rtcfliomfl qu. How do you rn«ke Faith 
^^-^ and Repentance to be Conditions of the Covenant on our part , 
feeing the beftowcng of them is part of the condition on Gods prt ? Can they be 
our Conditions and Gods too ? ^rTiver^ Slc. A>'d I (h-Unotftandto difli?igui(b of 
an Abfolutc and Conditional Coxcmnt, aiid [o ntf<l{ >g the whole in the Abfolute Covenant 
to be Gedsj and in the Conditional this pa, t to be oun ( which I ^"*w not ivhethcr ex- 
adly under flood 3 the ScnpiurciviUbcar) but in plain tcrtn^ deny that they are Gods 
conditions^ and affim them to be ours. 1 k-^ow n-hnt Godfpeal^s in hu iVord , concer- 
nmg tl^efc rvorki ; thai He will wrire his 1 av in our hearts, and put ic into our inward 
parts •, that he will take away the heart of Itone, and give an heart of flclh : which 
implyes this rporli of which we fpe.-\- 1 k.norv I'l^nvife what in pct,-licular u a§iimcd of 
Chrifi, th.1t he is the Author and Fini/her of our Faith, &c. Tct aBthu rtjcs not up 
higher to mal^e them formiUy Gods affs , and not ours, n'hufc afls they bet bit Cat:ditions 
they -are; this is evident- But they ere our cMs ; we Believe aud Repent ', it u not Goi 
that Believes^ it ii not ^od that Repents^ &c. Faith ond Repentance are mans worlds , 
net Cods woilis^which man in Covcnimt does 1 rcfpe6l.ve to falvation in the Gcvenant 
tendered. ButtheApoflk ( fome may fay) la the nextwords tells us , That it is God 
that works the Will and the Deed. There he feitns to tr\c them from m, and afcribes 
the formality of them to God. In this Cooperation of Gods , whether they be formaUy 
our wo,l(S, or Cods, let Ifaiah determine^ I fa. 26. iz. Thou haft wrought all our 
worlcs in us, ii'hen God hath wrought it , the worli is ours ; we hiroe the re- 
ward, &c. 

§ 55 

K. B. \A ^ Blal^cs bufincfs herCj is to confute the anfwer that I gave to that ob 
■*-▼■■- jeftlon. A brJef Reply may eafily fatisfie this confutation. 1. 1 did 
explain in'what fenfe iheCevitrc tilled Coveiia>!ts^ fliewingthac that which is called 
the Abfolute Coveiiant, Is in feme refped no part of Gods Legifluive Will, and Co 
doth not ;w cfl«/"oytf, but only pnrt of his Decretive Will revealed ; but that in o- 
thcr refpeds it belongs to the Lcgiflative Will , and may be called an abfolute pio- 
mife. And fo the word Conditions applycd to God, is taken for the lb:ugpromif(d. 
Improperly called a condition ; but applied to us , it is itiiftly taken : nor had 1 
ufeil the term Condition asto God,butas itwas neccflary to fatisfie the Obieflor , 
who fo called it , intimating the improprietieof it, Alfo I did plainly flicw that 
the thing called Gods Condition^ was rot prccifely the fame with that called curs ; 
Ours was Believing and RepentingjGods is the bcjtowing ofthefc^is the Qucftion ex- 
prelfed y or the giving us new and foft hearts, that we way do it our fclvcs , and do it 
readily and wiUingly^ &c, as I expfcfled, pag. 46. becaufe I was not willing to meddle 
(affirmatively or negatively^ with the queftion of Gods Imtncdiate Phyfical Effici- 
cncleofourown aft j yet I doubt not but God doth truly, powerfully and effedually 
( to the removing or overcoming ail reHilance) move the ^oul to thea^ Ic fclf j and 

therefore . 


therefore It may truly be faid, that not only Gods own AAlon, but alfo our aftion of 
Believing,- is the thing promlfed , ^called his Condition by the Qnerlft ; and 
though improperly, yet in a language very common In Mr. Blufies Treatife). This 
much being premifed , I Reply more particularly, i. I will yet fay that God hath 
fuch an abfolute Promife, as well as a Condicional^ till y^ou give me better Reafons of 
your denyal, or your Queftloning whether scripture will bear it. And I fhall yet 
fay that the giving of our Faith and Repentance, Is the matter of that abfolute pro- 
mife. For your Argument to the. contrarie, hath little in it j to compell me to a 
change. YourMaiorls, Pf^hofe n^s they are ^ hii conditions they are j inftead of 
proof, you fay, This is evident. I Reply, i. Negatively, it had been evident de ASlionc 
quatallfithitKh no ones Condition but his that perfoims it ; as the condition is 
fald to behis that performethj and not his that impofcth It. But Affirmatively the 
propofitlon holds not univerfally. Nor NegativelyjfpeakIng dc ASlionequa cji quid 
donandum. To your MinV, I could better anfwer if I could have found it. I ex* 
peded it Ihould have been this, ^ut our Faith arid Reficntance arc fWt Gods a£ls. But I 
know not whether I may be fo bold as fay, you will own that. Before you fay , ThU 
rifes not to mii^ic them formally Gods a^ls, and net ours : where i . you cautcloufly 
fpeak the two Propofitlons copulatively j and 2. you put In the word foimatiy ^Mihich 
finxy do much to help yeu out. For the former , It is enough according to your own 
Rule to prove them Gods Condieions and ours, if they be Gods Adions and ours : 
fot you hyi ifhofc afiiom they arc, ha Condnions they are i that u evident. ,It is 
not therefore ncceflary that I prove them Gfds and/tot ours. 1 . It Is hard to know whe- 
ther your firrwally refpcft a natural or moral form. If the former aSlon is the 
form i: felf , it ij harder to finde out Its matter. Accidents have not properly mat- 
ter and form J but the fubjeft is called its matter ; but Adion hath fcarce fo pro* 
per a fubjcft as other Accidents have, feeing it is rather AicntU , then inagcnte inhtt- 
five : Of tranfients, Its beyond doubt •, and I think foof Immancnts, unles we 
may with ScoiiHj take them for Qualities ; If you fpeak of Moral formality, were It 
linful Adion , I fhould deny God to be the Author ; bucof Faith and Repentance 
I dare not do fo ; I think God is the Author of them formally as well as material- 
ly. But \\ your following words you fay, But they are our aCisj&c. God believes not^ 
&t ^ep!y J I. To believe is our aft j but to give u> Faith , or to move us efFe- 
duilly to Believe, as a fuperior Caui'e this is not our work, but God?. ** x. Let it be 
fo ; to believe is our work, and our condition ; It follows nor, that it is not Gods, 
3. r here are fufficient reafons why God is nat fald to Belifvej though he caufe us to 
believe If you go on the Predeterminant:sgrcufids, I luppofe yr u know their r.afons, 
who take notice of the Arminlans making ciiis objcdion. If you enquire of the 
Jefults and Arminians ^ that go the way of determined concourfe, or of parriil 
Caufality, they think they have yet more to f.iy, ot which L fup^ore you nor ignoranc. 
Dtf?-</?;<^.V5 his followers, think they have moi^ of all to fiy, bjth why God Ihould be 
faid to believe , and why he is not the Author of our (in , in that ihey fnp. 
pofe tha: he caufeth not the ad immediately. And yet all (htfe avknortlcdge God 
to be the caufe of our ads. 

But yju adventure a flcp further, and fay, Faith and Rcpaitance anm.ms ivj-^f, -aor. 
GodsiJ'orl^s, Reply; 1. What mean you then to yield afterward that Gij^Wi)^('Pffe all 
our rvoilii in tu. fthofe which he worketh are fure his works ) And that, It is God that 
rooi\Hh in ui the if^di and the Vecd. 

2. I never met with any orthodox Divine, but would yield that Eahh is a woikof 
Gods Spirit. And the Spirits work is doubtlefs Gods work. 

Dd 3 l'^ 

3. If you go the common way of chc Prccicterminants,you muft acknowldgc 
that God is the Phyfical, Efl&cient, Predetermining, Pnncipal> Immediate ca^fc 
of every ?d of every creature : and therefore douklcfs of oiir f aich ; and that 
boih Immedianoiie V'lrtutis t> Siippofiti^ fo that ic is inom piopcrjy his a«il then 
ouis. For my part, i confefsiuy lelf of Bjihop Di*iLf»j«ij niindc who faith, 
(againft Hoard p. 1 1 ^) As for ihcpedcterm'iHaiion nf mens Wilis ^ it is a Controvcf' 
fie (jctn^ccn the 'Dominicans and Jcju'itcs, withwijofc CMct.if yjical ffccnlamns oHr 
Trotcftanl Divines love ml l» torture their Ifrainsi Or ac Itft they lliould not. I 
take it to be a puint beyond the knowledge of any man, which way Gods woiks 
on the Will ii thtferefpcSs. Though if I muft cnclinc to any one way, it 
would be rather to Duramlus (for ftronger reafons then 1 findc in Ludov. a T>o!a, 
who yet hath more then I have feen well anfwcred), and left ot all to the Prc- 
determinants, for all tl.c numerous arguments of the Dominicans, and the Teem- 
ing ftrcngih that Dr. 7 wjf/c , Ht:C'CbooYdyT{uthc<fordy and others of our own 
doadde to their caufe. But yet lam far from denying our Faiih and Repen- 
tance to be Gods Works ; for I doubt not but he caufeth them iit caufa 'Vniver- 
/j/m, by his general Providence, as they are natural Aftions j and a!fo by his 
fpccialefFcdualGrace,Cfl»^/•« omncm 1{cjHlcntiamy infallibly caufeth them is they 
are the fpecial gifts of the Spirit. So thatlmarvail that you fliould fay they 
are not Gods Works. 

In the conclufion you adde , Our dexteritie in holy duties is from the fame into 
Tvhich Grace puts Hs : fo (iiU the tvarkis eitrs, though power for a fiion is voHchfafed 
ef God. Reply ; Both yelle & Perficere is the gift of God, and not only Tafe 
Vttte &perficere. Why ftiould 1 trouble the Reader to fay qny more to that 
point, wh.n Dr. Twijje and others againft the Remonftrants have faid fo much • 
and /i«/2i» fo much be ore them all > And yet 1 never read a Remonftrant that 
would fay that the work is fo ours, as that it is only the power that is vouchfa- 
fed us by God. I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my anfwcr • 
1. In that you have not difproved the abfolute Promife of tl^e firft fpecial 
Grace. ^. You have not difproved God to be the Author of our Faith , fo as 
that it is his work. 3. If you had, yet Believing which is our work, is 
not the fame thing with giving Faith, or moving us to believe , which I fay is 
Gods Work. 

§. 5^. 
Of the Ijife Promife d^ and Death threatrted to Adam in the fir Jl Law. 

Mr. Bl. T Findevo material difj'erence in the Conditions on Gods part in thefe Co- 
X venants i Life is promifedin both in Cafe of Covenant-i^cepin^ : and 
'Death ii threatncd in both in cafe of Covenant-breafiing. Some indeed have endea- 
vored lofinde a neat difference in the Life Vrom'ifedinthe Covenant of worl^Sy and the 
Life that is promifcd in the Covenant of Grace; as alfo in the De.ith that isthreatnedin 
the one and in the other ; and thereupon move manyy and indeed inextricable difficulties. 
What Life man (hould have enjoyed in cafe ^d'<TW had not fallen > and what 
Death man ihould have dyed, in cafe Chrifthad not been promifcd •- From 
rvhich trvOjCndUfsly more by way ef Confedary maybe drawn, by thofe that want nei- 
ther wit nor Icifure to dtbaie them, Jn which the bcfi way of fatisfaiUon, and avoi- 

dance of fucb pu\\cling ma\fSi is to enquire what Scripture means by Life , -which is 
the good in the Covenant prormfed, and what by Deaths rvhich w the evil thraittncd. 
I^owforthe ftr^^ Life contains all what focver conduces to true Happinefs^tomalie man 
bkfjed in Soul and body. All goed that Ch)i(i pur chafes and Heaven injoycs, is com- 
prtfed under it inGofpelexprejsions^&c. On the contrary, under death is comprifcd 
all that ts injur ions to man or manl{iHdc, that tends to his mifcry in Soul and body ; The 
damnation of Hell., bcingcalled death (the uttcrmoslof evils being the feparation of 
Soul and body fiom God y Job. 8,51. i joh. 3. 14.) Sin rrhuh leads to it, and 
is the cattfe of it, is called death in iil(e manner, Eph. ^. i . ^Andthe feparation of Soul 
fiom the body being caUcd Death, ficiinefs, plagues , are fo called in like manner^ 
£xod. 10. 17. Now bappinejs being promijed to man in Covenant, only indefinitely, un- 
der that notion of Life, rvithout limit to this or that way of happincfs, in this er that 
■flaee ; God is fill at liberty, fo that he ma^e man happy, where or however to con- 
tinue happinefs to hiwt and is not tyed up in his engagement cither for earth or hea- 
ven. And therefore , though learned Camcro m his Trad, de triplici fardere. 
Thef. 9. ?nake this difference hetTvecn the Covenant of W9rl{s and the Covenant ef 
Grace ; In the Covenant of Works (which he calls nature^ Life was pro, 
mifcd, and a moft bleflcd Life, but an animal life in Paradife ; in the Covenant 
of Grace, a life in Heayen and Spiritual. And ^ir. Baxter in his Aphor. of 
Juftification^ />. 5. faith , That this Life promifed was only the continuance of 
that ftate that ^irfrt'W was then in, in Paradife, is the opinion of rli oft Divines ; 
Til with fuhmifsion to belter ^ lodgements, I fee not grounds for it : feeing Scriptuh 
no wjy determines the way and l(inde,&c. And indeed there are ^rong probabili- 
ties , Heaven being fet out by the name of Paradife^ in Chrifis fpeech to the thcif on 
the Crofi,a?id in Pauls vifion, &c. 

§. 16. 

K. B. I. VOur opinion in this point is moderate , and (I think Vfound. I 
have nothing therefore to fay to you , but aboutt)!/!* different 
cxpreflions, and therefore excufc me if I be fliort3 for I love not that work. I 
think your judgement and mine are the fame. z. Only remember, that it is 
M'-. Blake alfo that hath thefe words, f^g. 74. The Conditions en mans part in the 
Covinam of iVor^s , vccre for mans pnfovation in ftatu quo ; in that cofldition lit 
which he was created ; to hold him in Communion with God ^ which was h is happi- 
ncfs ; he cxpcflcdnot to be bettered by his cbediciicc, cither refpe^live to happiness 
{}:0 more is promifed thcnin prefcnt he had'^dr yet tn his ^tali f cations rcfpe£tiveto 
his conformitie to God in T^ighteoufncfs and true heltncf. jrhat improvement he 
might have made of the Habit infufcd, by the txcrcife of cbcclicnde, JfhaU net deter- 
mine ; but no change in Ratifications was looked after or given in Tromife ; fo far 
Mv. Blake •,,,•■. 

If the Reader cafinotrcco'ncnc^'Mr. Bla1(e'iiM\tnc, fccWfe- fcfCqrtcla" ^t.'^lH(t 
with' himfclfj and th^vvorkis'ddne. '|' ' ''; '; '' " •*•',. 

3; But I confefs that upon more rcrious tbrifidera'tion fef feveril paflages In 
the New Tcftamcnt, naming and dcfcribing the work of Redemption, I am rcr- 
dy to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Pati ia, but ia Via; 
not in the highcft perfcftion which he ihould cxped , but in the way to it. But 
whether God would have given it him in the fame place that he was in , or in 



fduc Other / caJkd Hcavcnj upon a remove, I cake as Mr. Bl. dodi j to be uu- 
rcvcalcd, and undccciniincd jn the Promifc. So that I could fiiidc in my heart 
to fall a confutino the fame opinion in Mr. Blal^c^ exprcflcd in thcfc laft words j 
- V'.-h'«.h he coufuicih i:. luc ; but that his former favc mc the labor. 

4. I confcfs alfo tl.ac I f^>oke radily in fay.ng that U vo.n the opivioH of mojl 
.T>ij;?ics -y fctrirg it fo hard a matter to know which way mod go in the po.nt. I 
alio confefs that the judgement of Caf/icrOiMv. BaU, Mr. Gat.tii^er , &c. fwayed 
much ui^hnic i but thi: iticiu'C of the text iuGf^ji . much more : but 1 had 
not f'j well weighed Icvei at Texts in ihe New Tcrtamcnt, as 1 ought, which de- 
Jciibiiig Rcdoinptioi}, give fomc more light into the point. Tl>e fame I fay 
concerning the qiialitie of the Death thicatned. 
• "f . I agree to Mr. £/.f<lj;f5 fii ft conclufion, that the thing is indeterminate j or 
at left, hard for us to know ; but I cannot reconcile his prcmifcs with that con- 
clulion I much LTs with this his latter fpcech />. 74. Foi\ if ('as he faics) the 
Life promifed was aU whatfocvcr condut^s to true happincCs , io mal^c then Ucjjcd 
m fold Md body ; (by conducing to, I fuppofe he meant conftuiUing of) then either 
the Caelcftial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces -net to that happincfs ( and 
then not to ours, who have no greater natural capacitic) j or clfe I fee not how it 
can be faid that this greater bklTcdncfs was not Fromiied. DoubrliJfs Ad.t>» had 
not in prcfcat poffi-flion fo greatameafure of hojinefs, io confirmed a ftate of 
Holinefs or Glory, nor fo great and full a fruition of God, as Chrift hath given 
us a furehope of in the Gofpel. And therefore, though he fay, God is at li- 
berty for the ^lace and way, yet that is nothing to the liinde and weafuic. 

6. Obferve that the words of mine, which Mr. Bl. oppofcth , are but that Dim 
zines are of that judgement. 

§. J7. 

Mr. BJ. A7{d-n>hat I have faid »f the Life premifedy I fay of Death: threatned, 
^^ &c. My Learned friend Mr. Baxter, enquiring into th/s Death, that 
yoM here threatened, faith, that the fame Damnation that followed the breach of 
the fecond Covenant, it could not be. Aph. p. i %. ifhen 1 fuppofe, ». rather fhoidA 
he faid, that in fubftance and kinde it cm be no other. Infidels that were never un- 
der any other Covenant, &c. 

§. 57. 

K.B. I . VWHat alfo I have anfwercd to the former, may fuffice to this for the 
main. t. One would think that you intended dircftly to con- 
tradift mc:but whether you do fo indeed,! cannot well tell. I know nor what you 
mean hy fubftance and liinde. Pain and Lofg have no fubftancc,but a fubjeft ; I ne- 
ver doubted but that it is the Lofs of the fame God t and Bleflcdnefs ( formally 
confidered) but I am yet very uncertain whether the Bleflcdnefs promlfed by 
€hrift, be not far greater in Degree, then that to Adam , and confcquencly whe- 
ther the Pcena Damni thrcatned in the Gofpel be not far greater. Alfo I know 
as to the mediate Blcflings, Relative , they are not the lame : To be deprived 
,by Unbelief, of Reraiffion^ Reconciliation, Adoption, the cvcrlaftingpraifing of 


.t"3 3 

him, that Redeemed us by his blood, &c, tliefe are true punifhincnts on UnbcIIe- 
Ycrs, thac rejeft the mercies offered co them : but thcfe were none of Adams 
punifhments. That yvas a Negation only to him , that is a Privation to 

I profefs alfo that I ever took the pain of Senfcto be of the fame nature, 
which was due to ^dams Sou!, and which is due to unbelievers. Only I then 
did and ftill do doubt, whether any Scripture fpcak of the everlafting Torments 
oiAdamsbody ; or whether it were not only his Soul that fliould eternally fuf- 
fer, his body being turned to dull and fo fuffering the pcnaltic of lofs : Nay, 
whether the New Tcftamcnt do not make RelurreelioH the proper fruit of 
Chrifts death and Rcfurrcdion ? But of this I am not fully refolved ray felf, 
much lefs will I contend for it. 

But I muft needs fay, that I took not a gradual difference in punilhmcnts to 
be inconfiderable. Nay I know that moral fpccifications are grounded in na- 
tural gradual differences. And Rewards and PuniOiments being moral things 
formally, they may and oft muft be faid to differ]])Ct/f jand not to be the fame, 
when naturally they differ but in degree. Yea, whether in naturals themlclres, 
wc may not fometimes findc a fp^-cification in meet degrees, is not fo clear ag 
raflily tobe dcnyed. There is but a gradual difterencc between the Imalleft 
prick with a pin, and to be thruft throovv with daggers in lo places }yet I will not 
lay that it is the fame punifliment. 

Mr. BI. 

N Either can I ajjent to that fpecchjTo fay that Adam ihould have gon 
quick to Hell, if Chrift had not been promifed,or fin pardoned, 
istocontradift the Scriptures that make death temporal the wages of Sin. It 
rvere I conftfs toprcfttme above Scripture, but I cannot fee it a contradiilion of Scri- 
fturc. A burning Fcaz'er , Confiimptien , Leprofe , Peflilence , cj^c. are in 
Scripture made fhc wages of (in. Tet many ?« to heU through thofe dif. 
eafesy &c. 

$. 58. 

K, S. t Willingly leave every man to his own judgement in this .• But I think 
X itmoft probable, that the f parationof Soul and body was particularly 
intended in the threatning, Thou Jha It dye the death. Reaf. i. Becaufe this is 
it that is in prima figni fie aiiouc called Death, and the miferies of Life, but Tropi- 
cally, much more this or that particular niifcrie : which anfwers your objedion 
about fickneill-s. i. This is it that Chrift was neceffarily to iuffer for us : and if 
it had not been neccffary for man to dye thus, by tlie Conimination of that Law, 
then it would not tlicncc have been necefTary for Chrift to dye this Death. For 
it was not the following ftntence (which you call Leges pofi latat) which Chrift 
came tofatisfieor bear, but the curfe of the Law. Gaf.^.i^, he being made 
a curfe for ui. Phil. 2., 8. ^9/. i. ii. Hsb. 9. 1 J. by means of death he was to 
Redeem the tranfgreffors of the firft Law ; without Blood there is no RcmiC- 
fion ; The death of the creatures in facrificings Irgnificd the neceffity of this 

E c Death 


Death of Chrift. 1 haVc met with iiAnebur Ur. John Geoilmn that faith , 
Chrifts readynefbov wiHir.gnefs to have dyed, might have fcrvcd the lUrn ^ 
thoughthc jews had not put him to death. Ce/. i. lo. 14. £/)/;. i. 7. i?(j«j. 3.15;, 
Its true, the Apoftle fpeaking of the nccefluic of lilood, in Hcb. hath rcfcrenct 
10 the Conftituti'jns of Alofcs Law : but then it muft be confcflcd that that Law 
did in its Curfc much explicate the former, and dircft us to fee what was ihreat- 
ncd, and what u.iifl by li.c Mtfliah bcfuftcrtd for us. Hcb. i. I4. Chrift was to 
dcftioy by death, h^m that had the power of dcatl, that is ihc Devil : but it 
feems, thai the Law g.iVc hm hlip.owcr, at the Will and Sentence of the ludgc, 
for exccutkn. 1 Coi. i 5. i6. J4. Death. is the laft enemy to be overcome. 
O Death, trhycii tiyjUji^? G/avi^ivhcH if il yviHoyy} This is no doubt, the 
death now in quiftion j It is t,c evils bttallen mankindc incxtcution of the 
violated Law, that arc called enemies. Though we dye, it fecms, there was a 
rcci-fluic of Cluifis dying to locfc the bonds of our Death, and procure us a 
Rcfurrctftion. Rom. 5. 17. Asby one mansojf'cncc death leirfud by one, &c. That 
one nian muft dye for the people, Caiap'/.as prophcfitd, Job. i 8. 14. 

3. The fciitcncc ufeth to contain what is thrcatncd in the Law , and though 
part may be remitted, yet the other part is the fame thrcatned. But Gods Sen- 
tence en .<^WflM, contained the penakie of a temporal Death. Though he men- 
tioned not the Hteinal, bccaufc he would provide a remedy , yet the temporal, 
as one part meant in the thrcatning he laid on man himfelf : bitft ihoitart, and 
tofl/tfijha/i tkeu return % This is not as you imagine. Lex fofi lata ; but jentin- 
tia Judieif Lcgh violata cerrim'mat'mum ixcqiicntis. When it i* faid,i CorA 5.12. 
InhA^maUdye ; itii^in Adams finningall became guilty of ic, and \n Adttm 
then fentenced, all were adjudged to it. Which is intimated alfo Rom. y. 1 a. 
Sin cntc; cd mte the reorld, and death by fin, andfo death gaffed en all men, for that all 

So that the fentence exprcfling this Death particularly , and Chrift bearing it 
neceflarily, and (addc moreover) all mankinde, for the generality , bearing it 
certainly, and alfo "Death fignifying primarily the feparation of Sou] and Body, 
ic feems to me moft probable, that this Death was in fpecial meant in ihe 

Btit you fey. He t:fi(es the fame way Tvhere his Juflice / athfutiifa£iion ; thofe that 
tire priviUdgedfnm death as the wages of fnjthus T>ye, Reply. I donot believe 
you that any are Priviledged from death as the wages of iin, who dye. This is 
the part of the penalty which the fentence pafled on the offender himfeJf, for 
all the promifcd fatisfadion by a Redeemer : Nor did the Redeemer itisfie to 
that end, to prevent our death, or tocaufc that it fliould not be the wages of fin, 
feut to deliver us from under the power of it. Where you fay , that this way of 
Qo^iVpithunbeluveiS is v^luntaiy, not necessitated : 1 Reply; So it may be ne- 
vcrthelefsj becaufc it was meant in the threatning. It is aai gcrous to imagine 
that God is ever the lefs free, or more neceflitatcd, fo as that his adions ftiould. 
bclefs volimtary, bccaufe of his dcterminatioBS. He doth as voluntarily do 
what he hath predetermined to do, and foretold he will do,as if he had done nei- 
ther. God changcth not, and therefore he is as voluntary in the execution, as he 
was in the determination. : 

Of the Law m made to Chrifii 

Ir. Bl, ^^Hap. ^.p. if. ^nd though ^{r. B^xicr doubts whether it be any pare 
V-> of Gods Lcgiflacive Will, as it refcrrs to Chrift, but only as it bc- 

Mr _ . . . 

)n!y : 
longs to us as a Prophcfic what God would d«> i:i the advancing of Chrift and 
his Kingdom, and fo of us i Append, p. 39. Tit methinl{sit ispla'myfcemgC^riiJt 
aclinowlcdgcs a command fiotnhU Fiithti-y in laying doiv/ihii life, ]oh. 10. 18. and 
the ^pyjilcfpeaking of the tvorliifaithy Ho was obedient in it, &c. 

§. 19. 

[. B. /^Nc that had not read what I write, would think by your Anfwer, that 
V-/ I had made a doubt whether there be any Law made to Chrift ac 


Vy I had made a doubt whether there be any 
all or not ? Whereas I fpakc only of that called the Covenant between the Fa- 
ther and the Son made from Eternity .' or the promifcs cxpicired by tlie Pro- 
phets as to Chiift in his mcer Divine nature, not yet incarnate : For I conceive 
that Chrift before the incarnation, may not be fa id to be a fubjeft j and that 
God is not "properly faid to command himfclf, or covenant with hinifelf, or 
make promifcs by Prophets to himfelf. But I deny not but that Clirift as man 
was under a Law, yea and a Law peculiar to himfclf, whereto no other creature 
isfubjed ; even the L.-vW of Mediation, which deferves in the body of Theo- 
logie a pecular place, and the handling of it, as diftind from all the Laws made 
with us men, is of fpccial ufc, and it w.lldone, would do much to remove the 
ftumbling blocks which the Antinomians fill upon. 

§. <<o. 

ivhetherth? Sacraments jeal the conditional Pr mi fe ab folate ly ? or 
the conclufon cdnditionMly, when onlj one of the Vremtfes is of Di- 
vine Revelation ? And whither this conclnfion be de tide , I am 
Juftihcd and (liall be laved. 

Mr. B!. p. 

58. \yyi th.n which I may vol pafs ^ ii fomcwhat of ccnccnimcrtt 
D y, th to my f( 'f and i he prcjcnt caiifc in hand^ &c. 


R. B. T Need not tranfciibcthefe Words, being of anorhcr , and not fpoke to 

1 me. But I willpafs myconjcdurctohisciacftions. i. i conjedurc 

that the '^trift by Evading, meant Owning andjitfiifyr:igtke f.iil , and jo cvc- 

dini theblJmc: t. To the i.cond I conjcdurc the Ouciift had been lately con- 

Ee ^ verfant 


vcrfant in Mr. Bhl^rs book, and fo iiwas in hia mcmorie : and whether he 
knew what ihofe whcm ycu mention do hold I cannct tell. 3. To ihe third ; 
if hy Sacia)Kcrtal jcalr,:^^ ycu iv.Qtn (\ndiiii.nal jcalirig 3 I conjc6uic his con- 
ceit n-,ight be this , that as the PjciiuTc n ry be conditionally tcndicd to In- 
lidclsj Murdeicis, or any other, fo might the Seal » it it were tut Conditional 
as the Pioniifc-, As we may fay to the woi ft j if ihou fvUt be/iive , thou jhali be 
fdvcci 5 fo might we conditionally feal falvation to him. But 1 take this to be a 
great mjftake. 

5. 61. 

Ki. Bl, /). 40. \AR Baxter (who is put lo ity to Poop tooloivin theOfifwcrop 
•tVJ- fiich fiifics ) mhis ayifivcrtothisvorvin hand, hath tal^ai 
Much pains tofinde out the w.iy of the Sacraments fialir.g ; aridin the icfidt^ he and I 
jhaii not be found much to diff'c'v; yet fte'irg provukiicc niadt nic the occajhn of parting 
the qutfiion, I (ha!/ ta\c ka-u to tal{e' feme view of what is [aid. Jl// . Baxter /ai//^. 
It is in vain to enquire, whether the Snciamcntsdolcal Abloliitely or Con- 
dttionally,till you hi ft know what is that they do feal ; and in ordir to the finding 
ihis oHti he layes down the tray that a C'hiiJI'i^n doth gather the romance ej his 
Jnflifuation and Salvation ; which is thus, He that bclicveth is Juftificd,and fliall 
bcfavcd : but I believe, therefore I am Juftifiedand fliall be favcd j I eonfifs 
if 1 had been put upon a difcsvcry of that which is fealed in the Sacraments , this 
Syllogifm ( I think. ) would fca-, ce ha-yc come into my t hough: s, feeing the Seal is Geds 
(as Jiir. Baxter obfcrvcs ) I fhould have rather hoiked for o?ie from hirn, then to have 
fuppofed a. believer to have been upon the frawe of cifH. 

§. 61. 

T{, B, "T^His difpuce is fo confufcd, and fo much about words that I would not 
have meddled with it, ( let men have made what ufe of yours they 
plcafed) but only for fome matters of greater moment that fall in upon the by, 
in your handling ir. 1 think your meaning and mine is the fame. i. I not 
only fald, (as yuu cxprcfs) that the Seal is Gods, but gave my Reafons to prove 
a mutuaJ Scaling as well as a mutual Covenanting. 2. What rcafon have you 
why I might not illuftratc the matter by this Syilogifm , as well as another. 
3. If you will have a Syllcgifm of Gods making, why did you not tell us when 
or where you found it ? and let us fee as well as you, whence you had it, that we 
may know God msde it. God doih not 7JC;, ere byllog'ftfios for4iimfclf, not a 61 u, 
immanente : if he do it, it is only foi us per aflum VfCtijcuiiitm ■: and then jt may 
be found in his word But more of that anon. 4. I Ihould think ( though for 
illuftration I jujgtd itnot unuftful j rhatitlsof Jio ncceftitic for you or me to 
talk ot any SyiJo^ifm at all, in thi. enquiry after the fcalcd propofition . If it 
be but cue propofition, we may cxprcis it olonc : If more, we may diftinftly 
c^picfs them 3 rather then thai ftiail breed any difference, 1 care not whether 
.Tny Syllogifpi be mentioned any more ; Lc: iii few: what yours is. 

§. 6z. 

Mr. B], ANdfiiih a one I Jhouldhave looked to have gathcredupfifomthe Jnf'ttH- 
*^ t'loiiinndthui ( 1 conceive ) frame d-., He to whom I give Chrift , 
to him I give Juftificacion and Salvation ; But here 1 give ihcc Chrift y there- 
fore to rhec I give Juftificationand Salvation. 

7^. B. 1. \^7'Hac mean you hy gatkcr'tng it '■: Do you mean that you will 
V V lead it there ready formed } If Jo, (hew us the Chapter and 
Vcrfe f But that muft not beexpeftcd; for you fay anon , that it is fomething 
not written that is fcalcd. Or do you mean that in the Inftitution , God gives 
you the materials, and you form it your fclvcs > If fo , why blamed you mine , 
which is ot mans foi mint;, but yet as you fuppofe, the materials fo far of God, 
that the conclufioa is dc fide. To give you the materials of a Syllogifm, is noc 
togivc you a Syllogifm • for the fornWf«(7««i«.i/fx, I muft therefore fuppofe 
a Believer yet to be upon the frame of one ( as you fpeakj. For 1 take you to 
be a Believer ; and I finde you here at it very ferioufly. z. I confefs, C though 
rhave no mindc to quarrclwith your Syllogifm) that I am never the better for 
the AibUitution of this in the room of the humane one. I know nor the mean- 
ing of the fir ft word, ( but I will not ftand on thit, as being 1 know but a verbal 
llip^ I do not apprehend what \.\{(i there can be for this Syllogifm in this bufmefs. 
1, tt is fuppofed that every Chiiftian knows that Chrill and Rcmiflion are 
given together \ and when they know it, what ufc for fyllogizing tcwirds ihc 
explication of the ufe ot that Seal ? t. Nay doih not youv firguing intimate 
that the believer is more afluied that Chrift is given to him, then that pardon is 
given him > Orelfcif theformer weicnot ^«ifi/«o//«.f, how could it be a fit wfW 
d'uim ? you fuppolc his doubt to be of pardon and falvation , and the former 
brought to prove thatjwhercas I think, fcv^ doubt of one, but they doubt of the 
other ; and 1 think the Sacrr.mentfealeth the gitt of Chrift, as w^Jl as of par- 
don, as you con'"efs. I fee noc but you iviioht have laid down as conveniently in 
this one pr'.poficion,ari that you fay is fcalcd, 1 give ibce C'lyi'lji^'ftd Ju^ificatiori 
tvad Salvittlon. But this is of' fmall moment. ,"!,"•'.• 

Wr. Bl. 'irH.c )>ia]or hoc IS 7i8t fcalcd; fur the Sacrament sfcal to tie tnnf. uf lai 
general Frnpofitiims, but they fialivilh app'icaten to ■paftUuLit per- ■ 
fnns to tvhom tl^c Rictncvts a-c difpinfedy ^s Trelcf'ant n^utea have difndcd agamjl 
Papifts, and put into the difn'n'nm of a Sacrament^ itfeah then thatwh'jih fnfiplics the 
place of the minor in this tcndtr, which ts Gods e'ft of C^''''fi- in the Sacrament 
Chri(i fmh , This is my body, he faith this is my b'sod 3 and this isfiidia all that coni' 
m.imcate. T^ow whether ibis gift of thcbody audl^'ncAof Cknft be Jbfoluti/y or 
Conditionally featcd, will be caftty refo'ved. The onttva-d E'erm-fits.ayc givci on this 



ct^iUim ti)4ttD4 ¥uciii£ ihtfUt th^vfu^tc an.ddav]^ them,.. JT'c.bavinot_£hri^ 

Sairamcnt '^u), nil tvc l;avc tal^cn and eaten ^nddiunl^ the Elements. wc have not 
Chrifl in t/.'c Saa ami7n btforc our Sou's hold jij th th'U which anfivcrs to ibis catint 
and drwkjni.r^ai "^huh aU do not p.r,talic of that rcciive the S.iciamcit^s not Abfo- 
/utely bill Coaditiffnally fcalcd lit the SAcr.imcnt. None canmtfs of thai vhieh Cod 
nbfol/itdy giAHts andalfulittcly fca'cth. But all donot panalie of Ch,i(lin ihcSacra- 
mtnt \ therefore he is not Abfohitely hid Covdnio/uHyJealcdin the Sjc,\imcnt. ' 

§. ^4. 

K.B. I. /"^Onfuflon makcth Concrovcrfics cndlcfs, and gives a«l Vantage to 
V^ miftakcs to prevail with the weak Reader. I flull firft cclJ you 
what I mean hy ff aim gy bctbic wc further difpuce what is fcalcdjan^] how. Some 
lobcr men, no way inclined to Anabaptifni, do think thai wc ought not to call 
the Sacraments Seals, as being a thing rot to be proved from the word) ( for all 
Row,4.)But I am not of their minde. Yet I think it is a Metaphorc; ai.d to make 
it the fubjcd of tedious difputations, and lay too great ftrefs upon a Metaphori- 
cal notion, isthc way not to cdifie, but to lofc our felvcs. I nm not ly well 
skilled in Law as to be very confident , or to pretend to any great cxaftncfs in 
ihefe matters i but I conceive that in general, a Seal ii ah'Appropriativc fign , 
when it is fee upon things, as Goods, Cattels, &c. itfignifics thein to be ours : 
when they arenpplycd to Inftrumcnts in writing, they have i. the c6nimon end 
of a Seal. i. a fpjcial end. i . The common end is to fighifie by a fppcial f^n our 
owning ef that writing or Inftrumenc to which it is annexed. ' i. The fpecial end 
is according to the nature and ufe of the Inftruments zi^.i. Some Inftruments 
ditcftcd to a Communitic ^ or Indefinitly to any whom it may concern. i. 
Some to particular perfons, or fome few Individuals. Both ot them are, i . ei- 
ther Narratives de re. 1. Or obligatory Conftitutions or acknowledgments de 
Dcbito. The former arc either i.Doftrinal, and fo a man may give it under 
his hand and feal chat he owns fuch or fuch a Dodrinc, or confeflion of Faith , 
or torm prefcribed by him as Teacher to his Schollers or Hearers, lit. z. Or 
H'.ftoricalj and fo a man may give it under his hand and ScaTj that fuch a pcrfon 
is thus or thus tjualifiei ; or did this or that aft, orfuilcrcd lolTes, pain, &c. 
z. The Conftitutions de Dcbito , arc i. Be Debito officii, the Conftitution of 
Dutie. I. By equals upon voluntary obligation by ^ontraft (v/hiclvconcerncth 
not our bufinefs ). z. Ijy Superiors to their Subjects or Inferiors, which is cither 
a Law toanyor tofome Coinnumitie : Or elfc a Precept to fome pat ticulars. 
And fo Sovcraigns may give out Laws, aud Procjamacions uuder their hand and 
Seal ' and Jufticesand inferior Mag!ftrates may feal their Precepts and War- 
rants, and Orders, &c. z. Or they arc dc Dcbito Bale fcii y Coniliturcd i. bya 
Leg flator or Reftor as luch. z. by a Proprietary or Owner or Lord , as fuch. 
I . The former is eitlier Abfokite , as the Collation of fome honors may be, and 
iome afts of pardon, and the Dlvifions of Inheritances, as among the ifiaclites 
at their firft poflcfliiig^d^tz^w ; O: they are Conditional j And the Condition 
is either pure Acceptance (which is fo naturally rcquifitc, that it is ufually fiip- 
pofed, and not cx;n'.fl"-d, and fuch Collations go commonly uiidjr the name of 
Abfoiute and Pure Donations, though indeed they are "oO. Or cl:c fome ixqui- 
fite fervice or moral a<5tion,which may properly make the B.ntfic to be Tr<emHm, 



a Rtvrard. All thcfe being feakdj the Seal doth oblige the Benefafior or Donor, 
becaufc the Inftrumctit is obligatory, if it be for future conveyance. If a prelent 
Collation, then the Seal doth confirm the Receivers Right, againfl any that may 
hereafter queftionic. The like may be laid of Acknowledgments, as of Con- 
ftitiitions : The Subjcft may acknowledge his fubjeiftion and Seal it ; the Sti- 
pulator may caufe the Prom ilor tj acknowledge Duty or Debt, and to Seal it : 
So for Acknowledgments of Debts difcharged, Rewards received, Conditions 
performed, &c. 3 . The like may be laid dc Dcbito fxnx-i when Penal Laws are 
fcalcd : and of Commiffions and Warrants for cxecuticn '■, but this Icfs con- 
cerns our calc. 

So that the ufe of a Sealas fuch, isbut toteftifie in a fpecial manner that the 
Thing or Inflrumcnt is really ours, or that we own It ; and lo as ^mcfins faith, 
to be Tc/?/«2o/7//<'/''7 5('c;.'«<5?rt>i«W5 added to the Primary Tcftimonie of the Cove- 
nantor other Inftrument. But the fpecial end of the Seal arifcth from the aa- 
lure and ufc of the Inftrument fcalcd, and not from thc-nacure of a Seal as 
fiich. • . ; ■' ' • 

My opinion now up^n the prefcnt Concrovcrfic. ^ .1 givayouin thele Cton- 
clufions. ■ ' •• ■-' ■ .'';■' 

Concl. I . Taking the word as ftriftly as we ufc to do In Englifli, the Sacra- 
ments are not properly Seals, but Metaphorically. But taking the word Seal more 
largely , as it fignifieth any inftitutcd fign for tcftimony of ones owning the 
Inftrument, Revealing, Promifing , Exhibiting , &ci fo they may be cal- 
led Seals. . v<f, av . ' ■ - • 

1. The Sacraments arc not to be applycd to unlverfaT or indc finite fubjefts , 
but to particulars : Indeed they cannot be entire Sacraments, without particu- 
lar Application ; that is, either to that particular Congregation, or a particular 
pcrfon : and ftill the Receptive Application muft be pcrfonal. 

3 . Therefore not niecr univcrfaI,or particulir,or indefinite Enunciations are 
to be uled by the Adminiftcr, but fingulars alfo. 

4. Yet I conceive that as the Univerfal Enunciation isfirft to be cxprcfled, fo 
it is that imivcrfal thatis I'ealcd, though with application to lingular perfons ; 
it being not a Collcftive, but a Diftributive Univerfal j and not Diftributive 
only in Genera fingulontm, bnt mfifigula Genernm : and therefore may be *pplyed 
ad firiiHl^ GcncfiifN. 

J. 1 conceive that God may be faid to Seal firft the truth of the Hiftoryof 
Chrifts death and bloodllicd ." and alfo th: Truth of theDoftrine of the Go- 
fpcJ, that this Blood was ihed as a Ranfom for finncrs, and that it was for our 
fins that he dyed. 

6. And this quoad inftitutionem Sacramauor/iin , may be faid to be intended to 
his uniTtnfal Church ; but quo:idexeietmm3 & aSiuaUm applicdtieitemj itisdi- 
reftly fttU CO fingulars. 

7. IconceJvcalfo that in tie Minifterial afl of offering, and faying. Take, 
Eat, Drink, Chrift may be laid to Scalhisr-Preccpt, whereby lie hath made it the 
dutie of man> to Take or Accept an offered Saviour with his benefits , on the 
Offerers terms. 

8. Thus far there is noqueftionbuthc fealethto Hypociites, as w^ll as to 
true Believers. 

9. Concerning the Prom ill- or Tcftamenr, wc muft y€t diftinftly confider, 
I . the Promifc it felf which goes firft, 2, the fealing of this Promik , which is 



next. 3. thcDelivcryor Application by oftli which is ncxc. 4, the Reception 
or Acceptance of the thing offered, which is next. S. the adual efficacic of the 
Promife in Conftituting the Riglu of the Receiver in the Benefit , which is 
next. 6. the mutual obligation ofcachPaicic to fulfill the rcniaindci of the 
Covenant for the future, which is the lall. 

10. That Seal wii.ich properly confirms the Gofpel to be true, is miracles and 
other gifts ot th; Holy Ghoft \ but the Sacraments, though they may do much 
alio to that, .is they arc a continued publick Commemoration , and lo anexcel- 
■icntway of Traduion, yet are they efpecially Applicatory f;gns for renewing 
clear apprehenfions, helping memoric, afllfting in uur Application of the gene- 
ral Promife, refolving oiu: Wills, exciting our affcdions to a more lively fenfe of 
Chiifts Love, and our fiii and Duty, &c. and adually to help us in the Praifcs of 
the Rjedeemcrby lofolemn and Icnfible a Commemoration of his Redemption 
of. us. 

11. Minifters are Chrifts Officers in Explication and Application of his Laws 
and Covenants. 

li. Their Application or Explication is no Addition to the fenfe, nor any 
making of a new Law or Covenant. Therefore when God faith, /yfco/oei'f/* •will 
Believe, fljall have Clmft and L'.fc ; and the Minifter faith , // thou. A. B. rvilt fft- 
tieve, thou Jbalt have Chriji and Life ; The Minifter addcth not to the Promife, 
but applyeih it according to its proper fenfe ; feeing a univerfal Enunciation ab- 
foiutely fo called , may be iiftributed in fingula gtnerufn , though a Uni- 
verfal jec/^;»^w quid may be only diftributed into Species or gcacra pngu' 

1 3 . And therefore to feal to that lingular Enunciation, is no more then to 
feal to the Univerfal, but much lefs, if it were to that alone. 

14. It is Gods Legal Deed of Gift, or Promife written in.Scripture, or other- 
wlfecKprcflcd, to which the Sacrament is a Seal, and conlcquently to that fingu- 
lar enunciation, which is but part of the fame Promife, and that as it is con- 
tained in the univerfal -: but not as it is a thing diftinft from the univerfal Pro- 
mife, or as fuppofed to addc to it, or contain more, for fenfe, in it j nor to the 
Application of the Minifter, as fuch. 

I f. But for the right underftanding of this , wemuft explain this word , f» 
Seal to, which is of leveral fignifications : i. It is one thing to/>d/ro a thing as 
the Teftimonium p/imarium, to which the Seal is the Teflmomumfecundaiium . So 
thclnftrument is fealed to. t. It is another thing to/calioi thing as the fub- 
jeSinm materiale obfi^atum : fo the matter contained in that Inftrumcnt is feal' 
edto. 3. It is another thing to /f^/ fo a thing as the )f«Aj <://:;;« ultimatut : fo 
the good which the partic ultimately receives from that Donation, Contrad? &c. 
asitsendris /e<a/e</ro. 4. And its another thing to feal to a thing as the finn 
CHJHS proximuSy vel propior : and fo to our Right to Chrift, our Remiflion, juftj- 
fication, Adoption, &c. are fealed to. ?. And its yet another thing to feal to a 
perfon as ihcfinU cut : and fo God f'oleth to us, the forementioned Covenant, 
&c. I mean that according to its feveral refpeds to thefe things , the words feal 
to hath feveral fignifications. Now the application , the Right delivered, &c, 
may be faid tcyht fealed to, as the fitiis proximus ciijus : for it is fealed that it may 
be delivered and applyed for conveying Right : but thefe are not fealed to as 
the fubjeClum obftgnatum ; thatisthc rronufc ot Grant it fcif , whereby Right is 

i^. The 


IS. The Sacraments arc not only Seals td^hc Grant or Promife, but further- 
more are Exhibiting or Conferring figns,in fubferricncie CD the Promife ; as 
Inftrumcnrs to folemnizc the Collation of Chrift and his Benefits. And this 
feems to be a far more remarkable end of them, then proper fcaling : For Sa- 
craments are fuch ki:id of figns , as thofc in thcfolcmn;zationof marriage, in 
glying hands, purring on a ring, cxprcfliig Confenr , &c. Or as the Crowr.ing 
of a King, oi the liiling a SouJdicr : or as a twig, a turf, or a Key in giving 
polFcrtion. So that the niaia life tolloweth the nicer fealing. 

17. As Gods Uaiverlai Grant of Chrift and paidon is but Conditional (In 
form or fcnfc) to which the Sacrament fealcth •, To the min'ftcrthat diftribuccth 
the llnivcrfal to fingulars, muft do it but Conditionally, If thou A. B. wilt Be- 
ticvCy thou (h^lt hiivc Chrijl and Life : So that ftill it is no Abfolute but a Condi- 
tional Promile or Grant that is fealed. 

18. This Conditional Promife is lealed Abfolucely and aftually •, for were it 
fealed only Conditionally, then it were not AAually fealcd at all, till the Con- 
dition is fulfilled : but the fcnfc would run thus , Th^s A^ionfhiUbe my Sed , 
when you bcluvc, or peyform fomc other Condiitrn. But I conceive God fcaleth Aftu« 
ally, and therefore Abfolurely, before men truly or really believe, when a Mini- 
ftcr on his Command and by hib Commirtion doth it. 

19. Yet though God Seal the Con licional Promife Abfolurely to fuch as pro- 
fcfs to receive it ; th.u is, though h? hereby atteft that he owns that Promife as 
his Aft or D-cd -, 'yet doth he not either Exhibitc or C onvey Right to Chrift 
and his Bcnefirsjfior yet oblige himfi-lf for thi. tutuie, Abfolutv.Iy, but Con- 
ditionally only, for in this Conveyance an«i Obi gation the Giant or Cove- 
nant is the principal Inftrumenr, and thefign the lefs principal -y and both to the 
fame ufe : :.nd thercf )re the laucr cannot Abfolurely Convey, or Oblige the Pro- 
mifer, UiiLfs the firft d^ it nblolutcly too. 

10. Go- may ihercfo.c leal his I'lomife, and thereupon ofF.r Chrift and Life 
to men that pi -tended a wilhngmfs to Receive it, and yet not aftually convey 
Kg .t to Ch ift and Life, nor Aftually oblige hiinfelf to pardDnor fave thcfin- 
ner, bcciufc the pa; tie mry rcfufo tic offj! , cith-r rcfufing Sacrament and ail, 
or '.nly ReUifing in h.art the benefit ofF.rcd, nt left as fuch and on the terms that 
its offered on, and on which only it may b; hnd. And fo when the fealing ufe is 
p. ft, the Sacrament may lufe its Conveying and obliging force ('fo far as we 
may fay God obi gcih himlllf) for w?.nr cf tru.- Reception ; and thus ic doth 
With all un found Believers. 

Id-firerb.e Readci, according to this explanation tounderftand that which I 
wrote againft Mr. Tombcs in my book ot" Bapiifm, about the Sacraments fralmg 
to the UMgwdly. 

Having faid tiius much for the opening of my opinion, and the avoiding of 
Confufion , I return to Air. B'-ilfi words. And i. where he faith , The ma'ior 
is not fcii/cd ■,for the SacramaJtsfcal not to the truth of any renernl p: op^ifuir.ns , tut 
thcyfcalrv'nlrapiJicaiioniOparticuUypcyfom: I R-'ply, They feal no doubt with 
refpeft to particular perfons ; but that they may not Hal both the gen.ral Pro- 
mife and tiie firgular as comprized in it , to that particular p:ifoa, I hear not 
yet proved, v\. q. d. Hav'm promifedChnfl and Life to every one ihatvoitt Accept 
himy left thou [Iivtldfl (larger at this my TroniilCy I owl it by this fa', z. Where he 
faith. It fc.ils that which fupplies the place of the minor j viz. I give thee Chrift : 
1 Reply , I. Its true j becaufc this is no addition to the generafGrant, but part 

F f of 


of jrt proper fenfi: : Tot ht\hsii^3i'iihy I given to all Believers ^ faith in fenfca 
J give it to thee if thiu be a Believer. Othciwife God fcaleth net tOi what he pro- 
niifethnot : and were rot the lingular Enunciation comprehended in the lenfc 
of the Univei fal, you could ntvci prove chat the lingular is fealcd. z. But what 
lb ilic meanii gcf y cm Min( i, whitli )ou hy ib fc-alcd > Is it an Abfolute and 
hmplc P:opo»H'.oiior Eininciatiou , a^ you cxprcTs it '- Or is it a Conditional 
one > Do you nuan,i wlH ^ivc tbcc C'hiijl o'n Condition that thou Acccft hiw at 
fjjfhed; or, 1 uili vive hm Jbjolnt('y : And I y giving, do you mean proper cfte- 
ftu.il giving which conveys Right '-. ox only an orfci which conveys not Right till 
it be Accepted on the terms on which its olFered > If you mean by gift , a meet 
oftcijthcn it may be lealed Abfoluiely j fou God doth AbfolucclycfFcr , where 
he doth but Conditionally Give. He doth not fay, 1 wilt offer you (^/.(ii/?,o« con- 
fiilien yen will tc,i{c lim j tor he cftcrcth him whether men Accept him or not. 
It you mcin a full gifr, and mean tl.c Enunciation to be Abfolute, then that man 
fliall certainly have Cluift and Life, v.iiether he accept him or not ; or at left , 
accepting is no Condition, And chm all that God lb fealcth to, fliall be faved. 
Nor will it help you to lay, that he fcals ch s Ablolute Promifc but Conditional- 
Jy : for hcwcverjrjic man muft needs be faved by fuch a Gift or Promife it felf, 
though it Were never fealedat all. If you mean (as I fuppofcyou do ) / give 
thee Chiift la he time , on condition that thou Accept him as off a cd ; then i , Why. 
did you exprefsa Conditional Gitt, in Abfolute terms , leaving out the Condi- 
tion > 2, Why then arc you fo loth to yield that this Conditional Grant is A^b- 
folutelyfealcd, that is,ovvncd by ancxprefs iign ; As long as the Grant is but 
Conditional, yea and the fign it f'Jf doth Exhibit or Convey but Conditional- 
ly J what danger to fay that it fealeth Abfolutely ' Is there not more inconve- 
nience in faying tl.at both the Grant is Conditional, and yet a Ifo that it is but 
Conditionally fealed f 

3. You adde, The outtv^rd Elements arc ^ivcn on this C(.jiditio'a, tiat rcc receive 
thtmi that wc cat and drinl^ them : Reply, I never gave them but on a higher 
Condition, vi\. Jf you Tvill lalie Cbrijteff'ccd , tai^c this which fignificth , &c. 
And 1 think Chrift never gave them but on condition , that men Accept him as 
well asthc fign ; though when they performed not. what, they pretend to do , 
he doth not lufpcnd his aft of Tradition .* And in fuch a cafe it is a Delivermg, 
but not a proper Giving, And I do not thmk that you ufc your felvcs to give 
the Sacramental figns meerly on condition that men will Take , and Eat, and 
Drink them : As you charge a further Condition on them , fo 1 conjc- 
fture that if they Ihould profcfs no more, then fo to Take the figns , you would 
not deliver them. 

Next you argue thus , 7hat which all do not partal^e of that receive the Sacra- 
fnent, is not Absolutely , but ConditimaUy fealcd in the Sacrament. But all do not par - 
taf^eof Chrtflin the Sacrament i therefore he is not ^bfo'ute/jiy but Conditionally feal- . 
td : Reply, i. What if I fliould grant all this .'' what is it to our prefent que- 
ftion ? to 5f/j/C/;>ij?, is fomewhat an uncouth phrafc. It is either the Grantor 
Promife of Chrift thatyou mean, which Gives Chiift : or it is tlic ^/^i fo Gi- 
ven : C Fo'^ Chrift hJmfelf in fubftaiice is not Given by the Covenant , other- 
wife then by giving us Right to him.) If you mean it of Right to Chrift, then 
this is the Terminus preximus cxhibitienisy and the more remote end of fealirg j 
whereas our Queftion was of the fubjed fealed, and not of the end of fealing. 
And therefore you fliould not have thought that you conclude the Queftion, 


when you fpeak only to anochcr queftion. But it by fealin^ ChrlH, you mean on- 
ly /"m/jw^ the Promife or Giiinc of Orrifi and Life inhi/n; then i. I deny your 
major propofition. If you had faid only, That which alt Ao not partal^e of that re- 
ceive the Sacrament ^ is not ahfoliutly Given; 1 fliouldeafily have granted it : tor 
it is Given on condition of Kecciring : and even a fealcd Grant may be un- 
cflfeftual to Conreyancc, through the inrerpofition of the DilTcnt and Rcjc<aion 
of him that (hould receive. But you adde for the confirmation of the major , 
None can mifs of that which G).i ^ibfolutcly. Grantcth,and ^i/folutciy fcaleth ; Reply, 
I. But what is this to your major ' was there any mention of AbfoliiteGrantmr > 
This is fomcwhat a larg^ Addition, i. And what is this to the queftion between 
yoUand mc ? You know and acknowledge, that I fay. It is the Conditional 
Grant that is Abfolucely fealcd ; why then do you difpute againft Abfolute 
Granting and Sealing ? This is lofs of time to the beft of your Readers ; and 
for the worft, it may make them think my opinion is clean contrary to my own 

Mr. Bl. {^"K '" ^^/^ ^^'^ Soul frame any Argumentation, I fuppofc it is to be con* 
\J ccived Tothis pu/p»fc ; If God give me Chrift , he will give luc 
Juftificotion and Salvation by Chrift j but God gives me Chrift j therefore he 
will give me Juftification and Salvation. The major tsfiippgfcdnotfcaled: thcming-f 
is ihcre fcaled : The Elements being lead, ed by tbcSiiinilicr in Gods ftead^aud recei- 
ved with my hand i I am co'"fi,med that God gives Chnjt to my Faith : And the 
minor being p. ah d, che eonclufton co nomine is fcaled. The proof of any propofition in 
a SyBng/fm, is pi order to the proof of the Conclufion •■, and fu the fealing of any fro- 
pofition is in order to thcfcaling of the Conclufion ; which indeed ^ir. Baxter grants; 
w'.'cre hejaycs that the Propofition that God fcaleth to runs thus. If thou do believe, 
I do pardon thee, and will l^vz thee : Tet fcverd pajjages in that Vifcourfe , are I 
confefs beyond mywia^ apprcbcnfion. 

7?. B. I . TpO your Argument there needs no more to be faid then is (aid to the 
former. When God hath in one Deed of Gift beftowcd on us 
Chrift and Life, Remiffion, Juftificacion, Adoption, &c. ( i Joh. j. io,i 1,12. 
Job, 1. II, li.) it muft hz in cale of great ignorance that the perfon that 
knows that God givcth him Chiift, muft yet be conftrained by after a: guings to 
acknowledge chat he giveth him Juft.fication. And how this argument tends to 
explain the n.iturc of Saciamental fealing, I nciiher know, nor lee any thing here 
to help mc to know. If you wilHuppofe luch an Aigument as this uied for Ap- 
plication , I would not ftick toyicldit ufcful •, /;V)rtr God doth by bis Te3ament 
give to all men, on condition they will Accept it^ that he gives torn:: on condition I 
will .Accept it. But he gives Chrid and L'fc in him, to all men if tbey will Accept it\ 
tJierefnrc to me : (^Or jf you will fay^ to all that hear the Gofpcl. ) Though the 
ufc of fuch an Argument is more for Iiv>^ly Application, then confirmation of the 
Truth of the Giant. 

F f 1 i.Youv 


I. Your fuppofition that your minor is fcalcA, and not your major, hath 

enough laid to it. 

3. ric Saciamcnts may cojifirmc your faith in Chrift as. given to you, other- 
wife tiicn by fcalii.j;, i/^. as ti^cy aic iigus-foi Rcmcnibiancc, Excitation to fcnfe 
and liv<iy ?pp:«.l-.ciiuonsot Gods Donation>andab vhcy arc figns inftiumcntal 
in lolc Conveyance of the bcncfic Given, as a iw g and a lurtc, and a Key in 
giving poflcihon, and the words and adions of niatrimonial folcmniiatonor 

4. It is new J.ogick to iY\y undciftanding, that the minor being fcalcd, the Con- 
clufion to nomine u fcakd : The minor ot mnny an Aigumcnt may be true, and 
the conclufioo-fajfe. And therefore when the cafe fo tails out, that both minor 
and conclufion arc uue,or f.aicd, icisnot o) »')wi»f , bccaufc the minor is tiuc, 
that the Conclufion Is lo, (ox is fealcd, co nomn: bccaule the minor is lo^ but be- 
caufc both nujor and mirior are fo, . nd not then neither, but upon fuppoiition that 
the Syllogilm be found. 

5. But to prove this , you fay, the vroi.f any Trofafiliov in a SyUngifniy U in order 
tothc proof 'of the Cnnctu/ien : and (0 thcjeahtig of anyTropofilinn is m order to the ■ 
fealing of the Conclufion : Rtply ;" The hi ft ks tiuc. i. but what is this to the 
matter '■• Is it all one to prove if and zobc in oracr to prove it j 10 feal it and wbc in 
order tothe feaiingof it ' Is the Conclufion proved on the proof of one Propc- 
lition ' No ; therefore according to your own argui: g, neither is it fealcd by the 
fealingof onePropofition. i. Thac the Icaling of one Propcfition is in order 
to the fealiiigof the Cor.clufion, I deny. i. It may be a fingle Propofition that is 
lealed, not ftanding as part of a Syllcgifm : as this, 1 Giw Chrtfi and Life in him 
to you allthanviU^iceepthnn. z. jt it be fiippofcd part of a byllogifm , it is 
enough lonK time that the Conclufion be cleared or confiimed, or we enabled ig- 
falhblytu gather it, by the lealingcf one Piop 'fition: but it is not neceflaiy that 
it be the very fealing of the Conclufion, to which the fcalingof that Ptopofuion 
doth tend. When a Landlord l.ath fealcd a Leafe tohis,Tenant, he hath feal- 
ed this Propofition, If A.B. rpell and ftdy pay fichT^ents, he Jhall quietly cnjey 
fuch Lands : fuppole ihc minor to be, But A. B. doth or wiU fveU and truly pay fuch 
Rents : fuppofc thii minor Propofition eiibcr falfe or uncertain, will you lay then 
that ihefealing'brthc major was in order to the fcalingof the Conclufion ? No: 
the Conclufion is -^blolute, therefore h.Vi. fljall enjoy ftich Lands : butthcPro- 
pofit.on fcaled is Condicional. It is enough that it fecurehis Right, if he pay his 
Renr, and that it enable him infnllibiy fo to conclude, while he performs the 
conditions, thougli it tend not at all to ftal the Conclufion. We feldom ufe feals 
to Syllogifms : and not to Conclufions as fuch, or eo no;w«f ,becaule a major or 
minor Propofition is proved : though the thing fcalcd may be to other ufcs made 
pa It of a Syllogifin. 

Yet 1 grant that where the Syllogilm is fuch as that one of the Propofitions 
doth morally contain the Conclufion in fenfe, though not in terms, there the 
conclufion is fealcd when that one Propofition is fcalcd : becaufe it is the fenfc 
and notmeer terms that are fealcd-, and undoubted naturals are prefuppofed in 
moralitie, and therefore thefcallng of one is the fealing of both ; For example, 
ir you argue either from a Synonimal term, or trom the thing as Defined to the 
thing as named, or from the Genm to the SpccieSy or from the Species to the 
Individual; thus, fuccinum c»rroborat cirebrum : At Amba;riimyvel ele£lrum e^fuc" 
iittitm: xhQKifoie ,40ibarum vei eUHrHmcorroborat cmbrum : or thus^ frivatio 


§. <S6r. 

Mr. Bl. UEthatBclievctliisJunifiedandfliallbefaved- i. u;. ^ ™ 

K. B. A LL this is anfwcredfuflScicntJy already. Only obfervc that by J^ai^i*' 
■t\. jkvprf, and ivDiilftvctbcCi I mean but fljdlhavc, $r J will give thee 
pre fent Right to falvation-j For the continuance of that Right, hath more then 
Faith for its condition. 

$. 67. 

M; . Bl. 'T'Hat itfcaktb mt to the truth of the minor Tropofition , But I beh'evc, 
( he fays ) w beyond difpuic, giving in his rcafons. It fljould feal then 
to that which u net rvrtttcn; for no fcnpturef-tithy that I do believe; lo certainly Sa- 
craments dofcal; they fed to that which is not dirr£lly written^ they feal with farticH- 
lar applicatim, but the man to whom they are app'ycd hath not hu name injcripture 
written ; l hey feal to an individual pcrfnn , upon the ifaryants of a general Pro- 
mfc : though I do not fay that Tropoftien ^s Jea!cd;yet mc things this reafon is (cajce 

R, S. '^JOu deny not my aflertion, butaigue againft the reafon of it ; ai be- 
fore by tellirg u.c what you thought , fo here by affirming the con- 
trary certain, you attempt the confutation of mine. To your i ftance I give 
ihefe two returns i. It is equivocation, when our qucftion is of fealing to a thing 
as the fnhieaum obftgtatnmi for to inftancc in foaling co a perfon as the finu cui» 

Ff 3 The 

Ttiefeal, A« Is to appUcitlon as an end, not to application as the fubjeftfcaled. 
1. lut If you rcfpeft not the perfon as the Old of application, but at the party tx- 
p t.(^ii in the t^roinifc which Is fcaled, then I fay, If you can prove that the unlver- 
lal l^ropoficinn doth not in fcnU contain the fingulars, fo that this lingular, if thou be 
ficve thoit (halt be favd , be not In Moral Law fenfe contained In this unlverfal. 
All that believe ^.tU he Caved , ( the Law fuppofing them all to be men and Tinners ) 
then I will prove, that God doth not properly fcal to the fingulars i But till then I 


Mr. Bl. V4 K Baxtcr/<iy«, The ^reat queflionu i whether tbeyfeal to the Conclufion , 
as they do to the major Propojition / Toivhichbeanfrve)s ^ No, dlrcdly 
and properly It doth not. if the Propofitionfccms dircClly to prove the Conclufion , then 
that -tvhich dircllly con^rms any Fropofttion'm arightlf formed SyUogifm ^ confirms the 
Qonculfwn. If the Conclufion be not fcaled,then no Propofitm is feded, or elfe the Syllo^ 
gifm it ill-framed. 


R.B. X^*'*j*"on«'»DoarIne to be received without one word of proof Dotf, 
he that lealeth the major of this following $y llogirm , feal the Conclufion? 
Att that truly Receive Chrift, are the Sons of God,and(haltbe faved. Judas did tru'yZ 
ecive Chrift ', therefore Judas rva, the Sen of God, and fhiU be Cavtd. I think "both 
Premlfes muft be true, before the Conclufion will thence be proved true. And It Ic 
notlcaledbyGod, when It isfalfe. " u ms 

§. 69. 

Mr.Bl. l^Eafons are given. This Conclufion is nowhere written inScrfoture 

and therefore is not propsrlyiheobje^SI of Faith; whereas the fcais arc 
/v«' r^r^T; ^% T^^i**^ r.Tr/;icfe/r.^, Itur^ritten Virtually, thoughnot 
exprefly That J (haH rife in judgment u nowhere mitten, yet it u ofFahhihat I 
fhiUrife ; md when! have concluded Faith in my heart, Js weU as Reafon in m 
soul , knoromgrnyfelf to be a Believer as I know my fclfto be a man, I may Js weU con- 
clHde that 1 {halt nfe to Lifc^ 04 that I fl)aU rife to Judgement, ^eu con. 

§. 69, 

R. B. I. ^Utnyouop^oCc yirtwUy to Exprefly, you[ei,v. by WittUiUy to mean 
m fenfe though not In terms. If fo, then your Syllogjfm Is tautolo- 
gical. But take It In what fenfe you wlU in any propriety, and I deny that It is Virtu- 
ally written In Scripture , that youor I do Believe, or yet that you or I are Juftified 
and (hall be faved. Yet I confefs that fomc Condufions may be fald to b; l4tcrp,eta» 
tivtvelfecHnd(imloqui(tionmmoralemla$ctlpw:e, when but one of the premifes is 

thirc J 


there: but diatls whcnthc other is prefuppofedas being as cettain : but of this 
more anon, where you fpeak of tl>is fiibjed more Jaigcly. 

z. To your inftance, I fay. It is by Faith and nacural knowledg mixc that you 
conclude you fliall rife again. The Conclufion paiticipateth of both Picmifes, 
as to the giound of its certainty. That it doth /f^«;, is a right gathered Con- 
clufion, is known only by Reafon, and not by Faith : that it is true, is known 
partly by Reafon, and partly by Faith, when the Premifes belong to both. Yet 
though in ftrift fenfc, it be thus mixc, in our ordinary difcourfe we niuft deno- 
minate it from one of the Premifes, and ufually from the more notable, al- 
waies from the more Dcbilc. Scripture faith, AU min jhaU rifcj Reafon faith, 
you area man. Though the Conclufion here partake of both, yet it is moft 
fitly faid to be Wc/r/f, both becaufc Scripture intended each particular man in 
the lliiivcrfal J and bccaufc it is fuppofcd as known to all, that they arc men 5 
and therefore the other part is it that refolvcch the doubr, and is the notable and 

more debilc part. - • 

Irs I know undoubted with you, that C«ncli<fio fqnilur partem dtbUiorcm, Now 
though Gods Word in it felf is mofl infallible, yet in rcfpeft of the evidence to 
us, it is generally acknowledged that it is far fliorc of natural principles, and ob- 
jefts of fenfe, in fo much that men have taken it for granted, that thd objcAs of 
faith arc not evident (of which I will not now ftand tofpeak what I think,but touch 
it anon).Thcreforcit being more evident that you arc a man,tlicn itis ih t allmcn 
Ihall rifi ,'t is fitteft to fay the Conclufion is dcfidc as the more debile parr.But can 
we fay fo of the prefent Conclufion In qucftion ? Have you a fuller evidence thac 
you are a fincere Believer, then you have that , All finccre Believers arejufti- 
fied ? I have not for my part : But it fucms by your following words that you 
have, or fuppofe others to havcj to which I fay 3 , If you have "as evrdemly con- 
cluded that Faith is in your heart, (faving Faith) as that Reafon is in your Soul, 
& know your felf to be a Believer as evidently as you know your felf to be a man, 
then your Conclufion may be denominated to be nV fide, as a parte ditUfiore.. But 
if this be not your cafe, it is mofl fit (for all the mixt inteicft of the' Premifes^ 
to fay that it is not dc fide , but from the knowledge of your finccrity in the 
Faith, as a pate dcbU'iore. And if it be your cafe indeed, you arc the happi.ft man 
that ever I yet fpakc with. Cut I know that no man ordinarily can have fuch 
evidence of his finccrity ; yet b- caufe I wiil norfpeak of you or others by my 
felf, nor judge others hcarrstobe as bad as my own, or as all thofe that 1 have 
convcrfed With, we will if you picnic thus comprimiZC the difrcrencc : All thofc 
whofe evidence of finccriti? is as cleer as the evidence of their Reafon and man- 
hood, yea cr more then Scripture evidence, fo that Gods Tcftmiony is purs dc- 
bilior in the Syllogifm i thcfe fliall cake rhc Conclufion, tlat they are jfapficd, to 
he de fide : and all the reft fliall take the C-ncIufionto be not dc fide , but fr^ m 
the knowledge of ihemL'lves : and then let the iffue ibcw v/heihcr more will l»e 
of your mind or of mine. I chink this a fair. Agreement, 

Mr. Bl. /^Therwife (faith he) every man rightly Receiving the Seals, muft 

V-r needs certainly be Juftificd and favcd. 1 fi:e no danger in yielding 

this ConcUifion ; every manrigbt/y receiving ^rjU'uKproving the fcals, wn^be)a-ve.d 


C "8 3 

Mfid Jitjlificd. He thai yightlyyecdvcs thcfalsy receives Chrlfl in the finis t and r<- 
ccivlng Chrifiy he 'fccives JJiaiicn. Sohe thatriehtly kms. Hear and your Souls 
ihall live. Ifa. ff. So he tbairtg!'!ly p/ayes. Wholocver calh on thcnamcof the 
Lord (hall be favcd. Rom. i o. 

§. 7^. 

R- B- '. jy^ "^ghtly, I meant, having R'ght lo it, and that only in /oro £f- 
*J c!e/U, and not Re fie. But 1 confcTs 1 fliouJd have plalnlyci" cx- 
preft my me;n.ng. i. Whether you here contradid not your Dodrincot Bap- 
tifmal Faith, where you fuppofc juft'fying Faith to b? iht thing promifcd by us 
in Baptifni, and rhereforc not prcrcqu.fitc in it, 1 leave you to judge, and rcTolvc 
as by your explication. 

§. 71. 

Mr. Bl. A Ndno mancangroundedly adminiftcr the Sacrament to any but 
•■A himfclf, becaufe he can be certain of no mans Juftification and 
Salration 3 Vpon the fame terms that he l^notvs any man may be faved, upn the [ante 
he may give him the Sacrament feaimg this falvation. Thu argument as rve heard 
ItefoHyis Bellarmines, and coucluihs indeed agdinfl ^bfolittc jeals in the Sacra- 
ment, but not againft Conditional fealing , as is confejj'cd by Prctcfiant Di- 


§. 7t. 

R.B, I. T know it not to be true of any man that he (hall be faved ; thcrc- 
JL fore I m y not foal it to any, by your Conccrtion. God Seals to no 
fal(hood J 1 know not whether it be trueor falfe that ^. B. jhaUbc faved. Yet 
it is on fonie of the Oppofers principles that 1 now argue. 

i. 1 defirc you nottoanfwer it as Bellarmines ir^umcnty but as mine , feeing 
you choofc me to deal with. 3 .The Argument makes as much againft my alHrting 
theTiuthof your Conclufion , as the fealing it : fo that let your fealing be 
Conditional or none at all, i may not fo much as affirm to any man whofc heart 
I know not, the Conclu(ion which you fay 1 muft fcal. The Conclufion is Abfo- 
lure, Thou A. B. art Jufiifed andjhalt be faved; though the Major Propolition, or 
or Uiiivcrfal Grant be conditional. Now if youwiliS^al this Abfoluce Co iclu- 
fioa conditionally, then i. you will fin in the bare aflfinuing it a true Conclu- 
fion, before you feal it , if you go but fo fat. z. What is the Condition that 
you mean ? I fuppofi; true Faith. But if fo, then where there is not true Faith , ' 
ihetc you do not Aftually fcal : For a Conditional feal.ng, is not Aftiial feal- 
ing till the- condition he performed i for the condition not performed fufpcnds 
the ad. And then you hare miftaken in thinking that the Covenant is fealed 
adually to the unrcgcneratc or ungodly. But if you mean any thing (hort of 
trueFa.ih, how can you on that condition fcal to any man , that he is Jttftifiedy 
aadJhaR be favcd. 1 do therefore rather thoofe to fay, // thou Believe tboujh^lt 


C 129 3 

^ faved : and thmj as contained in the gum aL Grant i labfolutdyfcal; then to ^^y* 
Thoujhalt be favedy and this I fed if thou Believe. Though I fay again , I make a 
fmall matter of this, and fuppofc your meaning and mine is the fame , for all 
ihefe words. 

4, Where you fay , It concludes an ^bfolnte fealing ; I fay. No , if it be but 
to a Conditional Grant, and if Abfoluce Exhibition or Collation be not added 
to abfolute fealing. 


Mr. Bl. \AK Baxter adds, I amforry ro fee what advantage many ofourmoft: 
learned Divines have given the Papifts here, as one error draws 
on many, and leadcth a man into a Labyrinth of Abfurdities •, being firft mi- 
ftaken in the nature of juftifying Faith, thinking it confifts in a belief of the 
pardon of my own fins (which is thc^onclufion ) have therefore thought that 
this is if which the Sacrament fcaleth. And when the Papifts alledge that it is 
nowhere written, that fuch or fuch a man is juftified •■, wc anfwer them that ic 
being written, that He that Bclieveth is juftified, this is equivalent. Bht ^Ir, 
Baxttt doubUefs l^nntvs that many Divines rvho arc out of that error concerningthe na- 
tU'C sf Jtifiifyifig Faith, and have learned to dijiinguijh between Faith m the Ejfence 
ef It and Ajf urate e ; yet arc cotfid.ntly perfrvadcd that the Sacrament fcals this Con- 
dfffion, {(nowiiig that the Sacrament fcaleth tvhatthe Covenant promifcth to the ftrfons 
in Covenant, and upon the fame terms as the Covenant doth promife it. Now the Co- 
venant prgmifethfoigivenefs of fins ( as Mr. Baxter conftjjes ) conditionally , and 
this to all in Covenant, and this the Sacrament fcaleth. 

^. B 

' S.7i. 

. I . TF there be any that miftake but in one of thofc points , whca others 
JL iniftaktintheni all, thofe arc not the men meant that I fpeak of. 
I intended noccveiy ma:, thjtheld your opinion, but only thofc th.it held it on 
the ground and with the worfer conf.qucnt or defence which I cxprLlTcd. 2. I 
fliali know whom you mean , when I fee the Authors and place in rhem cited. 
3. I think nioftof our great tranfmarine Div ncs who write of itagainftchc Pa- 
pift?;, do own that which you acknowl'.'dge an error; and what advantage that 
will give the Papifts, who arc fo ready to take a Contutatioa of one Dodrine of 
the Pto^cftants for a Confutation of all, you may cafily conjeAure. 4. This 
Conclufion many contVfs fcaled , If then A. B. doklicvc, thoujhalt be faved : but 
not this Conclufion , Tl}du A. B Jha't be faved. 5. I have (hewed you that it is 
one thing to fcal to the Promife tot form and matter ^ and another thing to feal 
to the perlons Right to the thing promifcd. T his adual Right is but the end , 
which is/ot obtained, till Delivered or offered i Reception and adual Colla- 
tion go before j and then is not lac fubjeftum obfignatufn. Your argument I con- 
ceive doth nothing for your caufe, yea is wholly for mine. Your Conclufion is, 
therefore this the Sac: anient fcaleth--, what is this > why Forpvcncfs of fins Condition- 
ally, md this to all in Covenant. Here i . you fcem to yield that it is not the Ab- 
folute but Conditional Promife which is iealed , which is the main thing that I 
ftood on ; ^. You fccm to apply the word Conditionally to forgivcnefs, and not 

G g to 

tofidlng *. androtoconfefiibatthclcalinp is aftual; and if aftual, then not 
mcerly conditional. For to fay 1 condiUonaUy feal, is C) lay, ItPtall be m fcal , //// 
the poformancc of the Conditien. But you fecm toconfcfsit a fcal before of Con- 
ditional foi givcncfs. 3 . Ycu ftcm to acknowledge the general Promifc fcalcd, 
though with apphcation to particular pcrfons. 

§. 73' 

Mr. Bl, A Ndas it U an error to hold that to believe myfitts areforgivcnj itef tht 
X\ nature or ejjcnce of Fa'tih, as though none didbeheze but theft that had 
attained fuch aflurafue, {true Faith hath cjju' ancc in purfuit only y fonietitr.cs , end 
not alwaies in pojjijsion) So ou the other hand n is a niijial[e to jay, that k is no 
vvoikof Faith. The ApofUc calls it the full ajf mane i of Faith, Htb. lo. i%. cnddc- 
jeribeth Faith to be thcfubfiance of things hoped for ; Faith reahy.ih falvation wbieh 
rpe have in hope to the Sunl. ADefcnpiioiuif Faah (fiith Br. Amcfius o/it of a 
Schoohnan) by one of the mofi eminent a£ls that it produceih; there jure I tal^e tin to 
he a good ahfwer that is here charged with error, that when it is wi itten, He that Be- 
licvcth is J uftificd, it is equivaliat, as though it were fuch or fuch a man is Jujlificd, 
in cafe with ajjured grounds and infallible Dimonflrations he tan malie it good to his 
oypnfelf that he bclicveth. 

5. 75- 

K. B. 

IF aflutance be not of the nature or Eflcnce of Faith , then it is not 
Faith : for nochJrg is Faith, but what is of the nature and Eflcnce 
of Faith : But accordiiig toMr. iJ/. aflurance isnotof thenature or Eflcnce of 
Faith (for he faich, its an error to hold it) j therefore according to Mr. Bt. aflVi- 
rancc is not Faith. But I fufpedt by the following words, that by nature and 
cffcnce, he means the minimum quod fie. 

z. That which is but cither Purfutd or Poflcfl^ed by Faith, is not Faith it fclf, 
( for nothing is the Purfutr and Purfued, the Poflcflbr and Pofleflcd j as to the 
fame part ; nor will Mr. Bl. I conjtftuic, fay, that a Icfs degree of Faith poflTefl"- 
cth a greatcrj but according :o Mr. Si. affurance is but puilued or poflcfled by 
Faith ; therefore is not Faith. 

3,1 know none that denyeth Afllirance to be a Work of Faith , which Mr. 
B/. here faith is amiftaketo fay , Love and Obedience are wroks of Faith , 
but not Faith it felf. 

4. 1 muft have better proof before I can believe that it is Affurance of our own 
fine(ritie,ora5lualJuJiificationi which the Apcftle calls The full aflurancc of 
Faith, Heb. l o. zi. Though how far this may concurr, I now enquire not. 

J. And as hardly can I difcern aflurance of our finccritic, in the dcfcription of 
Faiih, Htb. ii. i. Unlefs you mean that hope is part of Faith, and aflurancc the 
fame with hope ; both which need more proof. Hope maybe without aflurancc : 
and when it is joyned with it, yet it is not the fame thing. Only fuch aflTurance is 
a iingular help to the excrcifc of Hope, 

6. Its true that Faith may be faid, as you fpeak , to Realize falvation to the 
Sowl f that is 3 when the Soul doubtcth whether theic be indeed fuch a Glory 



nd Salvation to be cspefted and enjoyed by Bellevers,as Chrlft hatli promife'd , 
lerc Faith appiehendcth it as Real or Certain, and fo relolvcs the doubt. Bur 
vhenthedoubtisonly whether I be a true Believer, Faith rcfolves it not : and 
,vh;n the doubt is, whether this certain Glory and Salvation flull be mine, 
Paithonly cooperatcth to the refoivc of it, by affording us one of the Propoft- 
ions 5 but not both, and not wholly the Conclufion. 

7. I am of Dr. Sdmcs mindc that it is one of Faiths moft eminent afts , by 
which it is there defer ibed : But fo think not they that tell us that is none ofthc 
Inftrumental Juftifying aft which is there dcfcribed. 

8 . This which you took to be a good anfwer, is that great miftake which hath 
To hardned the Papifts agaiiift us , and were it not for this point , I fliould not 
have defired much to have faid any thingto you of the reft, ("about Condi- 
tional fealing ) as being confident that we mean the lame thing in the 

9 . You forfake them that ufe to giv« this anfwer, when you confine Ic to ihofc. 
only thit with a fured grounds and m fallible demouflratious can mal^e it good ta 
thcmfelvcs that they Believe, i. e. favingly. I doubt that anfwer then will hold 
but to very few , if you mean by Ajfhrgd grounds, &c, fuch as they are adual- 
Jy allured are good and demonftrative. 

10. Demonftrations may be infallible, and yet not known to be fuch to the p;r- 
fon : but I fuppofe that by the word "Demonltrat'ien % ycM intend that the partic 
difcerns it to be an infallible Demonftration : which fure intimates a very high 
kindeof certainty, 

11. Yet even in that cafe, I deny that the general Premlfc, in the major , is 
equivalent to the Conclufion, lam Jitflified andfJoallbe faved, though I fliould 
acknowledge that the Conclufion may be laid to be de jide^ in that the Major hath 
the predomuiant Intercft in the Conclufion, if fo be that the man have better evi- 
dence of his finceritic, then of the Truth of the Promifc. 

§. 74. 

Mr. Bl. Ty^t this is faid to be agrofs mjlalie, and thus proved, as though the Ma- 
D jor Propofition alone were equivalent to the Conclufion .* But here 
beitigin our Syllogifm, both a ^iajor and a J^linor, there is ac^ded further, or as if the 
Conclufion muft or can be meerly Qrcdenda, a properobjcft of Faith, when but 
one of the Propofitions is of Faith, the other of fenfe and knowledge : Here the 
Major is ccnfcft to be of Faith; but the Minor, I fincerely Believe, is affirmed to be 
i^noxvn by inward fenfe and fclf-re flexion' i^crc I rnufi enter my dijjait, that a Conclu- 
fion may be Credenda, an objcB of Faith, when but one of the P.opofitions is of 
Faith, and the other of fenfe and l^noTvledge : yea that it vPiU hold in matters of Faith 
both fundamental andfuperftru^ive. 

§. 74. 

7^. B. 1. TT was not this according to your limitations that was faid to be a 

1 grofs miftake j but as applyed to ordinary Believers, though my, 

reafons make againft both. ,^ . 

Gg 1 2. Yo^ 

a. You deal more cafily to your fclf, then tairly with mc, in your entred Dif- 
fcnt. 1 . 1 faid meirly Crtdmday as confcfling it is partly of Faith, and partly of 
knowledge, as the Pi cjnifcs arc ; and you leave out Wfc'/y, and put in (JrcdcTuia. 
alone, as jt Iccnyed it to participate ot Faith. 2. I denycd it thcicfctc to be a 
proper olycl of faith; that is, a mccr Cf'cdcndiim or Divine Tcftimony j acknow- 
ledging that it may he panicj p. itive OiUii partially, and kfb properly called anOb- 
j«A of Faith ; and you leave out propulyj and only affirm it an Ob)c£l (fFaithf 
of what fort focvcr, in g neral. 

3. I have anfwercd this fi fficitntly , in telling you my opinion : ». p. The 
ConcJulion ftill partakes of the nature ot both Premifes : and therefore when 
one is dc fide, aaidihc ouxr HatitralitCi iCvc/atiim zcl coffiitum , there the Con- 
clufion, is not purely cither lupematinal or natural, r^c)i'«f, or CJ^ cognuioHc natii- 
rali J bucniixt of both. That its tiulya Conclufion , following thofe Prcn ifcs , 
is known only by Rational difcouifc, and \s not de fide : but that it is a t:uePro- 
pofuion, is known partly naturally, partly by fupcrnatural Revelation ( which is 
that we mean, when we fay it is dc jidt). But bccaufc it is fittcfl in our common 
fpecch to givctiiis Conclufion a fimple and not a compound Denomination (for 
brevkic lakc^ therefore wc may vreIl"iicnominate it from one ot the Propofitions, 
and that nnift alwaics he a parte dibiiioie : And thercferc when it is pnmipiA 
naturalitLYHota that make one propofition or fcnliblc things, or what ever that is 
more evident then thetruth of the Propofifion which is of Divine Teftimony, 
chere it is fitteftto fay, The Conclufion is de fide , or of fupernatuial Revela- 
tion i As when the one Propofition is that ti^crc i\ a God, or I am a maji, or God is 
deat, or Good, or True. But when the other Propofition is lels evident thtn that 
which is ot Divine, Revelation, then it is fittcft to lay , that the Conclufion is 
fuch as that Propofition is, and not properly //p/f/c. For the Conclufion being 
the joynt iflUeof both Premifes as its parents or trueCaufes, it cannot be more 
noble then the more ignoble of .them. This explication of my opinion is it that 
I rcfcri you to as the fubftance of my anfwer to all that follows. 

§. 75. 

Mr. BI. y^HHcn Fiflier the Jcfu'uc totdDr. Featlcy that it was {olid Divinity, that 
a C'ovclufion de fide mnji neccfjdrilyby inferred out of trvo Piopojitions 
iit fide, D/-. Goad {bci7}g prcfcni as Dr. Fcatkys /Iffisiant) inttrpofcd in thefe 
VPOids, 1 will maintain the contrary pgainft you or any other ; That a Conclu- 
fion may be de fide , although both Propofitions be not de fide , but 
one of them otherwife evidently and infallibly true by the light of 
Reafon or experience ; nving inflance in this Conilufion,Qhr\i^\xs eft uC\hi\\s,vpbich 
he f aid and t,itty,rpas dc iide, though both Propofitions whence it is tnfet red t>c not de 
fid*. Omnis homo.cft rifibilis, ij«ef aV/opofition dc Indc ^ or fupematurally re- 
vealed in Sciiptwe ; yet thence the Conclufion follows in this Syllogifm. Omnis homo 
eft rififailis : Chriftus tflhomo : r/;f>f/o>c Chriftus eft rifibilis, winch is a Con- 
slufion de fide, affirming thn Mclchior Canus had judicioufly handled and proved ihit 
tcncnt, which he faidhe could otherwife dcmonfirate to be infaUib!e:To whom D/.Fcat- 
ley ajJ'ents,fccond Daics difpntc, pag. 2$. It were (a fie to frame many fuch Syflogifms. 
Jf'an Herctiil^jhoud affirm that Chrift had only a pbantafiicl( body in appearance only, 
hffw-wouldyou prove the contrary but with this Syllogifm^ He that is truly man,hath 
a true body, ;uid not a phantaftick body only. This is a Vfifitan in rtafov, Chrift 


istrujya man : th'n is a P$fition de Hue ih ScipturCy whence follows the ConclW 
ffon dc Bdcythat Chrift hath not a phantattickbody j Ifonfjhoidd deny that Chrifi 
had a rcajonabkfoiili affirm'wg that his body was informed by the Dtctic inftcad of a 
SoulymiiHitnotbethtcspiOvcd'^ Every true man hath a rcafonablc Soul: Chrift 
is a true man, and therefore Chrift liatha rcafonablc Soul. The Citie that ru- 
leth over the Nations of the carih, and is fcatcd on fcven hills, is the feat of the 
Beaft. This is a Scripture Trapofttion : But that Rome then rided over the Na* 
lions of the Earth i and was fcatedon 7 hiUs^ we i^mw by Hiflory and Geography : 
JVhcnce the Co'idujion follows, ffc<Jf Rome is the feat of the Beaft. Abundance of 
thefc maybefamedy where the Propofnion oppofitc to the Conclnfion, is cither an Herc- 
fic or at Icafl an error m Faith. The Condition is of Faith 'Difputing againji the Vbi' 
qicitarians and Tranfiihftantiation ; to holdup the Orthodox Panhy we are necefsita- 
tcd to mal^c ufe of maximes ofl^tiown rcafon. If they were deuyed us , the new Crew 
now fiart up, that deny all con fcqucnccs from Scripture , and will have none but Scri- 
pture words, had here a notable advantage. This Argument well followed, would put 
Mr. Baxter himfelf to a gcat lofs in fome of his Arguments (for which yet I five him 
tkanl{s ) to prove th'H the Scripture is the word of God. 

§. 7J. 

K. B. 'T'His is fully anfwercd before, even In mylaftSeftion. 1. Dr. Goad 
■4 faith but the fame that I fiy : only I diftinguilh I. Between that 
wliich is ^\xrc\y de fide, and that which is only denominated de fide as the more 
dcbilc of the Premifcs. In the latter fcnfe the Doftors conclufions are de fide , 
in the former not. 2. When a Conckifion is dcnyed to be dc fide , it maybe 
meant cither as a Diminution of its evidence, or as magnifying its evidence 
above that which Is purely ^c ^i/f, or as equaling it thereto. When I fay 
this Concluflon is not de fide, ^. B. is Jufiified and (Jja/I befaved, I fpeak ic 
byway of Diminution of its evidence and authority. And I confidently fpeak 
it, and doubt not to maintain It. But when I deny thisConclufion tobc fimply 
or purely dcfidc, I R. B .Jhall rife again, I diftinguilli nothing of the evidence or 
nectftityot It. And when I thM :irgu^, Omne quod fcntit & ratiocinatur^ cfl Ani- 
mal. ff(;R.B. fentio& ratiecinor : tUcrci'oie ego fum Animal; though I fay that' 
here the Conclufion is not de fide, yet I intend thereby to extoU It for evidence 
above that which Is de fide. And when I affirm this Conclufion to be de fide , / 
R'. B. fj-ill rife again , as denominated a parte debiiiorc, 1 do fpeak it in Diminu- 
tion of its evidence, in comparifon of that which Is more evident in nature : 
The Premifcs are thefc, All men fh.iU rife again : I am a man • therefore jfhall rife 
again ( fuppofing we fpck of men th.at dye). If the Major which Is dc fide, were 
as evident as the MInor,which is not, the Conclufion would be more evident then 
it is : and if neither were Wfj?^f, but both known naturally as the Minor is, the 
Conclufion would not be de fide , but would be more cvidenr. This I fpeak 
tliat you may not think that I deny the Certainty, Evidence or NecefTry of every 
Conclufion,whichl deny to hcdc fide,e\x.hzx purcly,or by prevalent p.TitIc!pat on. 
3. For the Papifts , though ofttimcs they take the term <ff^^(, as you an I 
do, for that which is by fupcrnatural Revelation Divine, yet fometimcs they tnkc 
it for any point which is nccefla; y to falvation to be held, without refpcct to the 
fupernaturaliiy of the RcveJaiion, How Fi^er ufed it, I know not. 

G g 3 4. X 


4. I think your Condufion, that ^Vj/;//i).tit»d r/«tf bodj/yh ^lUrcly de fdd and 
may be provLd by mccr Scripture Tcftiniony, without your medium. 

f . The nd vantage that you fay the new Crew would have upon dcnvaJ of ihe 
ufc of Maxiincs ot known rcalbn, 1 know no: who gives thcin ('except l^doni- 
la and his followers, againft whom its long fincc I read and conkntcd to yfdclius 
in the main). But once again, and once tor ail, kt mc tell you, that it' the other 
of your Prcmifesbc Icls evident or proveable then the very Woid of God, and 
be more to be doubted of, then your Conclufion is not ^c fide. For nothing 
that is truly f/fj^^f, is Icrsevidcnc then the truth of Gods Word, and that part of 
the word in particular. But yet though in fuch a cafe we tell them that the Con- 
c'ufion is not dcfidcy yet it follows not that it is untrue, yea or not evident ; nor 
do wc therefore deny the ufc of Reafoning from mediums of lower evidence then 
Scripture ; much Icfs of clearer evidence. But many confcqucnccs may he true, 
and yet not dc fide when one of the Premifcs is de fide. 

Note alfo for the undciftanding of what I have liiid concerning the evidence of 
the objcds of Faith, that whereas wc do ufuallyfu compare Science , Opinion 
and Divine Faith, as to conclude that Science is an allcnt both firmc, certain and 
evident j Divine Faith is an allent, fitnie and certain, but not evident ^ Opinion 
is fomctimc firme, but never certain or evident j 1 do not fpeak in the language 
of thefe Divines and Philofophers, when I afcribe an Evidence to Divine Faith: 
But then you muft undcrftand that the difference is not (as I conceive ) de re 
buz denom'mc j For I take not the term cx'i«^f«/', in fo reftrained a fenieas they 
do: As to in ftance in 7^0^. 2?^/owi«i (thatfecond C am ere) who faith , /ijjcnfm 
evidens eft cum quis per fc, hoc cft,vi fui fcufus autrationlsy abfque alterius informa- 
t'lonc & teftificationc fcrcipit earn propofilionemy ch'i affe?ititur,ejje vcram : and he 
makes that an inevident kiVcm, cum qicis ^jj'entitur propofitioniy nm quod fcnfus, 
aut foil da ratio cam veramtffe'Dimonjirct : fed zcl quod Iczis & ittcfjicax ratio il/ud 
fuadeat, vel qHod alius tefletur cam cff'e vcram j Pbilof. Thcol. an, p. 148. But I 
think the teim fw^i-^f, is here too much reftrained j and that with great in- 
convenience , and fomc wrong to the Chriftian Faith. I take that to be pro- 
perly evident, which is to the underftanding truly Apparent, or Difccrnable • 
which hath divers degrees : And the Negative addition ( that it muft be abfqu'e 
fUterius tc(iificaUo/ic) is not only fuperfluous, but unfound ; And may appear 
ev£n from the Authors words ; i . where he oppofeth thcfe two, in dcfcribing in- 
evident J^flent ; twi quid fenfus aut folida Ratio cam vcram cff'e demonflret ^ and 
fed quod alius tcfietur cam effe vcram. Where he grants that whatfoe ve r foiid rca- 
fondemonftraceth to be true, that is evident. Now I fay, that he fliould not 
have oppofed all Teftimony to this. For folid rcafon doth dcmonftrate Gods 
Teftimony to be true, and this ro be his Teftimony. 2. He afcribeth Certainty 
to Divine Faith, which he dcfcribeth to be an Aflent , quinititur certo aliquo am 
folido fundament Oy non vcrolevi autfallaci ratione • and he^noteth diligent]y,that ad 
certitudmcm afftnfus requiri, ntfundamentum quo mens niiitur dnm afjcupim p ,xbct , 
non folum ut fit in fc ccrtuffi,fed ctiam ut aff'cnticnti tale videatur j niftcmm tile fci<u 
ratiomm qua nitiiuf cffe ccrtam, ejus afjenfus nullo modo erit certus & sJabilis. Now 
heconfcflithchattheobjcftof Science muft be evident : and here he faith 
nifi [ciat rationcm cffe certam. If hzm\i{\.fcire ecrtitudinemy then h-j muft fci;-e 
evidentiam^ii allobjeds of fci-nce are evident. And what is it to know , but 
to difcern or undcrftand a difcernable, cognofcible, or evident objed ? How then 
c9L\\Yii(cire ctrtltudinminifi fckndo diqnam c^mtHdms I.vidmiam } I conceive 


thctcfoM that It istrue proper evidence which is allowed to Divine FalA , under thl$ 
name of Certainty, even by them that fay it is not evident : I know whiita ftirthe 
School- men make about this point. The Queftion is not only de Evideniia fdei, but 
dcEvidenti Theologie alfo, wrhich they diftinguiih from fides , as habitus primorum 
fmcipmim, & fcicfitia Co«f/«;f<?««warediflind. Though the moil of the School- 
men go the other way, yet fome ( as Hinricia J^aodl.b. i z. q. a. and Bcyi Aahicf'ijc. 
Hifpalcnf. qu. i. prolog, art. 3. not. 3. 4.) do affirm our Theology to have Evidence. 
Aquinas and his followers maintain it to be a btience j butthat is, becaufethey fup- 
pofe it to be fubalternate to the Science of God and the Gloryfied. And therefore 
Atjttifi. 1 i. qu. 1 . tirt. 5. c. denyeth thofc things to be fcita qu^e commtmitcr & fwplici' 
tcr/ttbfiie cemncmurtJiniii^it^tbec^ufe omnu [dentin habctur per aliqua principia per 
fe nota, &per coufeqiuns vifa. But I think that per coxfcqucns vi/a, will not hold with- 
out exceptions and limitations j and I iup^oCektobcexpri/icipiisperfc notis origi- 
nally : Yet In t'le foregoing Article, Aquinas grants that though qux Oibfunt fidei 
Confideratainfpeeialinonpoffunteffefmulvifais' Credita^ t amen in gcncrali fub com' 
^muniratione Credibilis fie v'lfafunt abeo qui Credit. NenenimCrsdcrct nift vidcret ea 
effe Credenda, velfropter Evidentiam fizjiorim vel propter aliquid hujufmodi. And [ 
eafily confefs that matters of meer fupernatural Revelation are not In themfelves evi- 
dent, nor ab Evidemia ipfms rei muft we prove Irj But that we have Evidence of the 
Verltle of the Conclufions , by the Evidence of the great Principles and the Co- 
nexion, I take yet for found Dodrlne. The Scotifts In oppofition to the Thomifts 
make much a doe on the queftion Vtrum Theo'ogta fitScientia ; And if properly 5d- 
entia. it feems It muft be evident, Scotm lays down four things neceffary to Science 
ftridly and properly fo called j i.^iodfit cognitio certa, i. c. fine deception. 2. 
^uod ftt de objc^lii neceffario, & non csntingente, 3 . Debet ejfc Caufata, a Can fa Ev}denti 
inteUehiu,id f /?, a principiis evidcnter notU intelte6lui.):>y which he faith Science Is dh 
ftingullhed from Faith which Is cognit'to obfcura, ttmgmaticay & inevidens. 4 ^uod 
hujufmodi princ'/piafeu caufa ex tcrminu cvidcns intcllcBui debet appUcari per d'lfcurfum 
SyUogijlitttm bonum&Ugitimum ad infcrendam conclu fonem : and fo Science fs defined 
Notitia intelleHi4alis,ccrta & Ev densd'cnju! vrri^ nfccjf.rni^ evdeater dedii5li ex p>-in* 
c p is nccefsa-' Hs pr us Evidenter notis- Yet Radit faith, the fourth of thefe is acciden- 
tal. And I fee not but we have even fuch a rigid ftrid Science of the objefts of 
Faith, i.lt TMy he Notitia InteUeHualis ccrta^^s iWconfds. i. And de objcHiy nc- 
ceffario. Only let me add , thar when wemake ufe of infallible Tradition dc fj£Io, 
In proving the foundnefs of our Records, that this was Contingens a priori ^ yet is ic 
neceffaty a. poftcriere nectfsitatc exiflentia; and that as to the verity, though it be coh- 
tingent, whether this or that particular man fpeak truth, yet confidcring but the force 
of objefts and common natural inclinations in determining the Will, ic may cer- 
tainly be concluded rhat as to a whole Nation, or World, fome voiuntai y adions are 
fo Contingent, as thar yet they are of a moft certainly difcernable event .- Bvcn men 
beforehand may infallibly know that they will come ro pafs , ( fuppoling the world 
to continue I'ational); As that all this Nation, or all Europe will not famifli them- 
felves willfullyj and will not hang themfelves, &c. is a thing that may ss certainly 
be foreknown, as if it were not Contingent : much mora may the Verity of fuch " 
paft 3(5tions be known. 3. And that ic may have evident principles, (liall bt Ihown 
anon. 4. And then that it is difcourfive, is clear. Though Credere it felf as it is the 
quieting and repofe or confidence of the minde upon the authority or apprehended 
Veracity of the Reveale, Isaneffedof this difcourfe, feeing )f(^//cw Is not purely or 
chicfllyj an Intellectual a^, nor fidm alicui hnbere is it fignificch this repofe ; Yet 


the Trutfc received on the Spakers Truft or Crcdk, Is received by the Iniellca In a 
dlfcourfivc way. 

Rad.> grante.h thcfc Conclufions, i .[Thcologia fecundimfc e(i vere & p-/ofne fcien" 
tia. I. Tbcologia Dei rcfpt^u co-fum qua funt neceffTria fecundtm fc^ cfl vcrc & pioprie 
fc:cnt a. 3 . Thcolo^ia ■•» iicitit ((i proprte & vcrc (cient'ta quoad ornncs. 4. Conditiones 
fcicniite. Ycc this eighth Conclullan is that Thcologia pi out efi .« ntibii viatoyibiu I'tt 
c(i profr:c & (lyific jcicntin. And the great Argamenc to prove ir is, prouc cfl in nobis 
efi incvi^ens cfuia frmcipia mflrte Tbcolegia I nut toJitiim Credit jjio that all the weight is 
hid on i^iis inevidence Briiflyj my rcafons for the i vidence of the ObjeS ot Di- 
vine Faith arethefe. i. If it be evident that Df«i f/i Ki?MXj & Dcus hxcicflatur, 
that God is true of his Word, and that this is his Word or Revelation , then Faith 
hath evident principles. Bus the Antecedent is trucj therefore. Into thefe principles we 
refolvc all points of Faith = Whatfoever God witnefTch is true i but the Dodrine o£ 
the Refarrcdion, judgment, &c God wi:neffeth or revealethj therefore j 1 hat God 
is t: ue, we have the fam' Evidence as that he is pcrfeAly good, and that is, that he is 
God • and that there is a God> I take to be as evident a Truth as any in Nature to4 
Reafon, though God himfelf be fo far above our comprehcnfion. That this is a Di- 
vine Revelation, hath alfo its evidence , in evident miracles fealing it to the fir(\ wit- 
jieffes J and in Evidently Infallible Tradition delivering down to us the Records 
with tlie feals. I doubt not to affirm that fome humane Teftimony affordeth fuch a 
Certainty as is uDgucftionable, becaufe of the Evidence of that Certainty : as thac 
King ^iwies was King of England, Sec and of the matter in queftion we have as 
great, and In it felf far greater. But of this elfcwhere. .2. If Divine Faith give us a 
Certainty without objettive Evidence, then It is miraculous or contrary to nature, 
or at leaft above it ( not only as redifying difabled nature, which I grant, but ) as 
moving man not as man, or the I ntellcd not as an IntcUca , which knows naturally 
no other Adion but upon fit objcds^ and what Is wrought by them : It knoweth 
no apprehenfion of truth, but as it Is apparent or evidenced truth. To underftand this 
Axiom to be true, All men (hjlt be Judgedy and to fee no Evidence of its truth , are 
contradidions. 3. At left it cannot be concluded in general, that the objefts of 
Faith are not evident to any, in that they were evident not only to the Prophets and 
Apoftles themfelveSjbut to all the Churches in that age where they wrought their mi- 
racles, ^ot 2S the furmale fdeiobje^lum, viz Feracitas Rcvelantis, is tvident to Nt' 
ture, and fo to all that have not loft reafon 5 I'o that God himfelf was the Author or 
Revealer, was evident to all them whofe eyes and ears were witneffes of the frequent 
Miracles, Languages and Gifts of the Spirit, whereby the truth was then fealed by 
God. 4. That which hath no Evidence,cannot be Rationally preached to the world: 
But the Dodrine of Faith may be Rationally preached to the world} therefore 
Pleaching hath a natural tendency to mens Convcrfion. It is a (hewing men the Evi- 
dence cfGofpel Truth;, and the goodncfs of Gofpel objed*, and f«j thereby per- 
fwading men to Believe the one, and Love and Accept the ether. He that doth not 
pr^drcare Evidentiamvcrilatis Evangelic* jdoth not preachthe Go(pe\/in the fiill re- 
fped, as he that preacheth not the goodnefs of Chrift and his benefits, doth not 
preach it in the otlier. Preaching is not Uk: Chrifts laying on clay and fplttle, which 
hath no natural tendency to open the eyes ; Fur the effed of Preaching, as fuch, is not 
miraculous, no nor fupernaturally otherwife then as the Dodrine preached being of 
fupernatural Revelation, may be faid to be a fupernatural Caufe, and fo telatively the 
fffed called fupernatDral : though the fame effed as proceeding from the '-pirit which 
Is a Concaafe, or fuperior Caufc 7 may be truly called rupetnacural. 5. That which 


raay.b: Adeemed lo be certain Truth, without fpeclal or extraordinary Grace 3 
even by wicked men and Divcls,hath forae evidence which caufcth this difccrn- 
ingor belief: But luch is the Dodiinc of Faith^ therefore. I know fontc Di- 
vincsto the no fmall wrong of the Chriftian Faith, fay, None can really believe 
it, but the Regenerate. But tbe Jews believe the fupcrnaiural Revelations of the 
Old Teftament , and the Divcls and many a thouland wicked men believe, both 
old and new 5 experience tells us fo : Chrift tells us fo, that many believe who 
fall away in perfecution, James tells fuch men, that they do wellin believing, 
but the Divel doth fo too : elfe men could not lejctl or perfecute the known 
Truth. To conclude it is commonly faid that infufed Habits, infundimtur udmB- 
dum acqiiifitorum ; and therefore the habit of Faith in the Intdlcd nnift be cau- 
fed by an Imprefsof evidence : Though the Spirits fupcrnatural aft be mtflie- 
ovcr neceflary, yet that makes not oiher caufcs unnccclVary. 

Kaday who condudcsithiz Theologia no(l,an9n cftevidcm ^ gives but thcfe two 
poor rcafons ( and I Ihould as foon look for ftrong ones from him, a^ almoft any 
man of his Religion or party) i. Tiincl^ia Cmclufionum nofh a Theotogttt 
nrafunt nobis Evideiuta, fed Condita : iheiciorc ?icc Conclji/ioncs 3 Sec. I deny the 
Antecedent, which he proves not; yeracitas Dtv'raa e(i formale objCiJiimfideiy 
and that is evident, fo is the Revelation, as is faid. i. He faith. Si, conclufwics 
vojli aTheolog!te cjjcm Evidentes, pofjl'mns convincerc Infidclesy la fidcmJisjham fuf- 
eiperrnt, quia Evidcntia convincit lHtelU£iiim. I anfwer, i . The gi cateft Evidence 
fuppofethotherneceflary concurrents for conviftion , as a Will to underftand, 
and divers other things which the wicked want. As it is not for want of Evi- 
dence of prefent Objeds, but for want of good eyes that a blinde man feeth not; 
fo it is here. 1. Many Infidels do Believe without fpccial Grace : though not fo 
deeply and clearly as to prevail with their Wills tor a through converfion j yea 
the Divels themfelves believe. And whereas he adds Tauls words , 2 Co,'' J. '^"•^ 
wali^by FaiLhy-nocby (lij)t j itfpeaks not of Rational Evidence, but of fenfitive, 
and chat we confefs is wanting. Faith is the Evidence of things not feen, Heb. il, 
I. Were it not for digrefling too far, I would examine the ^. ^ujl. Mater. I4. 
dc fide of Aqiiin.ndc y'eritiUej .nnd fliew how ill heanfwers the nme Arguments , 
which he undertakes to anfwer, and how weak his own Arguments are for the pro- 
ving that fides nen pote(t ejj'cde rebus feit is. And I iliould flicw that Faith is a 
kinde of Science; or if we will diftinguiili it from Science, it niuft not be fo wide- 
ly as is ufual, nor upon the reafon that it wanteth Evidence. But I fippofe he that 
will impartially read ^^«i«.««f;/7///>, will without any help ice the weaknefs of 
his anfwers, and how he fcemcd to ftagger himfelf. 

Yet let mc add this caution or two ; I. 1 do not mean that every man who 
hath true Faith, doth difcern the great and chicfeft Evidence of the Truth of 
the Doftrinc of Faith. 1. Wiier..' there is the fame Evidence in the thing, there 
may be fuch different apprehenfions of it, through the diveili y of Intdledual 
capacities and preparations, as that one may have a fir.ne Belief , and certain, 
and another but a probable opinion, and anodier none at all. 3. Thoughl 
take the Evidence of the Doftrineot Faith to be as full as 1 have mentioned, 
yet not fo obvious and eafily difccrned as fenficivj evidence ; and therefore (as 
one caufc) there arc fewer believe, 4. Alio the diftance of the objcds of Faith 
makes them work lefs on the affeftions, and the prefence and other advantages 
of fenfiial Objcds for a facile moving the Spirits, makes them cariir men away 
fo potently, by making greater Commotions in tlie pallions ; fo that nowon- 

H h der 


<icr if fenfc do prevail with moft. 1 conkfs alfo that men have need of good ac- 
quaintance with Antquity and oihcr Hiftory, and the Seal of the Church in 
moft parts of the world, to fee the ftrong Evidence that there is of the Infallible 
Tradition of the Scriptures down to us .' and to fomc obfcuve men, this may be 
incviJcnrj as it may be to one brought up in a fccrct Cloiftcr, whether ever wc 
had a Kjri^ or Parliament or Laws in Snrjand. But the thing is not ihtrtforc 
inevidcnt to thcinduftiious j No tiiough it depend on that verity of Rcpoit , 
which as proceeding from each particular pcrfon is contingent j feeing there ik 
Evidence of Infallible Verity even in the Ciiciimftanccs of thefe Contingent 
reports. And as Kada^ when he concludes boldly that Cogfitto Dei refpeHu CoK' 
t'lmivtiurn vox cfi v;opic& j'cicniifly&c.ycx fecms to grant that God may fche Con- 
tingcnt'iauiniCij}ayiai& finonut Contivgmia : fo it may be faid in our prcfent 
Gafe : the lame Reports which arc Contingent, are yet in other refpcfts of Evi- 
dent Verity, and fo we know them. 

But I findc 1 have been drawn beyond my intent to digtcfs far on this point t 
but it is bccoufc it tends to clear the main point in qucftion. To return there- 
fore to Mr.U/flj^f jl do not know the meaning of his next wordsjwlure he faith,that 
This Aigiimcnl n'cUfoUoiired, wotdd put mc to a great lofs in [owe of my Arguments far 
Scripture, &c. Doth he think that 1 argue to prove the Divinity of Scriptures , 
from thcmfclvcs alone as the Teffifier thereof to our Faith ? or that, 1 take it 
fobemecrly cr primarily ^c fide, that Scripture is Gods Revelation F when 1 
-have pro^cffcdly publifhcd the ccntraiy, before thole Arguments ? where I have 
alfo added thck words of Mr. Rich. Hotter ■, wherewith I will conclude this 
Scftion. Truly it is not a thingimpofsiUet nor greatfy hard., even by fuch l(mdc of 
proofs fata ffi.inifcjlmd clear that paint , that 7to man living fhaU be able todc/iyitj 
Tvithoiit dc}iy':rg tome apparent principles , fuch as all men ac^noTvlcdgc to be tyuc. 
Again, Scripture teachcth us that faving Truth rvhich God hath dijcovercd to tie 
Tforldby Revelation; but it pre fume th us taught otherwife, that it felf is Divine avd 
Sacred. Again, Thefe things rve believe, l^noTving by Reafon that Scripture is the Word 
of God. Again, It is not required, nor can be exacted at our hands, that tve Jhould 
yield it any other ^jjent then fuch as doth anfwer the Evidence. Again, How bold 
andconfdintfecvcr we may be inwards; when it comes to the tryal,fucb as the Evi- 
dence is which the T; nth hath, fuch is the Jjjent ; -nor can it be ftronger if (ground- 
ed as it Jhould be ; fo tar Mr. Hotter cited once more j Ecclef. pol. p. loi, 
1 03, d^c. 

§. 16. 

Mr. Bl. nro winde up all, though there be fome difference in the way between me 
and my learned fund, yet there is little in the thing it felf. SMr. Bax- 
ter /tfif^ that the Propofition to which God fealeth, runs thus, If thou believe, I do 
pardon thee and will fare thee. The loul muft aflume the Minor. But 1 believe • 
Irom whence the Ccnclufion will follow, 1 fhall be pardoned and favcd. Jnd 
I infer, the Major being fealed, the Conclufion that rightly iffucs out of it, having its 
fhengthfrom it, is fealed liliewife ; failed to him that can mal^e gotd that: Affumption 
Sue 1 Bclievcj andupo?i thefe terms that he be akliczcr. 

■''-ir- i.i„ ■ r- IT. ,....■ 

R.S, I . T^He diflfercnce Is fo fmall that were it not for fome fcattcrcd by-naf- 
fages, I fliould fcarce have replyed to you, 2 . All the quarrel ai i- 
feth from the divers undccftanding of the term fealcd, I fuppofe that you in- 
clude the confirming of the Receiver, and the conferring of Right to the Bene- 
fit, both which I have faid aie done Conditionally, as being to tollovv the Deli- 
very and Reception 5 whereas I take ic for the Tepmo?iiim fecundarmn , or that 
Obfignation whereby the Inftrument is owned : the following cfteds belonging 
to it in a further re fpcd. 1 ever granted that by the fealing o?" the Conditional 
Promife,thc Believer hath a fingular help to raife the Conclufion, and be con- 
firmed in it ; but not a help lufficient, without the difcerning of his own Faith, 
which is the AlVumprion. So that if you will, participaliter and cofifcqncmer, the 
Conclufion maybe faid to be fea led to him that hath the Condition C whether 
he fee it, ot not). But lotaliter &■ direfie only the Conditional grant is fealcd. 
3 . The Conclufion iflues from, and hach its flrength froip botli Prcmifes jointly^ 
and no more from one alone, then if it were none at all ; and therefore where 
only one of the Premifcs is lealed, and the other unfealcd, there the Conclufioj\ 
anhchutasl hii, participaliter & confequcnter Cezled : And though I grant 
thus much to you for reconciliat;on,yer 1 conceive it unfit to fay at all, as in pro- 
per l^iccch, that the Conclufion is fealed : which I make good by this Argument'. 
Conclufio fcquilnr partem dcbiliorcm^vd dtteriorctrt. ^4t Tropofitia non obftQtiatacSi 
pirs dcbiUor vddetcrior : therefore Conclufio fcquitnr Propofttionemnon. obfgncitain. 
And fo it is on the fame grounds to be denominated, not failed ; as a Con- 
clufion is to be denominated Contingent, when one of the Prcmifes is Contin- 
gent and the other Ncccflary ; or to be ^(egative, when one of the Prcmifes 
is Negative and the other Affirmative; o: xo he Pa /tic id ar, when one of the 
Prcitiifes is Particular arid th; other Univerfal ; And therefore I fllll fay, that 
it is fitted for you and mc to fay, that this Conclufion, Thou A. B. art Jufiificd y 
and hajil^jghtio Salvatioay is an unfcaled Conclufion ; till you can prove the 
Minor fealed, Thou A. B. art a fiticcre Believer. For my part , I know not what 
objeftion can be made againft Cither part of the fore- recited Argument, (the 
major being a Common Canon or Rule that holds in all Figures, and the Mi- 
nor being yielded by yout ft-'if ) eUe 1 would anfwer to it. 

§. 77. 

Mr. Bl. \y|K. Bixtcr^ fourth and fifth Tofuions in the cloftng up of hk-Difcourfc 
^^^ fijotddbe coiifidercd , The Sacrament fe.ileth to Gods part of the 
Conditional Covenant, and lealcth this Conditional Promife,not Conditionally 
but abfolutcly , as of an undoubted Truth. To ivhich an cafie aafwcr may 
be givm, in order to a fair 'J^e conciliation, ivlmi the Covenant tyes to the 
Condition^ and the Sacraments fcaltipon the fame t^ms that the Covenant tyes, the feat 
ii properly Co^ditienal, in cafe there is any fucb thing in the world ss a Conditwial 
fcal. T^cither is this Conditional Promife any abfaliUe undsubted Truthy but uponfup- 
pofalof the Condition put, and fo both Fromife arid Seal abfjlutely bind, 

H h i §. 77- . 



5- 77. 

7^. B. I. T Never heard of, nor knew a Gondi:J«)nal fcaling in the world ; 
X though 1 have oft heard of tlie cfFcds of Obligation and Collation 
of Right to be Conditional, which are not only fcparablc from the Termivui 
froximus of fealingj but alfo arc dircsftly the cfFc^s of the Covenant, Promilc , 
Tcftamcnt, &c. cnjy , and but.icmotcly of the Seals , inafmuch 
as that Seal is a full owning of the Inftrumcnt of Conveyance. Yet 
fuch a thing as a Conditional fcaling n)ay be imagined, feeing fcaling is a Moral 
Civil aftion,and fo dcpendcth quoad foymam on the will of the Agent after the 
matter is putj the Agent may if hcplcafc put the matter now, and introduce tlic 
form upon a future Condition ( or a prcfent, or a pad ) as if he fliould fct the 
wax and material feal to a Deed of Gift, with this addition, i hcvcby fealte this , 
•y fiwn it as m deed, if fuch a man be now living in France j <»■ if fuch a Ship be fafe 
arrived : er if fuc\t a manfJjnlldofnch a thing ; othcwifc thisfhaUbc vs feal. But 
fuch exceptions or conditions being alwaics added to the Inftrument or Princi- 
pal obligation or conveyance, and being of no ufe asto thcfeals only, I never 
heard of fuch, nor I think ever fliall do. For if all thefe or any of thefcCondi-; 
tions be in the Deed or Obligation, the Seal doth but conirm that Conditional 
Obligation, though it be abfolutcly and aftually a Seal ." and therefore doth not 
oblige the Author adually, but conditionally : and therefore to feign a Con- 
ditional fcaling, befidcs the conditional Covenanting or Granting, Teems very 
ufelefs and vain, to fay no more. 

i« I confefs that neither Promlfe nor Seal bindc abfolutely, till the Condition 
be performed (which I pray you remember hereafter, if you be tempted to think 
any perfon in Covenant with God (the mutual Covenant where both ftand ob- 
liged) before they perform the Condition of the firfl benefits or • right ^. But 
when you fay that the Conditional Promife is not any abfoUue undoubted Truth t but 
ufon fufpofal 6f the Conditim put , you make mefceftlllthc neccflity of mutual 
forbearance, and that all our writings muft have an allowance, as it were, in re- 
fpcd to fome inconfideratencfs 5 and the Authors not to be charged with holding 
all the Doft fines which they write. I dare not fay it is Mr. Sialics judgment, that 
Gods conditional Promifes be not abfolute undoubted Truth, till men perform 
the condition, i. Though they are not Abfolute Promifes , yet they are Ab- 
folutely and not Conditionally true ; Otherwife either it muft be faid , that till 
the condition be performed, they are Aftually falfc, and Conditionally true , or 
elfc that they are neither capable of Truth or Fallhood. The former I will not 
dare to fupppofe from you j nor yet the latter. For whether you put it in this 
form, H^h0foeverTviU Believe, Jhall be Juflificd : or in this. If thoiitvilt Believe t 
thoufhalt be JufUfied : there is no qucftion that both muft be cither true or falfc ; 
and not hke an Interrogation that is capable of neither. 

1. And then as it is an Abfolute Truth, foitis an undoubted Truth : For 
yeracitasDivinaefiformaleobje^iumfidei : and if Gods Truth be not undoubted, 
then our Faith hath an uncertain Foundation, and Chriftianity is not undoubted- 
ly a true Religion,* i^m 1 charge none of thefe on you,as not doubting but it is an 


s. 78. 

Mr. BI. 

W^nen Caleb bad engaged himfelf^ He that fmlteth K'riatJfSepher and ta^ 
keth It, to him will I jJve Acbfab wy daughter co wife t Othnlel the 
Son of Kenat taking «, there was an abfolute tye upon him for performaxce , Jo(h. i f, 
16/17. Jrhen Saul pvomifed hif Daughter to David on this conditieni that he would bring 
him an hundred of the foresl^ins of the FhiHftlns, i Sam, 1 8. 2 j, David having made it 
good rvith advantage^ now there is an abfolute tye upon him. 

§. 78. 

R. B "T* His Is nothing but what is {ranted. I yield that God Is not as Ic were ob^ 

Heed till men performe the Condition. But the Qucftlon U whether he 
Abfolutely fealeth before, and not whether that Seal oblige before. 

§ 79. 

Mr. Bl. "CVen the Arminians Conditional incompkate EleHionl upon Condition of 
•Lj F»th and per fever ante t they confefs it abfolute and compleati upon fuppo fat 
of Faith and per fever once. This I tal^e to be Mr. Baxters meanings that upon fuppofal 
»f Faith it Abfolutely fealeth^ which I willingly grant : but it u adminiftred to many wba 
never put in that Condition^ nor come up to the terms of God, that believiTig they may be 
fffved , endfo in our fenfe it fealeth Conditionally. 


Jt. B. I. T Have better expreflcd my own meaning.lt Is pitty that the Reader rtioul J 
^ be troubled with fo much , about To low a queftion , which of us two 
doth beft ezprcfs our meaning ? but that I hope he may gather feme things more ufe- 
fill on the by. In your fenfe, if it be according to your terms, God doth not aftu- 
ally Seal at all to any but the Godly, which is my maine Argument agalnft you, A 
Conditional feal, is not a feal till the Condition be performed. 

$. 80. 

Mr. BI. A Kdlcan make nothing elfe of Idr. Tombes his Aptitudinal and A£lual 
-^ featy but that the Sacrament hath an Aptitude to feal in an Abfolute waj 
to alitbat cmmmcate : it doth ASlually fsai to Believers and Penitent ones. 

■ ■ 11 ■ - 

S. 8e. 

7^. P. I. T Perceive Mr, Tombes and you arc ni6icof a mlndc tlicn Iwasa- 
1 ware of. X. Stalivg ofy niuft not bccGnt'oiinded wuh /(Alnig to , as 
rcfj'cftingchc end : nw the next end, which is Efleiual lo Uk Sea], fasil->c 'fcr- 
minmtotbc Relation) withmoix; l":parabL-^nds. It is in rcgndofthc fiiftonU 
that I fpake agtinft Mi> Tonibej,iM affirmed it to be Adual and not only Apti- 
tudinal, but not in regard of the Obligation faswemay fpeak ; on God , or 
tlieaftualconreyancc o( Right , which follow the condition, which ] dcfiie Mr 
Tof}ibcs to take notice of, accoiding co my forcgoThg cxplicarioni if he mean to 
Reply to that. 

^mmmmmm^'*'-** m n » i , i » ^ »' 

Ml-. Bl. J^ Either let any thlnli that here I ftc\ a flarmghole to recede fom am 
x\. thing that heretofore I have publijhcd on thisfubjed. In my anftvcr to 
t:^fr. Tombes, pa^. 9 9. J explain my fclf no 9tbcrmfe,hav'mgquotedT)r. Ames and 
Mr. Kuihci(oid J in the vpords noTV recitcdt I there add. The Conditional fcal of 
the Sacraments Is made Abfolutc, by our putting in the Conditioner belitviirg, 
•&c. Itt cafe my anfwirluidbecn irj,::^r.Ba%Krs hand rchenhis appendix came out 
as hefjucs it was not, that he. might have fecn hew J explained my [elf , l fuppofc he 
TVQuld have fccn that in the refnlt of t he -whole 1 Utile differ from him, fa that 1 can 
fear ce fee, that when the matter « broufhl home, that I have anyadvcrfary. 

S. 8l, 

R^ B. \, JT is fo rare a thing for men to manifcft fo much ingenuity and fclf 
denyal and Impartial love to the Truth, as freely to recant what thoy 
have once affertcd when they finde it a miflake, that if this had been your cafe , 
I would not have been one that fliould have blamed you for it , or charged you 
with unconftancy or levity. To err, is common to all men ; but frccJy to recant 
it, is not fo. 1 never write, but with a fuppoficion that 1 lliall manifcft tJic weak- 
nefs of my Intellcft, and do that which needs reformation, i. I did not fo 
much as pretend you to be my Adverfary ; I did dctend you, and not argue a- 
gainft you : and therefore you have licdc need to perfwade me to have lower 
thoughts of our differences then I did exprefs, or that you and I were no 

But though I make light of our feeming difference about fealing,! muft intreat 
you to remember, that i not only mai'itain my former Ailcrtion , that the Con- 
clufiov, I A. B. amjufltfied , is not de fide, but that I account it a matter of far 
greater moment. 

It hath been too common Doftrinc among the moft renowned Divines , that 
Jt is not only dc fide, but every mans duty alfo, yea a part of the Creed, and fo 
a fundamental, for to Believe that our fins arc remitted, (for fo they expound 
the Article of Rcmiffion of fins). 1 will not name the Authors, becaulc .1 honor 


them 3 ani would not fcem to dlfparage them ; and the Learned know tlicm 
already : yea they caineftly prcfs men to Believe the pardon of their own fins in 
particular, and tcU them that thev have but the Faith of Devils elfe. By which 
dangeroiis Doftrinc, l . moft li^eA hfc pcrfwaded to telievfe' a faldAood : for 
moft are not forgiven, i. The carclefs world is driven on fafter to prefumption, 
to which they are fo prone of themfclvcs. 3. Painful Miniftersare hindreci,and 
their labors fruftrated, whofc bufinefs is fii ft to break mens falfc hopes and peace ; 
which they finde fo haid a work, that they need not refiftance. The ungodly 
that 1 deal with, are fo confident that their fin is forgiven, and God will not damn 
them for it, that all that lean lay is too little to fliake their ccmfidence , which 
is the nuifc of their fin. 4. Gods word, yea the Articles of our Creed, muft 
be abufcd to do Satan this ferrice, and mens Souls this wrong. All the world can- 
not finde fo ftrong a prop to the Kingdom of the Devi], norfo powerful an en- 
couragement to prefumption or any fin^ as miftakcn Scripture ('either mifinter- 
pretcd ot mifapplycd ). ?. When 'wicked men, that have but the Faith 
of Devils, are immediately required to believe the pardon of their own particu- 
lar fins, and this made lohc dc fide , Grtd-is diihonored with the charge of fuch 
uirtruths , as if falllioods were dc fidCy and God commanded men to believe 

And for the Godly themfelvesjit hath in a lower df grce many of the fame in- 
conveniences, if there be any one that hath as good Evidence of his foundncfs 
in Faith, Love and Repentance, as that the Word of God is true, and all found 
Believers are Juftified ; what is luch a man to many a thoufand that have no 
fuch Evidence > yea andfor that man, it is impoftible that his Evidence fliould 
be as conftant>as Scripture Evidence, though it were as full. Scripture Evidence 
varieth not, as the Evidence of Grace doth in our mutable unconftant Souls: 
But for my part I never yet fawthc face of that fobcr man (to my knowledge ) 
who durft fay , Tiiat he was as fure or as confident of his own fincerity, as of the 
Truth of Gods Word, and particularly of that Promife , HethatBelievcthJJyali 
7ii)t pcrjhf but have Evcylaftiug life. And as 1 have oft faid already , The Coti- 
clufion may not be faid to be dt fide, unlcfs the other Propofition be as t viderit 
as that which is de fide : bccaiife ConcUifio feqitlliir partem detcriennf. Yea let 
me be bold CO grow a little higher, and to tell you that it fecms to me iinpofijble 
and a contr.ididion that any man lliould be mote certain that he Believeth fin- 
cere ly, then he is that Gods Word is true, or that the Promife is Gods W( rd , 
which he aoch Believe. For the truth of God .in his Word , is the foimal ob)eft 
cf Faith, without which there can be no Faith. No man therefore can be more 
certain that he believes truly, then he is that Gods Word is tnie : For to Believe, 
is to apprehend the cei tain Truth of the Word. And noi-.c can be nioreccrtairt 
that he apprehends the word as certain, then he is that the Word is certain, if you 
fay, I am certain that I believe the certainty of the word, but weakly : I anfwer , 
At left then the faving finceriry of your Faith will be as uncertain to you, as the 
word is, if not the being of that Faith. And then there is no more ctrtairty, I 
think, rationally and ordinarily, then there is Evidence. 

So much for that Controrcrfic,aud (o of all, fo far as I have obferved, which 
Mr. ^lal{i hath with me , or. bath called mc to giyc an account of my judge- 



fvhether the Covenant of Grdct reqmre ferfc^ion , and ac" 

cept fim:erity. 

TTHough I have done with what Mr. B!al{C faith to mc, and htvc no dcfirc to do 
any thing unnecdTary in a way of Conrrovcrfic : yet bccaulc ir is of the 
like nature with a fubjcd formerly handled, or tends to clear up feme things a- 
bout it, I will very briefly touch on his Arguments, p-*?. 107. 108. upon this 
Qu eft ion. 

§. 8x. 

Mr. Bl. A Sfcoad opinion tSj that the Covenant of Grace requires pcrfedionm- 
^* the cxa(tefl wy. vf'uhoKt help ofthefe mens difltniiions, in an equal 
degree rvitb the Covenant of lyorlf^s^ but with this difference j in the Covenant of 
iVOY^Sy there is no indulqmce or difjtenfatton in cafe of failing , but the penalty tal^es 
holdithcCfi^JefoUows Hponit : But the Covenant of Grace y though itcaUfor perfe- 
Cliony fuch k the exaClnejs of ity yet it accepts of finccrityy fuch u the qualtfcatitn of 
it through Graecy or the mercy in it. If ifheuld tal(C up any opinion in the world for 
the Authors fai^Cy or thofe that have appeared as Tatrons of ity then Jfhould embrace 
this : The Reverence defcrvedly due to him that I fuppofeprft mamfe^cd himfclfin it, 
hath caufed it tofinde great entertainment. But upon more then twenty years thoughts 
about ity Ifindc it Ic^ouring under manifold inconveniences. 

§. 8i. 

K. B. I, i-Tmay feemaudacioufnefs in a young Divine to qucftion that which 
* you ihall now fo confiderately deliver , after more then twenty 
years thoughts. But no prejudice muft hinder us from a further enquiiy after 
the Truth. 

1 . I began to conjefture that the Reverend pcrfon that you mean i$ Mr. BaU', 
and yet methinks, you fhould not fuppofc him the Author : It is therefore furc 
fome one much elder, 

3. For the thing it felf, if I may {hoot my bolt, upon a fliortcr deliberation, 
I conceive,that all your difference with the men of that Judgement, is occalioacd 
by the Ambiguity and various acccption of the word Co^uenant of G>vzcf, which in 
my judgcment,you ought to have removed,by diftingui{hing,bcfore you had ar- 
gued againft their opinion. The term Covenant of Grace y is fomctimc taken 
Sriftly for the Contrad alone i either I. for the full Comrad, which is mutual 
or by botli parties, which is moft properly called a Covenant : Or z. for the 
engagement of one part only : i. cither for Gods Promifc. 1, or mans. Hcrc- 
tn the Condition is implyed, not as commanded , but as tend red. Now it is 
certain that taking the Cox^f»flWt in this rcftraincd fenfe , it doth not command 
Pcrfcdion of obedience, for it commands nothing at all : nor doth it pro- 
pound it as the Condition, for then wc were undone, But then it muft be known 


£145 3 

that this is too reftrained a fenfe for us ordinarily to uFe the vtord iivenant itC, 
God hath made no fuch Covenant with us, which is not a Law in one refpeft, a« 
Well as a Covenant in another •* He layes notby his Sovereignty in Covenant- 
ing. Nay they are all more properly called Laws then Covenants : Even the 
Promife it felf is moftpropcrly LcxGrat'!<e7^medians,L\kc an aft of Oblivion or 
Pardon to a Nation ofKcbels. Yet comparatively,the Law of Grace is far more 
fitly called a Covenant then the Law of Nature ( which perhaps is never {o cal- 
led in Scripture), becaufe the Promiflbry part is the predominant part in the 
Law of Grace, the precept being but fubfervient to thatj but the preceptive pare 
is moft predominant in the Law of nature ; the Promife being not Co much as 
expreffed by Mofcs, and obfcure in nature it feJf, fo that it will held great difpute, 
whether God were obliged at all to Reward man with heavenly Glory, yea or any 
proper Reward ( bcfidcs non-puniihment which is Improperly a Reward). 
The Lutherans are the leaders of that evilcuftom and conceit of denying the 
Gofpcl to be a Law. i. In the next place therefore the word Covenant of Grace 
is taken for the New Law, containing Precept, Prohibition, Promife and Threat- 
ning. And here it is taken i. fo narrowly as to comprize only the Precept of 
Believing, with the Promife and Threacning annext , as being indeed the prin- 
cipal parts, z.Somctime more laigely,as containing alfo the Precepts that Chrift 
hath given the Church fince his coming, that were not before given : Principal- 
ly that of Believing Jefus to be the Chrift, and alfo thofc of Miniftery, Ordinan- 
ces, Church-Aflemblics, &c. together with the Doftrines or Articles of Faithi 
which he fincc revealed, 3. Sometime it is more largely taken for that whole 
Syftcmeof Doftrines, 'Hiftories and Laws ^Precepts, Promifes, and Threats) 
which dircftly concern the Recovery of fain mankinde. 4. Sometime for as 
muchof theie as was delivered before Chrifts coming, in Promifes, Prophcfies 
and Types, &c. 5. Sometime for as much of the fe as yet remains in force, 
whether delivered to the Church before the Incarnation or fince, (for many Co- 
venants or Evangelical Promifes and Precepts,are ceafcd now that were in force 
before : as that Chrift (hould be born, and they fliould accept his birth, &c.) 
This laft fenfe, containeth the Doftrinc of Redemption by Chrift, and the Hi- 
•ftory of his birrh, life and Death and Refiirrcdion (as Narrations of the ccca- 
fion, end and matter are ufual appurtenances of a Law^ as alfo the Precepts of 
Repenting and Believing ; Loving God for our Redemption, and Chrift as Re- 
deemer J Loving men as Redeemed ones, and as Members of Chiift j Miniftryt 
Sacraments, Church-aflemblics, proper to the Gofpel , with the means to be 
ufed for getting, keeping or improving this Grace as fuch j the command of 
Hope, or looking for Chrifts fecond coming, &c. and of fincerc obedience. I 
conceive the firft f as containing the fumnie of all ) and fpecially this laft (as 
containing the whole Syfteme of thcDaftrinc and Laws of our Redemption 
and Reftauration 3 are the ficccft fcnfes for ut ordinarily to ufe the word ^0- 
vcnant of Grace in ( zidc Groul differ titioncm de nomine Aix^rim-^utc Annotat. in. 
Novum Teflam.) Now if the ^ucftion be whether in any of thefe fcnfes the New 
-Covenant doth command perfcft obedience j I anfwer , All the doubt is of thq 
5 latter : Burl rather think negatively, that in none of thefc Acccptions can 
the New Covenant be faid to require pcrfeft obedience. 6. But then fometakc 
the New Law or Covenant f r tne wliole Law that now ftands unrepealed, and 
obligeth the Subjcfts of the Mediator, fuppofing the Moral Law to be now 
•chc Law or Covenant of Grace, i, f. the matter of it, as it was formerly the 

li mattec 

matter of the Law of Works ; and that the Covenant of Works being totally and 
abfolutely Abrogated, the Moral Law muft be the material parr of the Covenant or 
Law of Grace, or of none : and of fomc It muft be ; For God gives no precepts 
but up<'n fom? :crms. c;r wi'h fime iardicn ot Ktward or PuniOimcnt : And here- 
upon they favjthac i: is ni'W the >jcral Law \>hich is the matter cf ihc new Covenant, 
which ccmmancicih per fed 'jbt'diencc. i his it maintair.ed by 3n acquaintance and 
friend of Mr. BAritrj^n man vi cxr:30!ilinary Lrarning and Judgement, efpecially as 
thioughly ftudycd in ihcfc things as any that ever 1 was acquainted with. For my part, 
• ( though I thii.k, the cliffcrtn<;cis mfift in notions and terms, yet ) I ftill judge, that 
thcLswof VVotks, that it. the Pitcepc and Tbi earning, are not abrogated , though 
the Promifr of thar iirf* i>t C€ift<l, andfoic is not fo fitly now called a Covenant j 
and fomc paitiruiir t'lftfpts a.e 3b o^^^atecr cc.iUd } and fo I think it is this re- 
maining Law ci mtu:c which Ccmmandeth peifcA obcJicr^cCjand ftill proncunceth 
Dca^h, the I'ut punifjiment of our difobtuitrKC. But I acknowledge even this Law 
ci NatuTi to be now the Law of Chriil, who as Redeemer of all mankindc, hath 
Nature and its LavT ai:d all things tlfc oeiivcicd unto him, todifpofecf to the ad"* 
Vintage of his i.f cicnption i nds ; fut Itiil I foppofe this Law of Nature to be fo 
far from being the fame with the Law of Giacc , ;hat it is this which the Law of 
Grace i- tl.xxih, and whcfe obligattcn it difTolvcth, when our fins aic forgiven. So 
thatthed fftrercc isbut in rhe Notion of.Unityor Diverfity J whether (feeing all is 
Now the Redeemers Law ) it be fitter to fay , It is one Law ; or that. They are two 
diftin6Laws. I- or in t'C matter we are agreed, vio^. that the Iromife of the fir ft 
Law i$£taiJea, (^ becaufe God cannot be obliged !o a lubjeft made uncapable ) and 
fome pauicular i rfccpts arc c. afcd Cc(Ja//tc m:.tc; ia , and Mofcs JewiHi Law is part- 
ly ceafcd, and paitly abifjgaic j and that there is now in force as the i edcemers Law, 
ihePrcc'prot perfcd cbedience and the 1 hreatning of Death to every lin , with a 
Grant of Kennfllon and falvation to all that finceiely Repent and Believe , and a 
threatning of farlbrer punilTimentto the Impenitent and Unbelievers. Thus far the 
Agieemtnt. The dilagieement is but this ; I think that though thefc are both the 
Redeemers laws, yet they arc to be taken as two •, One in this forme, VcrfcSi 
Obedience n ihyDniy ( or obe\ perfifiiy) : DerJh is ihy Due for every fin. The other in 
this forme, Repent avd Bciicve, and thou (halt be faved (from the former eiirfe) : Or 
e'fc damned. CJthe^s thinks that it is fitter to fay that thefe two are but one \,zw,<juo,id 
/i)j«).7w, running thus , 1 con m and to thee fain man^ perfvCl obedieneey and oblige thee 
tol'tini(hrf}e/it for every ftijj Yet notrcnicdthfly } but fo as that if thou Believe and Re- 
paty this Obl/p/.tion fh.iU be d/ffolvcd, end thou (riVcd; elfenot. To this purpofethe 
fcicfaid Learned^ Judicious. ai)d much honored Brother, explains his opinion tome. 
Now aslong as weagree that the former Law, or part of the Law, ( call it which 
youwill^ doth Adu illy oblige to peifcft obedience, or future Death ; and the lat- 
'.cr LavVj or part of the Law, doih upon the performance of the Condition , diffolve 
Jjis Cblrgation,'and give hs fu-i adimpimitatem & fatutcm 5 what great matter Is it, 
whether we call it One Law or Two ? For we are agreed againft them that look on 
the Moral law as to the meer preceptive part^ as ftanding by it felf, being not the 
matter of any Covenant, or connexed to any fanAion to fpecific it. 

lo apply this now to Mr. JS/^j^^j Queftion j It h moft likely that thofe Divines 
that affirm that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfed obedience, and Accept 
{incere,do take that Covenant in this hft and largefi fenfe ; and as containing the 
Moral Law as pait of its matter j and fo no doubt it is true,lf you underftand it of 
pcrfedion for the future, as fpeaking to a creature already made imperfe^.Now feeing 


the whole difference is but about the Reftridion or Extenfion of the termc -Qo- 
vi-nnrrT, T conceive, after twcr.tle years ftudy, Mr. B/. Ihould not make it f o ma- 
terial, nor charge it fo hcavi'y. Andthouglil am notottliac panic and opinion 
my fclf which he chargith, ycc feeing it may' tend to reconciliation, and fet thofe 
men more right in his thoughts , to whom he profclllth liich cp^cceding reve- 
rence, I will briefly ex uninc 1 lis, Reafons 4^ iji|//<iAj which he here bringcth in 

§. 83. 

Mr. Bl. I. TTc^ayiifljcihtheforino- ojiimonoppofcd hy Proteflnnls , »nd butnow 
A rcfufcd tti to thcObcdnncc andthc Degree of it called for in Cove- 
nant : and if I fhotdd be rndulgentto my afftciionsy to caufc my Judgement tojloopy 
dijlilit of the one would Mal^c me as avcrfc from it, as an opinion of the other would 
mal(e me prone to receive it. Judgment therefore muli lead, and AffcUiom be 

§. 83. 

"^ -K. TF you iuLetpret tiic Papiftb, a^ meanip,g that the Law requires true Per- 
,,, ■»■ fedion, but Accepts ot fincerc , :thcn if it be fpokcn of the Law of 
Works or Nature, it is faJle , and not the fame with theirs whom you oppofe, 
who fuppofc it is the Covenant ot' Grace that fo accepts of fincerity. If you 
take tliem ( as no doubt you do) as meaning it of the Law of Chiift (as the 
Trent Council cxpefs themfelvcs) then, no doubt, but they take the Law of 
Chnft in the fame extended fcnfc as was before cxprcfled , and then they differ 
from us but in the forementioncd Notion : But then 1 luppofe y.ou wrong them 
by making them rightei then tlieyarc : For the very pafl^gcs which you before 
cxprcfTcd out of lomeof the chief of their writers, do iniimatc that they do 
not indeed take the Covenantor Law it fclf to command true Perfeftion : buc 
that which they call Peifcdion, is but ( as you fay ) No other then the Grace of 
San£lifi6Alion in the vcryfaife as the Orthodox hold it out ; But it is true peifedion 
that thofe mean whom you now write againft. So that I fee not the Icaft ground 
for this riift charge. 

§. 84. 

Mr. Bl 

z. TF this opinion (landy then God Accepts of Co''^'cnant-bre alters j of thofs 
X that deal fil fly in It j whereas Scripture charges it upon the wiclicdy 
thofe of whom God coinp'.ains as RcbellioU'S, Dcut, 19 2 j . Jolh, 7. i j . Jer. u . i o. 
and 12. 8. 9. lea. it may be charged upon the befi, the mo[iho!yin the world lyingun- 
der theguUt of it. ' ' ' 

I i % 

S. 84. 

2. « 

. •T'Hii charge procccdeth mccrly from the confounding of the Duty au 

Inch, sntl the Condition as luch. A Covciiaiit winch is alfu a Law 
as well .1 s a Covenant, may by the preceptive part Conftitute much more Duty 
then fliall be made the Condition ot the Prumiles. Properly it is only the i on- 
pcrformancc of the Condition that is Covenant breakirg j and Co the Divines 
whom you oppolc are not chaigcable with your Conftqucnt : For they fay not 
that Thi C'jvinant vf Grace doth rridtic pc-.fcil Obedience the Condition of its Tromife, 
and Accept Imfcrfect. That were a Hat contradift.on : for the Condition 13- 
Cr.ii[:i fine qua non, ^xim qu.t : But only ihcy fay, It Rcquireih or Comniand- 
eth perted obedience, and Acccpteth lUsperfcd. And if you will fpcak fo large- 
ly, as to lay, that all who break the preceptive part of the Covenant, arc Cove- 
iKknt-bfcaktrs, then no doubt but God Accef tcth ot many fuch,-and of none but-^ 
fuch. And as the word Covenant is not t.'ktntor the mutual contiaA , but for- 
Gods new Law, called his Covenant, his Ttftamtnt, his Difpofition, Conftitu- 
tion, Ordination, &c. fo no doubt, we all are Covenant- breakers. For whether 
wc fay that the new Law commandeth perfeft obedience , or not ; yet unlefs you 
take it exceeding reftrainedlyi it muft be acknowledged that the Precept is of lar- 
ger extent rhcn the Condition, having appointed fome Duties which it hath" 
not made fine qua non to falvation : If you ferid your childc a mile of an errand, 
and fay 1 charge yon playnot by the vpaj^buc mal^c hajie, and do not go /» the dirt, &c: 
and if you come baci^ by fuch an hourt, I miUgivc you fuch a Reward , ;/ not^ you fhall 
be nvbipti He that playcs by the way and dirties himfelf, and yet comes back by 
tltevhour appointed, doth break the preceptive parr, but not the condition. Or 
if y"ou fuppofc are-cng?g^mcrt by Promife to dcboth thefe : he breakcth his 
own Covenant in the nrft refpcA ( which was not the condition of Reward or 
Punifhment ) but noiin thefccond. And fo do true ChriftJans both break the 
preceptive part of the Covenant, and alio fome of their own particiJar cove- 
nants with God : as when a man promlfeth, 1 will commit this fin no more , 
or I will perform fuch a duty fuch a day. But thefc are not the Conditions of the 
Covenant of Grace , which God hath made the (^au-fa fine qua non of Juftifi- 
cation or Saltation. So that I conceive this charge unjuft , to fay no more. 

S; 85.. 

Hi. Bl.j.TTWw itvpillftHow that as none can fay that they have fo anfcfcyed the. 
Command cf the Larv that they have never failed^ they have not ( if 
pitto tinfvper in the gicatefl rigor) ontetranfgrefj'ed ; fo neither can they with the 
church maf^e appeal to God 3 That they have not dealt faljly in the Covenant, nor 
frpickedly departed from their God. Pfal. 44. I nJLvtrypn (Mfmding to tha opimon) 
bti»i a trcach of it, and « dailing fa/fly in it. 

^^ *f> 


§■. 8 J. 

I^ B. "pHis charge is asunjuftas the former; and the abfurdlty fuppofed to 
follow, doth noti but is fuppofed fo to do , upon the forcmentioncd 
confufionof two ads of the Covenant , or New Law ; the one Determining 
what (hall be mans Duty; the other, what (hall be Conditio fine qua nm of Jufti- 
ficatiunand Salvation. 


Mr. Bl. 4. 'THcn the great ^^mifc of mcrcy from everla(UMg to everlafiing upon 
them that fear himy and his Righteoufnefs .unto chUdrcns children 
tofuch as \eep his Covenant ^ and to thofe that remember his Commandemcnts to d9 
themj Pfal. 103. 1 7, 1 8 . ow/y appertains to thofe tbatfo l^eep the Law that tbey fn 
not at all again^ it. 

5^; B. FT follows not. If they fincereJy keep the Law, they fulfill the Condi- 
A tions of the Covenant, though not the Precept. And they keep the 
Precept in an improper but ufual feafe , as Keeping is taken for fuch a lefs de- 
gree of breaking as on Gofpel groundiis Accepted. This ftill runs upon the 
forefaid Confufion. 

S. 87. 

Mr. Bl. J. '^HcnourBaptifm-Vovt it never to fin again^ God ■■, and as often aavot 
renew our Ct-vcnant , tve do not only humble our [elves that wc have 
Jkned, but n>eaf,cfh binde ourfelves never moie to admit the ieafi infirmity y and fi 
iive and dye itt the breach of it. 

§; 87. 

J^, B. TWE do not promife in Baptifm to do all that the Precept of the Co- 
venant rcquireth , but all that is made the Condition of Life , and 
to Endeavor thqicft. Much lefs as the Covenant is taken in the large ft fcnfe , 
as thofe feem to do whom you oppofc, may it be faid that we promife to Iseep all 

X '■ 5 S. M; 


Ml. Bl. 

(, 'VHcn &c d''{i}?iffion between th»!'e thattvtred Covcv.wt and brake it , 
»r5 ]-r. 3 f , 31, I ■^. flvdtlofc that haze the La^.v-w; nun in their 
I carts, and put hilo fl'jiii hrrr.trd p.tits to ob.hve it, faiisy all (landing equaUy Guilty 
cj tl c breach of it , fto hel\i of -G-race being vf power to enable to l^np Covcrmt. 

§.88. - 

^' ^- W^'" fincc re obedience and pcifc(fl obedience arc all one, and when 
ilic precept and the Condition of the Covenant are piovcdco be 
of equal extent, then ihcrc will be ground for ihc charging of this Conlcquence^ 
Inihe fnft Covenant of Nature the Precept and the Condition were of equaj 
extent ; for perfed obedience was the Condition ; but it istiotfo in the Cove, 
nant of Grace. 

§. 89. 

Mr. Bl. 7. npHc« it follows that finceritie « never called for m aD/Hyyorre". 
jL quired as a Grace i but only difpcnfcd with as a fiiiivg, indulged 
(U a. want. It ismtfo much a Christians honor or Chamber, as his blcmijh or failing j 
rather hU dcfefl then praife. But we finde the contrary in Noah, Job , Afa, Heze- 
kiah, Zachary (7»<f Elizabeth, Nathaniel an Ifrnelitc indeed that cntrcd Covc- 
n'anfmd l(ept C^vmmu — 

§. 8p. 

K. B, \ Will not fay.it is paft the wit of man to finde the Ground of this 
chaigc,i. f. to fee how this fnould follow ; but 1 dare fay, it is paft 
my wit. if it had been faid , The Covenant conmandcih perfeflion and not ftnce- . 
■lity ; Or The Covenant Accepteth fifucrity, but not Commandcth it , there had been 
fome rcafon for this charge. But do you think that fincerity is no part of Per- 
feftion 1 Can the Covenant require perfection, and not require fincerity, when 
lincerity is contained in perfection ? If you like finceriry, exclnfivc only, as ex- 
cluding pcrfcftion,and not at zWformalitcr j then its true that it is not comman- 
dcd,nor is a duty, but a failing : For I hope the Gofpcl doth not command Im- 
perfedion, but tender us a Remedy for it. You might with more colour have 
argued, that then Repentance is no Duty, becaufe inconJf(lent tvitb commanded perfe^ 
^ion. But that will not hold neither ; Fot they fuppofe , RepcntaHCc com-: 
mandcd by the fame Law, in cafe (and upon certain fuppofal) of Imperfc- 
Aion, or fin. 

§. fo^ 

Mr. Bl. 

1, A Nd thcYffoic I conclude that as in the Law there Tvasfuye Juflice , as 
^^ well m the command Given, as punijijment thrcatncd , without any 
condcfccnfion or indulgincc : So in the Covenont there is meny and condefccnftony as 
well m the Condition rcqiiii ed, as in the Tendty thnt is annexed to it. The Covenant 
icquircsno more :henit accepts. 

§. 90. 

7^. B. A ^L this will be cafily granted yoii by thofe of the contrary part , as 
^* nothing to the puipoic. It tolJows not, that becaufe there is con- 
dcfccnfion ia the Condition , that therefore there is fuch an abatement in the 
Piccept, or that the-Covcnant hath no Precept but de pYte(landa Conditionc. 1. It 
were ftiaiige it' the Covenant Ihould require more then it accepts. Did ever fo- 
bcrman (much Icfs fiich as yoiu Rcvcrencd advcrfaries ) imagine a thing fo 
Impious ! as if God would not Accept that which himfelt" commandcth. But if 
you would have faid, ns your arguing requires, that the Covenant accepteth no 
kfs then the whole which it commandeth or rcquireth , then not only your An- 
tagonifts, but my felt and many another will deny it , and demand your proof. 
Bnt he. e I take this as granted by you , that you take not the word covenant lit 
Icart forcftrainedly as excluding all Prcc.pt •, fof 1 luppofe you mean ^owwaw^f- 
iiigi \n the terms icqiuAni, andcaUmifor ss duty. 


hivh as 

<;■ any ifiarecalLdforfiom hi/n then through Grace he dvth perform , he rifes as 

„,,... ^ /.'« Rul-i iiiuifins not thrnngh any Impcfcaion-^ j thC'Cjore to mal{e it out that 

a f,ci!<:vc,s Impf fci. ions arc h/i fins, it mt:<i needs be that the Cavrnant requires pci' 

/cainni-M to ma}{C good that he may he fuvi^l pi his lmpe:f(cli<rnsy it mujlhcffjaintaincd 

hat by accepts fincoiiy. Hut //' u /t-gumat i:\ rot vjwaghi : Ch'i(i entring-a Gofpcl- 

ivith man, fiudcsinm under the comf/tandof the Law, which conmiand the 

arc under the Law as men \ we are taiiev vHo Covcnam as Criitians : retaining 
the humane nature, the Law fiiH comnianiis us ; though the covenant in chrijt 
through ihc abundant Gyacc of itj -upen thctCYtniihat it>eqtiires and accepts , frees 
usfioifi the (emencc of it. 

§. 9U 

i. 9'. 

K. 8. I, T Was at firft doubtful, left by rfcf law you had meant (asthcLw- 
ihe/ans ) a Law of God in general, as oppofcd to the Gofpcl a« 
being no Law ; and that you had meant by the Law, only the Moral Precepts* 
which is burthc mattcrof the Law of Naturcorot" Works, or of the Law ef 
•Grace (in fomc rcfpcd). But i perceive that you mean »hc entire Law, both 
Precept and Sanftion, by your mentioning the Sentence of it. If thcrcforc.you 
do by the Larv mean but one Species, w'^. the Law of Nature, acknowledging 
the new Law of Grace ( commonly called the New Covenant , from the Pro- 
mife which is the moft eminent part ) to be a Law too, tl.cii 1 agree with you in 
this folution as to the matter ot Perfeftion j or elfc not. And yet I dare not 
hold that the New Law commandcth no more then its Condition. Buc for 
'them that ijIc the v/ord Cot/c»/in( for nothing but the bare Promiic , 1 muft tell 
them, that it is but a piece of Gods Law or Inftrument , feparatcd from the bo- 
dy which they faftcn a Name upon." and if they will fignihe fo much , that it is 
but part of the Redeemers Law of Grace, which they call a Covenant, and will 
give another naine to the whole, that fo we may underftand them , I would not 
willinglyquarrcl with them about words. But if it be the thing as well as the 
name that they err in, affirming tliat the Gofpel is a mcer Proniile, and that God 
hath no Law but one, and that one the Law of Works ; or clfe that all his Pre- 
cepts Natural and Pofitive, are one Law by themfelvcs as diftinft from the San- 
ftions, when Precepts arcbutpartof Gods Laws, which by their Sanft ions arc 
fpecified and diftinguifticd ( as moft think into two forts, of Nature and of 
Grace ; but as Camera thinks into three forts, of Naturc,& of Jewilh works , & of 
Grace ) then I not only profcfs my diffent , but do cftecm the former error 
very dangerous and intolerable ; and the later, fuch as tendcth to great confu- 
fion in the body of Theologie. 

1. This very Argument which you recite and anfwcr, doth undenyabiy prove, 
that the Divines whom ycu oppofe, do by the Covenant of Gracey underftand «11 
cheLaw that isnow in force under the Government of the Kedecmer.Otherwifc 
they would never imagine that there is no fin but what is againft the Covenant 
of Grace j and that there is no other Rule but this Covenant for a Chriftians 
obedience. It is therefore out of doubt, that this difference is but about words, 
( or little more ) they taking that Covenant of Grace in a larger fenfc then you 
and I think meet to take it. 

If you fhould reply , that it is an unrcafonable thing of them to take it fo 
largely : I fay that 1 do not think meet to imitate them in it , but I could flicw 
you fo muchfaid that way by the forementioncd Reverend, Learned man, your 
"friend and mine, as would convince you that they have more to fay for what they 
do , then every one that is againft them is able to anfwer. 

S. 9i. 

Tffe ConclftpoK, 

JJ Aving thus taken the boldncfs to examine your Exceptions, and deliver my 
JRcafons againft fomc of your opinions , I do crave youc favorable accep- 


t'55 3 

rsncc of what I have dorir, and yonr friendly interpretation or remiiiori of any uk - 
favory words that I have let fall : And I muft dcfire you not to fuppofe that I judge 
of all the reft of your Book, as I do of this which I have here Replyed to. I value 
the Wheat while I help you to weed out the Tares. Pardon my confidant Gondu- 
dlng you in the error, and my felf In the Truth : whether ic be from the convincing 
felf-revealing nature of Light ; or from the common unhappy fate of the deluded ; 
I muft leave you and others to judge by the Evidence that Is in my arguments, what- 
ever further evidence I may have my felf within j doubclefs the various ftate of In- 
teileds, doth caufe a ftrangc variety of apprehenfions, of thofe objeds which are In 
themfclvcs the fame. And words be but dcfedlve Cgns : Tiierc is fomethlng in $en- 
fation and Intelledlon, which words cannot fully (hew to another. It is but tbeSpe. 
cies and not the thing it felf which you fee in this Glafs. My moft e xquifice defcri- 
ption of my own Tail, and the fwectncfs of what I taft, will not caufc another to taft 
that fwcetnefs. And theie Is fomcwhac like this in Intelledion ic felf j for though I 
confcfsmy felf Ignorant what manner of thing our IntcUeftlon wjllbc, whenwearc 
out of the fleHi ; yet now me thinks I perceive thit it dwh in fomc fort participate of 
fcnfe , and that vid. Angtifi- ds Ti'tnit, ji. y. f. i itik'o. Scntio m InlcUgere, Is a fpeech 
not wholly void of Truth. I confcfs alfothat I (hould have little modcfty or humili* 
ty, if I (hould not think more highly of the undciftandingof your felf and fo ma- 
ny Reverend and Learned Ikcthren who dllTcnt from me in feveral points here de* 
batcdjthen of mine own. But yet we muft prove all things^ind not fo truft to other mens 
eyes as to Qiut our own, or refufe to give credit to our light. They may far excell me 
in miny other things, though they miftake in this. I remember P^jWj, if ive or an 
jiuQcl from heaven, 8cc. And I remember TertuUiaHS , Non cx perfonit probamtu 
fidciH, fedcx^dcferfoJ.rj ( //. Pafcript^adv. bier. c. i.) And Ircn^ut his, Presby- 
tern adhmrere oportct qit'i & Apoflolorum do&in^tm cuflodiunt , & cum Presbylcrii 
(hdincfcrmonetf) f.iiitrn cti[lod:i4iil icc.(li. 4-f-44) And Cypri.tns, .^«< ifta ob(lmatio 
cli qux pr^efampOaJbutnanam traditioncrn Div!n<e difpofiiioni antcponerc*nec animadvsy 
tr,e,''idig}tMt &'iy.ifci Dcuft^quotKs Diviii pracepiafalvH & prxterkbimmci traditlO' 
EPifi. 74- iid lub^n.in.p. 119. And miny a one of A/t(lhis yet plainer then ihefe, to the 
fame purpofe are commonly known, P.)«/ himlclf could do nothing againft the Truth, 
but for the Truth, at having no Authority given him CO deftruftion bat to Ldifica- 
tion. lam willing to itoop to the judgment of my betters as far as is Rcafon.ibic , 
Confcionableand l^fliblc , and if no further, I hope I raiy be excafcd : when L 
fee plain Reafon ag.nlnft them, i: is unrcifcnthLc to I'ubfcribe to the opinions of the 
moft learned : whcnSciiptare is again 1^ :h«.m, it were dillionfftaiid uncoiifcion^blc: 
And when they arc one agaifift anothcr^to ailcnt to all is iinc>oflibL. Infuchacafc , 
I muft needs bear the Accufations of one paity , whu think me Arrog.mt. : roud 
andSelf concci;ed,asruppofin^ my felf to bf wifer then thfy. ,',u' I have lang been 
ftudyin" and Preaching, (and I ihink pradifmg) chat ncielTuv jrid cxcelltnc Duiy/^f 
bciii2 fo contented wit^ Gods I'ole approb.itijn, as ihofc chii kaow dicy ^Xi\i or fall 
at his bar = and thercfjre mult tftccm it a very fmiil thing ro b- judged by m:n I 
have long valued and believed that faying of Ai'ltit (comm:mly ci'cd, and found , 
///;. 5. d(? T'iwi'.^J/'. '^•fhc very laft words ) Co^'l,a Rniomm n.mo iob/iui j CoKtra 
Scripluras nemo Cbyift'ruius ; Contra. Ecclelid>/i nemo pacifcwi. In ihf point cf Faiths 
Inftrumentality,and thenatuvcof the iuftifyingad, wi-.ich I uifFcr fi;om yen in, I 
am conftrained upon all chefe three grounds to my iiilT;nt. 1 Lcil by icnou .cing 
my Reafon 1 Ih^uU ceafc tobefober, ^ Though yet I thi•^k fobcr riicn may be con. 
tiary minded^ tiot feeing thcfe Rcafjns). i. Ltft by foifiking the Scripture, I /hould 

K k ccafc 


ccftfc to be a Chciftlan, (Though Chriftian* that obfcrvc not, or underftand nor 
chat the Scripture is againft you in this^may juiigc as you). 3. Left by comraiifting 
the Church, I (hould ccafc to be peaceable ( Though men othcrwife peaceable 
may be drawn to it through prejudice) , If you will bring one found Rcafon, one 
word of Scripture, or one appiovcd writer of the Church (yea or one Heretick, 
or any man wliatfoevci) for many hundred years after Chrift (I chink 1 may 
lay 1300 at left) to prove that Chrift as Lord or Kmg is not the objcA of the 
Juftlfying aft of Faith, or that Faith Juftlficth properly as an Inftrument , lam 
conicnccd fo far to lofe the Reputation of my Rcafon, Underftanding, Reading, 
and Mjmory. For though I have not read all that hath been written for fo ma- 
ny hundred years, yet I have read moft of the Writers of great note, (except 
the moft Voluminous, which I took but part of) and by that much , I fee lb far 
into the fcnfeand language of thofc times, that I dafe ftand to the hazard of 
this adventure. I fpcak this bccaufc you tell me, that there was fcaicc a dillenting 
voice among our Divines that are ogainft me about the Inftrumentality of Faith. 
And if there cannot be brought one man that confcntcth with them for 1 100, 
or 1 400 years after Chrift, 1 pray you tell inc whom a humble, modcft,peaccablc 
man Ihould follow, were he never fo much ready to deny his own underftanding ■" 
Beeaufc a word or an opinion that is unfound , hath got poffcflion ot a iitcic 
corner of the world for about 150 years; therefore lam fufpefted as fingular 
and as a Novilift, for forfaking it. Whereas it is to avoid fingulanty, and noto- 
rious Novelty, that laflcntnot to yourway. Thcfamel fay about the Intcrcft 
of mans Obedience, in his juftificationascontinued and confuinmatc in judge- 
ment. If cither Ckmens Romaa.Tolycarp. Ignatius, J uftin Martyr, Irenaui, Tcr- 
tHllian, Origrn, Atkinagorai,Tatianm, Clem, ^lexand. Jiimutius Falix, Arnobiufy 
La{laTi:iHf,Cyp^*^»)-^^f^^''''^'*h Eufcbim, Greg. N.jy.m^cn, Efipharuus , ^)ritf. 
H'lerofol. Sync fins, CyriU AUxandr. Macarins, Hicromc, Salvian, l^incmtlus Lain. 
yjgiliiiSi or any Counccl were of your mindc in any one ot thefe points , and a- 
gainft mine, then I will confefs, at kft my fupine n«.gligcncc in reading , or my 
very faulty memory in retaining their words. l^nA iov^Aujiin, Chryfofi. and o- 
thcrs , of whom I have read but the lefter part, I do ftrongly conjcdure by that 
part, at their fenfe, and that they concurr with the reft. It youfa/that the Fa- 
thers had their errois, and cUchisis but humane Judgement, and all men arc 
fallible, I confefs all this to be true : But as 1 ftill fay, that Cmtra EccUfiam ne- 
mo facificus, fo I define leave to Judge thofe Brethren that oppofe me, as fallible, 
and fubjeft to error, as all the Primitive Fathers were : and therefore that I 
may be no more blamed or thought fingular for contradifting them , then they 
are for contradifting the Primitive Church ; I know as ^«J?/n faith Ae C'v'uate 
'Z>ci,ii. 11. c. ■^o.Serv.-'nd! gradits crant'Divinimuncris -y lit primum darctur ti- 
btrum arb'itrium, quo non-pcccarc poffet homo ; Tiovifsimnm, quo pcccare non pojj'cf 
ntqucilhidad comparandum mcritum ; h^c adrecipundum pramium pcrtincrct. And 
the cafe of the Intcllcd being the fame , we muft ftay til this time of Reward 
be come, before we fliall receive our KoHpJp cryare. I know no Brother that op- 
pofcth me, doth pretend to Infallibility. All that I defirc by my far greater ad- 
vantage of humane Teftimony, is but to cxpugn prejudice, that I may ftand 
on even ground with them that contend with nic : Andcould I but prevail for 
thi^, that the caufc might be decided by mcer Scripture-rcafon,jind humane Au- 
thority wholly ftand by, and the Reader could but impartially confider things, 
without being hyafied CO any/Wf or p.rriyi as if he knew not what any man clfe 



Joth judge of It, I Should then make Jittk doubt o£ the good ifluc of the Con" 
irovcrfie. The moft that I meet with, that explain againflt my judgement , arc 
ihey that confcfs that ih.y know not what it is, or cllc apprehend it to be what it . 
is not : but whaterer it is, fomc that they value are againft it, and that is it that 
fatisficth them that I am in an error. I do unfeigncdly dcfirc that in daik Con- 
trovcrfics beyond their reach, the unlearned people would more regard the genc- 
-rality of fobcr Godly Divines, then any liiigle and fingular Teacher ; ye* 
though it fall out that he be in the Truth, as long as the Evidence of that Truth 
is out of their reach. But this may not encourage any to fhut their eyes, or to 
ncglcft to fearch after the Evidence which they might difccrn, much kfs may it 
cxculc fuch unfaithfulncfs in Divines themfelvcs i nor yet may it encourage any 
to captivate their judgement to a party, againft the general judgement of the 
Church : For if I were on one fide , and all the Divines in £»£/d«(^ on the o- 
ther,therc is yet the fame realon to prefer all the firft Churches, before all thcni,as 
there is to prefer ail them before mc. In a word, 1 fhall ever think him 
more culpably fingular, who d.ffercth from Chrift , and his Apoftlcs, 
and all his Church for hod or 1400 years, then he that dlft'ercih fioinany par- 
ty now living, and diffcreth not from them forementioncd. And how the calc 
ftands in this between mc, and thofc Reverend Divines that oppofe mc , in the 
forclaid poiacs of diifercnce, 1 am heartily content to refer to any fobcr, impar- 
tial Reader, that takes not things ontruftfrom others, nor judgcih of the Do- 
ftrinc of aniient writers, by any imperfcd d fmcmbred parcels. 

Gcorgius Czlixius, Epitom.Theols^, Moral, fag. ^67,, 

Iyfur^ogatl qute fides nofiya, qute do^rina^rrfpond^mui earn tj]e fidcm & da^r'iium 
fiojlram, quam ComjLditur fjmbolum ^pofiolicumifymbolum Nutenum, Conft/inti- 
Twpoiuanum, & Athanaftanum , ^nathemati^mi Lphefini ; Cjufcfsio C'oalccdonenfis : 
^'<f Nc{lonaaorum& Eitiichia>ioiumrctiqiiH!yqianta& fexta fyfiodi oppufunnnt : 
S>j<e itemTelagianu Affuana pleniYiJ. . five ui voceid fokt miUz'itana. fynodm & 
^lauficana frcunda f)nodus eppofucyunt. Hac fymbola hdt covfcfsiones & dcclaratio- 
nei continent, nonmodoqu^Crtdere, fine qnibus fiiem & ajfcnfum prttbere hamintm 
Cr'ii^aanum opoi let, & fine qu'ibui cycdllis atque cognitis falvayi ncquit ; fed tUis, 
etiamqui hac ipfa doccudo tya£la.nt,&- aliis expnnun! uTnTvTnrtv v'yixn'oirra)/ Koya^ 
quam temant fi eefcyibuut. ^ne aiitcm hifcc fymbol/s confifsiombus & dcclarationibus 
compnhcndicntur e Sacra Scnptuyahaufin fmt: q/fppe in i/s qiite aperte in Sc/tjfivya 
pi'it.jf}tnt invcniuntiir ikaomuiaqua continent fid.m morcfqitc vivmdi,&c.T)emque 
cxcyccmui n^s ^d confctentlim hab^ndam fine offeufx apudD:um c^ homines fmpcr. 

LHtherHS,rejereKte Hopfnero Saxoft. Evangel, p, 1 10, 

NlUV. ptjiilentius in Ecclefia doccri poiefi,quam (i ea qtnencceffaria nonfunt, necef- 
fayiafi.'Ht. Hac enimtyranntde cenfcicntite illaqueaniur,& Libertas fidcicx- 
t uiguituy-y mcrtd^cium pro veritatc,lJolum pro Deo,^bominatln pro finiluate coittiir. 
1 coruiKide with that of Kup. Mcldenius clfcwhcre, once before ciicd, Parancf. 
( citante C- ^*-^'iif) "P. "i-. 

ycrbo dicJm : fi nosfeyvayemusy in NcccfTirlis Llnitatcm ; in Non-ncceffariis Li- 
bcrtarcm, in Uciifque charitatein, optiino ccite loco efleni res noftrx. Itafiat. 


T H F 

DI GR^'e S S O R: 

O R 
^B^h. Baxters 


M*^ (jeorge Kendall's 


in his Bo o K againft 

M' g 2) r / Xi 

Job 42. 3 . who is he that hideth Counfel ^'ithottt KrJsvrledge ? Therefore 
have I uttered that I undcrfiood not, things tooVoonderfutl for me, i 
^hich I k*ievt> not. 

Rom- 1 1 • 3 3 • O the depth of the riches both of the »cifdom and knowledge ; 
of God ! how unfearehable are hif judgements, and hi6 iraies fafi 
finding tut ! 

Nam oucmodo intellcftu Dcum capit hom>i,qui ipium intellcftum luiim, quo 
EumTuit capei-Cjnondum capit ? Auguilin.de Tnn.rjtc ,i.$ .c.i . 


Printed by J.L^f. for Thomas Vnderhill, at the Anchor and Bible in 

P4«/j Church- yard near the little North-door, and FrAncis Tyton^ 

at the three Daggers in Fleetftrect near D«w/?4»j Church. 1654. 




Nazianzcn. orat.ip. p^Z'^91* Edit. Morclli. 

'El J^ mhvti>f>Ayuoveii MO'S ytv^nrnv vg.] rtivyJ]'^ ^oJhv, &c. 

. ZJcd ft in filii gencratioriC C^ Spirit fu procejfione fcrvejii- 
gandaCHriofum te prtehs^ ego (jucq) pari cHriofitatetUfUVU 
anima corporif(j-y ccnjiinLHoHem C^ temper amentum inqui' 
mm: (^t'.oTKodo pHlviscs,(^ Dei Iwago ? ^htid efi cjuodte 
moveat ? aut cjuid quod moveatur ? ^Immodo idem mo'net & movctur ? 
^luomodofenfus in eodcm manet, & externa attrahit ? ^lupmodo mem 
in te wanet, Cr in alia nfcnte fcrmoticm gigr/tt ? ^)m modo cogitatis 
perfcrmoncm impertitur ? Nondum nujora profero ■ ^1^*^ c<gli conver- 
fio ? ciHis fjderunt motifs, & ordo ? aut medta ? qute conjunciio aui 
difiantia ? qui maris termini ? unde venti profluant ? undc partint 
annirevolHtiones, aut pluviarum effufiones ? Si nihil hortim intellect u 
percepifli, o homo, (percipies autemfortajfc aliquando cum perfctiionetn 
confecutHt fueris & ut conjicere pofpmui ea qu<e nunc cernimm, non 
veritatem ipfam ejje, fed quedam duntaxat veritatts fimulachra ) ft 
teipfum non nofti, quifqurj es qui de h^ rebm dijpHtai, fi h^c nondum 
tntellcElu comprehendifli, quorum fenfm ipfc teflu efl, quo tandem mo- 
do ^uid, & ^uantm fit 'Dens, te certo tenere ac fcirc arbitrarts ? 
MacnxprofelVoidflultitixefl. ^uocirca ftquid mihi obter^pera4, htc 
efi Theologo minim} audaci, ut mnnulU jampercepifti, ita ea qumfu- 
perfunt ut percipia^, roga, precibufq; contende. Ea parte qua in to 
manet content us efto : reliqua in fupemis thefauris recondita maneat. 
Pervita probitatem afcende : per purgationem, eum qui pur us efi- adi- 
pifcere. Vis Theologns aliquando fiert^ ac divinitate dignus ? Afan^ 
data ferva : per Dei precepta incede (a^io emm gradus efl ad con- 
templationem ) ex corpore operam animx nava. zAn quifquam efi; 
mortalium qui ad earn fublimitatemefferripoffit, ut ad PauU menfu- 
ram perveniat ? At ille tamen viderc fe per jpeeulum O" <cnigma dicit, 
tempufque ajfore, quo facie ad faciem vifurns fit ; fis tu licet aliis 
in Dijputando fublimior : at Deo hand dubie inferior es._ Sis licet 
aliis fortajfe acutior & perjpicacior : at certe veritate tanto pofierior 
es, quanto ejfentia *Dei ejfentiam tuam antecellit'J See the reft to 
the end. 

ji 2 Idem 

Idtm Naz. Orat. 34. fag. 538, 539. 

Oih vonfvx ^' y^aKirtcv ^^<ru Ji dAwttJov, &.C. *DeMm wtelleBfi der- 
cipere dijfieile efi, elocjki atttem imptfJfihiU , ut 
* Pwio IS the man he prophanortim T hcologorHin * cjhidum docuit, mto 
means. Note th^t cjnidemjuduio non incallid'e ', ncmve Kt ex to quoii 
Ki^a "scauT/bm ^^tcMln dijjictlem ujirm^t, op^.Umm h.PnmU, 
bumble Chriiliiis an ^ff^r^t, fe enm cogmtione percepilJe. fx eo nuttm 
JnipoHibjii:y. qnod nuUn verbis e$4m explicnri pofje ait, hoc tig.tt 

ne injcitta Jua prodi atcjne ccnvinci ^neat. Ego 
vero it a. pcttM dicendHm cenfco \_Dn natHram nullis qr.idim verb if tx- 
plicari pojft ; aniino antem atc^ue intelle^ln comprchetjdi mnlto minus 
pcjfe. Nam c^md <jun animo ar^pte ratiorte compltxm f her it, id t^noijtie 
fcrtajfe fermone dec I ar are cjueat, fi nonfat is dilnctde atqne perfpic ne, at 
faltem obfcure, mode anditorem nacin^Jit non omniKo Jnrdy.m^ tardi^i 
is^ (iupidi ingenij. At rem t ant am animo comprehendere cmnino impof- 
ftbileefi, mnmodo ignavis cr langnidis, dcorfyimo^y.e vergentdw, Jed 
magrips etiam C^ exceljis viris, Deique amore praditis, ac mirt.alibi^ 
ptr£Cjne emnibiUy cjHibits ad vert cognitionem, caligo h^c Qp- carni-s 
crajjities tenchras ojfnndit. At(jMe baud fcie an hoc quoqne fublimiori- 
bm illps Cr intelligentibHs naturU negatnm fit, qn(g. ejnia Deo propius 
junUxfhnt, ac totofuo jp/endore collncent, cernere utii^; ^trtajfe cjneant, 
fi mnprorfm, at certeplenins c^nam nos k^ fulidins, atc^-^ alix -diis, pro 
cttjpifq) ordinc, vel iiberiii^^vel parein4 . 


Nee vero hac verba ita accipi ve/im, cjuafi percipi non poffe dicam,. 
Quod fit Deus ; fed Qoid & Quale /7f.iVf^; emm inanu^ esl prxdicatio 
mflra, nee v ana fides njfira -^ nee id eft cjHod aftruimiu ( nc rnrfus id 
quod probe candideque dixlmii^, in impietatis C^ ealumnijt argumen- 
turn trahoi, ac nobi^ ut ignorantiam confitentibii>s, arrogant er infultcs. ) 
Tifirimum namqyintereft, certo tibi perfuade.u, aliquidejle, an J^id 
tandem illud fit compcrtum habetis. Etenim ^l^'i DiPts fit, ac Princcps 
qudidam caufia, qu£ res omnes prvcreavit, atq-^ confer vet , turn cculi ipjiy 
tum Lex naturaUs docet^^c Ac r.imis profecto hehcs ac ftolidus tfty 
cuifquis non hucufq; fponte fua progreditur, naturaliun^q) dcmcnftrati- 
vnum vefiigips infifiit, atq^ adeo hoc fihi prrfuadet, Ne id (|uidcm D^- 
um cfle, quod vel imagine quadam animi concepimus, vcl informavi- 
fnus,vel orationis penicillo utcunq-, dci'cu^Cymm. ^iod fiqui^ ftnquam 
cogitatione Deum quoquo modo comprehendit, qmnam obfecro argumento 
i^probabit f &.C. Pag. 

Pag. 548. §ji}A tAndem ^ens mturn [ha & t$entia ft, ntcho* 
m'tnHm cjttifqifAm ntiqtiam invenit, nee invemre poteh. An vera ali- 
cjuando fit inventttrm, cjtfArat hoc^ qui volet, ac perfcrntetur. 

Pag.^%6. Having heaped up many intricacies and infuperable dif- 
ficulties about the creatures, he addes [_Po}untne hoc expedire Phyfici, 
atq'^ i'rtanps eruditiotju landc cdehres , ac vere cjatho r^are, hoc ejt, res 
t Ant us inger.tojm metientcs /]] 

1 intreat the capable Reader to perufc the reft of that excclleiic 
Oration in the Author. 

I cite thefe paflages i. If it werepollible to pcrfwadcpoor mor- 
tals that we are no Gods, nor (hould afpire as did the father of Tin- 
ners J and therefore that we have lefs knowledge of Gods Eflence 
and nature, then the vain Dilputers called Schoolmen have long 
pretended to. 2. That hereby the matter of the Churches conten- 
tions being removed, our wounds may dofe again. For who know- 
eth not, how many curious and vain, though much applauded Vo- 
hnne^, are all built upon the fands of fome prefumptuous fuppofi- 
tion of the Nature of God ? If ihey did not take it tor granted that 
God uoth properly 'L'^ichrftMul and Will, and properly Intcndert 
f'/jem, with many the like, what matter could they have for their 
Voluminous contentions ? If but only thofe two fuppofitions wer« 
known to be (at leai^) uncertain, what (hould we do with all thofe 
Learned Writings that lo fubtilly Dilpute of the order and number 
of Gods Decrees? and how fliould we elleem them ? He that will 
readc the AngufLwe ConfeiVion, may fee what thoughts the firft, 
Proteftants had of the Controverfies about Predeftination, and how. 
little of that dodrine did enter their Religion. 

F»Wf Eufebium Tnffitrat. Evangelic, lib. undecinta, cap. 11. 

Where he affirm.s that Afc/es and all tlie Prophets teach that Gods 
Nature cannot be explicated by words, and that his Name is ineffa- 
ble, and how Plato agreeth with them. 

As alfo cap.^. where lie makes the very Name Ens proper to God, 
and alledgeth Phux^'s confenr, and crfy^.io.ihe confcnt oF Numenitu,. 
and cap. 1 j . the tonlcnt oi'PUitarch. 

Alfo lib.%.ii-p.^.f.iff. (niiii) 365. out of Jofcphm he citcth this, 
[[ThatGodisthci5f(;»/««;>^, ih^Aiiddle, the £«i^ of all things, ancL 

A 3 a^ 

as he Is in Works and Benefits confpicuous, yea of aU things by far 
the moft notable (or known) fo is he both in Nature and Greatncfs 
moftobfcurc: Nothing that is like him (or no hkenefs of him) can 
befecnof us, or imagined by us; nay it isnotlaivfull fo much a» 
lightly to frame it (fuch a rcfcmblance) in our mindes.] 

Novatiatms ( nondum lapfn^ ) lib. T- de Trimtate inter 
opera Tertulliani, cap- 7. 

ScAtamcn dr ipfe (Chrijlm) fic adhuc de Deo locjuitur homimb:u 
ijuomodo pojJfiKt adhuc Atidire, vel caperc : licet in agnitioisem Dei re- 
hgiof am jam facer e incrementa mtatnr : Invenimtis enim fcriptum ejfe 
(jHod^Deiis eharita! ditttu fit -^ nee ex hoc tamen Dei fubflanti.i cha- 
riras exprejja esi. St quod Lux diEliu efi, nee tamen m hoc fubfta»- 
tia Dei eft: j Sed totum hoc de Deo diflum efl quantum did potefi j ut 
merito C^ (juandoJpiritHi dicim efi, nonomneid quodefi diet lu eft, fed 
ut dum mens hommum intelligendo ufq; ad ipfu'm proficit fpiritum, con- 
V erf a jam ipfainjpiritu aliud quid amplius per (pirttum con jicere, DC' 
ftm e^e poffit . Id enim quod elt, fecundum id quod eft, nee humano 
fermone edici, ncc humanis auribus pcrcipi, ncc humanis fenlibus 
colligi poteft. Nam ft qua pr<cparavit Dens hts qui diligunt ilium, nee 
ocului vidit, nee auris audivit, nee cor hominu, aut mens ipja percepit , 
f]uali6 & quantHS eft ille ipfe, qui h.'ZC repromittit, ad quA intelligenda 
^ mens hominn C^ natura defecit. 

This is one note by which it is known not to be Tertu/lian's wri- 
ting, becaufe TertulUan grofly erred in makingGod too like the 
creature, as is well known. 

The like paflages you may reade, in Ruffini Expofit. in Sjmbolum 
Apoflolor, Seft.^^$^6yS. with feveral difficulties propofed in things 
about our felves, to convince us of our ignorance. 

Author de Cardinalibus operibui Chrifti inter opera Cypriani 

Prolog. §.3. p. 482. 

Nee patitur ad liquidumfe videri Divinitas^ quam utiq; inveftiga^ 

tio, fideiis aliquo modo adorat vel fentit ; fed puram ejta ejj'entiam nee 

conjpicit , nee eomprehendit : Affirmatio quippe de D.i ejfentia in 

prompt u haberi non poteft ; neq-^ enint difinibilt<s eft Divinitat ; fed 


%eritti fincerikfpj', rcmotioinMicAt, tiegiwdo quidmnjit,qH^imA([eren' 
do quid fit. ^It^oni^m (jtiic^uid Jhtj'y.i fpthjacet, iLf{d ejje uon fetcfi 
cjucd iKftem ft^ferat innlUEip.m. ^l^icqhtd afidiri, zel videri vel 
iciv\ fttcfi, i^o/i conz'cyjtt wajijiati 'j hthes fji inljAC cor,fideratime cmnts 

cxies jer.fuk'iK c^ caligat ^jpitim. P-4^3- §-^- Et utivAmme if- 

fhtn ctgncfctim i^- Jctam ! ^^cd fi anm<t tk^a ^ha coy-fort's niei ohtinet 
princifathm, nee crif^inem Jcio, ncc metior cjp:antit({tem, nee qualu Jit 
intueri ju^cio, Jt ignvta tfl miht ratio i^fiare ipfa de/cfietftr in coy fore 
ferfecutcre fko&iQ. faticrder we fcrre opcrtetft ofer^itcrem nr.iverfitatis 
nonintelligo, c^ui in minimiioferationumfuarhm fiirticulismeum prc" 
jitecr C£citatem. 

Reade the reft of that Prologue excellently (hewing how far God 
is known, and how far not. 

Synefius de Regno, pag.8,9. Edit. Petaviannr. 
NnUufn unc^UfiW Kiir.en thvehtum ffi ejucd Dei Katkram ajfeejuerc- 
If^^s fcdchm ah tA (xprinAnda k(rni^.es fiherrareht, fer ea qti<t ab tllo 
Ji^nt, ipfttm^xittirtgere ccr.Mti funt -^ five trgol^atrem , conditorcm, 
fize alifidcjuidptam aixerus, jite Fn/uipikw, fr.e i^ujc.nt, kaic omnia 
rejpfElw e^Hidum funt , e^ ad eu c^ua fib iUo ariunthr cmptirationes, 
Eodem mcdo Regem ft apeiiu ah ii< cjhirtf?t Rex efi, non a propria pfr- 
fona KAt^riimtlliHS (ipprehendcre art- 1(7 is. lento jcm nd relicjua ejus 
nomina,&cC. 'Binp.m uticj-^ Dtim in r.es, ttni fapientes quam imperiti 
homines uhiqicelehrar.t/ii)^Q. Ncndhm trrr,en hoc ipjum Bonum ^/c^;:- 
tumziis extra conteKticntm pcj;if:m, Dei in n/rJf^ra f^^aflahi/itattrnde- 
clarat : ex li^ vero ejud pcjiertira fhnt nvrcg^ithr. Nee enim Bcninc- 
nten, ahfoluthw e^uidanrihtu fnat_, fedillu Bcnhm qtiirp.w effc^.x eji^ 
4fluiq',eo fifii fejjfint.^c. Fide reiiq.ih. 

Cyrillus, Bierofel.Ctiteekef6. pag. 46,47,.^ 8. is large on this. 

Dicimfts non quaeportet de Deo ', n^ni tifolikitc nota junt : Sedqutt 

proffio modulo capere nattiTA khwana potefi, & qM^eirr.hecillitas mjira 

ferrcvaltt. Acft enim ^^uid fit Deus expenimus : A'^m candide nos 

ACCuratAnt de ee ecgnitiintm ncn habere ccnfttmtir. ^li^f.m ignoranti^m 

ngncfctntes , njagnam de Deo ccgniticnew prof tern ftr.^r- — -^t dicet 

qui^iart, Si ccmprekendi neqttit ejjentia DiiiTts, quid efi qucd tu de 

his eftarras ? &ic. Laude Diminhm decorare , ren exprimere 'verbis 

*ggredior,bi.Q, ^luid igifvr, dictf eliqf^ii, mnne fcripthm eji q*^od 


An^ell islornm Vident [em^er fAcicm fatris rnci cjui m exit's ejl 1 At 
vlaent Angeli mn ficut Dens eft, fed /^uatenw ipft capere pujfnnt, 3cc. 
Cum igitur <t/^yi^eli nefcUnt, nnllHS homo fuam eruhefcat t»/citi,im, e^ 
i^norAntutm conjiteri^ turn ego (jHt nunc locjuor, turn omnes ommnm 
temporum homines. £^n etiam ejuomodo enttnciare non poffnmns : 
Nam quomodo po[fem enm verbn exprimerc, cjut ipfe dcdit ut ver- 
ha proittAm ? Ego qui 'iAntmam haheo nee ejta formam itneu- 
mentave pojfum exprimere , ejtiomodo confervatorem anim<t enuneiare 


Cyrillus Alexandr. To.i .TheJaur.U.ii .e.i .E^^^dsWy near the end 
is full for the fame as the former cited Authors, as he doch in divers 
other places. And in Commentary on John among Cjrill'si Works 
but indeed ClitloveH^^i is frequent. As/;, i.e. 1 3. Nam cjuemadmodum 
ejuamvts nnllns novit ^uidnam jeeundum naturam Dem fit, fuftifica' 
Tur tamen perfidem cpinm ered.it prxmia ilium redditurum qu.trentibui 
tnm : fie etft operum e'lm rationem ignorat, quum tamen fide omnia ilium 
po^e non dttbitet, von eontemnenda tamen probitatt4 hujm pr<emia con- 

And/j. 9. r. 34. Sed nullm naturdT^eitatu capax intelleClui eft. 
Ac ideo furiofm eft qui audet temeraria feruratione rimari auidnam 
Dens feeundum naturam eft. Z^mbru tamen Qr <:nigmatibM ut in 
Jpeculo, &c. 

Auguftin. de Trinitat. reproves three forts of Errours about 
God, in the entrance, lib. 1. cap. i-. i. Thofe that judge of fpiri- 
tual things by corporeal. The fecond is thofe ^^hn feeundumhu- 
mani animi naturam vel affe^um de Deo fcntiunt, ficjuid fcntiunt. 
3, Thofe that do indeed endeavour to tran (lend the mutable crea- 
ture that they may raife their intention to God, fed mortalitatis 
tnere pr£gravati, eum cr videri v^lunt fcire cjuod nefciunt, or ^uod 
volunt fcire non pojfu>0y prxfumptiMcs opinionum. fnarum audaeim 
affirman?lo, interetudunt fibimet inte/ligentia vias, magii eligcntes fen- 
tentiam fuam non corrigere perverfam, ^uam mutare defenjam,8iC.'""- 
ffluA vero proprie de Deo dicuntur, e^uanqHam in nulla creatura iav«e- 
niuntur, raro ponit Scriptura Divina, ^q. 


Clemens Alexandr. Stromat.ii.^. commends Tiato for faying that 
God cannot be expreffcd by words, as agreeing with Scripture ; and 
himfclf addeth that he is neither Genus, Species, diffenntia, indivi-' 
dnum, numerWy accidens, nee cui uliquid accidit, totum, pars, &c. 
Et ideo eji figura expers, c^ qnod mminAri non potefl. Et ft aliqttando 
eum nominemHs, non propric vocantes aut Vnunt, ant Bonnm, aut 
Mentem, aut ipfum id <jued efi, aut Patrem, aut Deum, aut Crea- 
torem, ant Dominum : non id dicimns tanejuam nomen ejus proferen^ 
tes, fed propter ejpu peteftatem pulchris utimur nominibpu, ut in alii4 
mn aberrans , hia inniti pojfit cogitatio, &e. I ufc Hervetw tran- 

Ircnaeus U. i. cap. i6. 
Efi autem (fr fuper haic ^ propter hac inenarrabilU : fenfm tnint 
eapax emnium bene C^ reSie dicetur, fed non ftmilis hominum fenfui : 
Et lumen reU:iffime dicetur ; fed nihil fimile ei, quod cFi fecundunt 
nes lumini. Si autem efl in reliquis hominibuf, nulli [imilis erit omnium 
pater hominum pufiUitati : (^ dieitur quidem fecundum h<ec propter 
dileHitnem, ftntitur autem fuper ha^c fecundum magnitudinem. 

Juftin Martyr Serm. ad Gent, exhort. 

Intellexit (Plato) 1)eumnonindicajfeilli (Mofi) nomen fuumpro' 
prium. Nullum enim potefi Deo convenire proprie. 

Yditra Apolog. i. Pro Chriftian.Zfmverforum Pater nullum nomen 
habet inditum : Pater enim, Deus, Creator, Dominus, Herns, non no- 
mina funt, fed a beneficentia defumpta vocabula^ Sec. Sicut Cr Dei 
vocabulum non tarn nomen eji, quam inenarrabilis ret hominibus innata 

Idem y^pol. 2. Sljjj^ enim potefi dicer e quodnam ft nomen inejfabile ? 
quod nemo nifi deplorate infanm prcferre tentaret. 

I conclude from all this, that either it is certain that IntelUgere, 
Velle, Amare, Intendere,Scc. are not fpokcn of God Properly, or 
by Analogy of Attribution (as they fpeak ) or at leaft, that it is ut- 
terly uncertain to us, whether it be fo or not : But that w€ muft 

B ufe 

ufe both thefe and lower notions of God» from the glafs of mans 
nature and adions, ftill confefling the Impropriety in all, and that 
we hare no poricivcformall certain apprehenfion of the thing cx- 
prefled (vizj. God and his ads) but only a general apprehenfion 
that it is foraewhat which is beft reprefentcd to us in the glafs of thefc 
metaphorical Notions, which contain as great a likenefs to the thing 
it felt as we are now capable of reaching ; and upon thefc confide- 
rations we mull Hick clofc to the Scripture phrafe which conde- 
fcendcth fo low in fpcaking of God ; and not hearken to the un- 
proved fancies of Schoolmen, that tell us Thu^Si is pr^oerly in 
God , as implying no impcrfedion, and That u not feeing all 
humane ads do contain irapcrfcdion in their very formall na- 

As Salvian de Provid. li.-i,. p.6ly6^. faith, fo, a fortiori, dol : 
Nefcio fecretum, & conjilium Divinitatu ignoro. Sufficit mihi ad 
canfit hujtu frobationem difii calejit4 orarulum. Si fcire vis quid te- 
nendum [it, habes literM facras : ferfeEia ratio efi hoc tenere quod 
legeru. £ltta caufa autem Dem htc de quibus lo^Himmr^ ita facittt, 
noh a me requirof. Homo fum, non intetligo fecreta Dei ; invejii^ 
gare non attdeo, & ideo etiam attentdre formido : quia O' hoc if [mm 
gentu qnaji facrileg£ temeritatis eft , fi fltu fcire cupiof , qnam 
finaris , &c. Sicut enim flui eft D^tu qttam emnit ratio humana > 
fic fins mihi debet ejfe quam ratio, quod a Deo agi cunEla cog- 

Cf\j]i }df(fva^a{ THf 9je7«]©-S^f «4'^j(tt,&c. faith Macarim Homil.i. 
lieq-, enim Natura, Divine eft Anima^^htttioxt Inielledion and Vo- 
htion are not the Divine Nature) neq-, Naturatenebrarummalitia ^ 
fed eft quid creatnm fenfihile, viftbile, infigne c^ admirandum, atque 
tlegans fimtlitHdo & JmAgo'Dei.~\ Intelledion and Volition are in 
their natures comprehennble, but that which in God we call Intel- 
ledion and Volition is incomprchenfible, and not to be formally 
underftood. ^^ts enim poteft capere quant m fit Dem ? ( faith 7"/;^- 
ophjiaft in Luc. iz.) cr manifeBum eft ex Seraphin, qui fe obtegunt 
propter excellent iam Divini luminii. Which is as true of Gods Ef- 
fence as his Grcatnefs : and as true is it of formall proper intelle- 
dion, as Minutim Fdtlix faith of Vifion, Deum oculU camalibtu 
vis videre, cum ipfam animam tuam qua vivificarts & loquertiy nee 
ajpicerepojfij, nee tneri f 


£piphamHs difpvLting againft thofe honeft Hereticks, called the 
Andians ( caft out of the Church by the Bifhops for their honefty, 
and at laft banifhed.) H<crfjC 70. ^<«f. 815,816. fpeaking againft 
thofe that placed the Image of God in mt Soul only (as the Andians 
did place it in the Body) becaufe, fay they, the foul is Invifible, and 
hath the Power of Adting, Moving, Underftanding, Reafoning, 
and therefore contains the Image of God, he An^Afcreth, That 
Qlf therefore the foul be faid to be made to (Gods) Image, it can- 
not be faid to be made after his Image at all : j^'f ^°i iTnKdpa. fivei- 
tv-niTiheifftoVyScc. ^ew enim Infinitis pra ammafartibM ecq',ampUu4. 
comfrehenfionem omnem ac co^itatienem ^f*gi^y ^C. Ipfe enim cum 
cmniacomprehendit, turn a nuUo comprehenditHr.^ And after {^Spi- 
rit w enim Dem eft qui omnem jpir it um exuperat, c^ //<.v luce omni pra- 
flantior. ^luicquid enim ah ipfo conditum efi, infia illitis decHS & glo- 
riam efi. Sola vero Trinitas comprthendi non poteft , C^ infinitam 
quandam gloriam obtinet^ qti<z nee cenjeElura capitur^ nee InteJligen- 
tia percipitur. 

I conclude with the words of Colvius in Beverovic. de Terming 
Vita, pag. 160, 163, 164. \^NoH Jntelligitts quomodo Intelligatitj 
centum Sjllogifmos facitis (^ nefcitis quomodo : q^ vultis Inteliigere 
cjutmodo ille InteUigit qui efi fupra omnem intelle^um ? &c.] ^.^Si'^dji 
exigua hdc (^ ctntemptibilia nature penetrare non poteji humani ingenii 
acies, annon efi extreme impudentite ms velle pertingere ad ipfam Di- 
vinttm ejfentiam ? J^tc efi ei7n^.i^®-}ctoet(PHyct7{KH& in feipfay nobis 
Z'froa'^^^*'^"^®">**>''^'^^j ^ t'77t£^'j*'asT?j &c. ^on terminal nr vifu, uon- 
tenet ur teiiu , non fentitur incejfu , non comprehenditur IntelleUu ; 

Major omni csrde, major omni laude. Novi homines, bu/U nafccn- 

tes ^ evanefcentes, 2ic. exhaurire vultis mare vafculo ? terram metiri 
palmo ? 6iC. Furor efi cogitare homuncionem vidert Dei fines, qui fuos 
non videt, Deum velle metiri qui fuam menfuram ignorat, ut capiat 
'Divinitatis terrninos quos non capit ipfe mundns ; cu]m vix Imago efi 

Jpiritui,cujui umbra mkndm, judiciaahy^ia.- Deum laudare omnes 

poQumtu & debemm, definire mmo potefi : Non poteft Dew quxri 
nimii ; inveniri nunquam potefi, digne ipfum (cfiimamm cum intefii^ 
mabilem conjitemtir : digne laud/tmm cum pr^fiupore animi in fi lent to 
ipfum adaramus j apprehendi potefi voluntate, comprehendi non potefi 

B 2 intel' 

inteliefl/i. Afajor efl ipjiui I»compreheftfilfiIita4 cjUAtn comprehenderc 
foQumw : Nen it a capit eum arguta fcicHtU, cjuarn iHttm fentit (^ 
gf^fiat mnnda confcientia : Afelim nos docet eum ZJnBio ejuam erttdi- 
tio. Hoc efl illud manna ai>fco»ditu?fty (juod ipfe dut timentibiu ipfum, 
tton iJMtcnt lis qui in arcanA iRius temere invoUnt. Et idcirco %'eniMnt 
indoCli er cjtii DeHmJumma cum revercntia colunt, & rapiunt regttHm 
calorum ; interim acutijfima, (-r [uperbijfima, ingenia exantfcunt, in 
froprii^fuhtilitatibm, Qr merquntur in injernnm : loqui volentes de 

profundi:} merflfunt in profuaan. ^uocirca optime honas horas collo- 

cant, cjui veritatemfummo fludio quxrunt : Sed pejfime judicant <^uife 

ilUm invenijfe putant. Deflno, & dico cum Hilario, quod nen per 

diffici/es qudtfiiones ad vitam beatam nos ducat Dem. 

The Lord repair by Love, Humility and Holy Obedience, the 
ruines that have long been made in his Church, by Contention, 
Pride, and unfanftined-prefumptuous-ignorant-Learning, and re- 
duce men to the Scripture fimplicity of Dodrine,and convince them 
that their overmuch Wifdom is but Folly, and all their over-doing but 



§. I' 

He ProUgue to M' K. Psg.i. 

§. 2. 
M^ K'i JiMmbling at the threJhbU. 3 

fVkether it be true that *Z)r Twifs Means not that the 
ImmaKent a^ may be filled JuHificAtion, j\ 

§. 2. 
M'^ PembIc*J "^'ords of Juftification at ChriBs death, 6 

^- '• 

M'^ K. c»f}fejfeth that I affirm not the tioveltj of Immanent a[is in God, 
and jet chocfeth me to JDiQ>ute againfi on the Point* 6 

§. 3. 

"A free and full Difcovtry of my own Opinion in that Point, 7,8 

§. 4- 

The Reafons of my mentiomjtg D"^ Twifs a^ I did: and \^'hether I be 
gftiltj of fleighting him : or Ai^ K. rather of fieighting the Ajjem- 
blj. 11,12 

M"^ K'i great Argnment agaitifl nerp Immanent aHs in God, examined* 
fVhethcT it be certain to w that God h^ith no Immanent aCl but of 

• Xynder'fianding or fVill ? A recitall of feme Reafons of thofe that hold 
new Immanent ads of Vndfrfianding in God : With my thoughts of 
them. Alfo about the ails of JVill. More of thiir Reafons recited to 
frove the neivnefs of Immanent acls, or at Icfifi tkeNecfffity cr Con- 
•veaiency of Denominating them m Netv^from the nevonefs of the 
cbjeli. It ts as conftfient-W''ith Gods Eternity and Immnt ability to 
have Neyp a^s, as With hi^ fimflic'ity to haze divers aUs : yet mufl 
Uv conceive of hit Willing and Nilling and Zander fianding at divers^ 
or at leafifo denominate them. 1 5 > 29 

53 An 

An ExamiMAtlcn of M^ K'j Dollrin* of AnalogJ* 30j36 

fyhether Intelle^ion and Volition be afcribedto God hj Anatogj of At^ 
trUfution^ M M^K.ajJirms? • 37, 3P 

s. p. 

The true %Analjf\s and fenfe of my \vords ^hich M^ K. oppofeth^ 


IVhtther an AB be properly an EffeEi ? 42,43 

§. 13- 

whether M"" K. fj^eak^ truly, Vphen he faith f Neither doth it (aEiion) 
carry that (tile (of an efe^) in uny of tbefe Learned Sophies, ^c."^ 

§. 15- 

Codi aSlj no Accidents, ABs inhere not in afubjeB, 47 

§. 16. 
whether Gods Immanent aBs have any other Terms then thetrobjeShsi 

;\^w 48 

§. 17* 

whether the difference affigned by Af^JL. between Gods Immanent and 
Tranfient aHsybe oi clear as between heaven and earth. And ^hom 
I meant in that £luef1:ion whether Immanent aSls be any more Eter- 
nal theu Tranfient f 49 

§. 17- 

An tAnfwer f lM^K'j 150. 154. pages againft iM'' Goodwin,' 

§. 18.19. 
The Anfjvers that feme make to M^ K's Arguments againfi the newnefs 
of Immanent aBs, 53,54,5S 

§. 19- 
whether the ground of fuch new aBs as afcribed be in God or the crea* 
ture. 55,57 

§. 20. 
Horv ungroundedly M^ K, chargethme ^Ith contending ^ith D^ Twi fs 
and all fober Divines that ever ^ere Worthy to Jpeak^ to a School 
Point, 58 

§. 21. 
whether it be not from the rejpeB to the objeB that Gods Ejfence is called 
Knowledge i or the Knowledge of thu or that, 5 9 


§t 22. 

fVhtthtr it be as ant to k/Knpp the ftitMrity and the exifience •/ things, 

§. 23. 

J^t K*/ *tnw«rthy fttftning tn me Vcords of hu diviJtTtg* Cl 

§. 24. 
An example jhemng that Immanent and Tranftent a^s, are of the fame 
nature, 6z 

§• 25. 
M^ Yi'$ Anfwer te the infiance ef the Sunnes not being changed bj c^- 
jfff/, ii fartlj Lnfory, partly yieldcth the C^ufe, and partly £r» 
reneotu. 63 

S. 2(5. 

^r K*x Exceptions about the fimilitude of 4 Glajfe , refelled. 


§. 27. 
A Recapitulation of ^hat 1 have faid on this SubjeSf, 6j 

§. 27. 
The great incapacity of man to comprehend the nature and aUs of Godi 

S. 27' 

Rob. Baronius TefHmony about Mutation of Immanent aEis, And 
fome Scripture Teftimony. 7^,73 

§. 2^» 

Af^K's fecond undertaking to little purpofe : contrary to the former: 
andhcrv ill performed, 77 

§. ap. 
Juflification or Remijjion, not from Eternity. 78,79 

§. 29. 
M^ K'j Reafons to prove Gods Decree to have fsmtvohdt like Jufiifica- 
tion, do 06 much prove it to have fometvhat like San^ification and 
Glorification, 80,84 

Mail's Antinomian doBrine, falfe ^ that \^being jujlified in Gods 
fight, ii ^hen he maks^ **^ ^^ f^^> ^^ makes it evident to outfight that 
^e are jufiified.^ 85 

§. 29. 
The boldnefs and falfnefs of AI^ K, affirmation, that J^to H^iff to Willy 
'^oi never heard of7\ %6 


§. 19* 
Seven Argkments proving that the Elicite aBs of the fVill, may be the 
objeSiofthema, 87 

§. 29. 
Six fever aI cafes "^therein I finde that I WiU the aSls ofmj own ^ilL 


§. 29- 
Its untrue^ that [_ he that fVils to JVilly Wits no more then he doth al- 
readj.2 »b. 

§. 30. 
Af' K*/ doElrinCy that [^the Decree to Remit fin, carries in it a Rtmiffion 
of them tantamount^ is tantamount downright Antinomianifm* 89 

5. 30. 
Teu mifchievous confequents of thts DoBrine (and fo of Jujlification 
from Eternitj.) 90 

§. 30. 
Sin may be charged on tts before "ffe believe ^ for all Godt Decree to far- 
don it, 9o»?i 

§• 30- 

A{^K*s Antinomian doBrine , that ^there is no danger of fuffering for 

fin J ^hereGoddecreethto Remit it^ confuted by many arguments : 

It maketh Chrifis bloody to have faved ut from no danger ^ and Cod 

never to have freed us from danger, ^c, 92 

§. 30. 
Chaftifement a (pedes ofPuni/btnent. ib,' 

§• 31- 

fVhat is the Acceptance » ^hich M'^ K. makei the objeSi of Cods Decree* 


§. 34. 

Pardon difiinguijhed and defined. p6 

§• 34- 

Ai'^Y>*s dejperate language, calling the aB of the Law of grace or Jfro' 
mife ^ An odde empty , moral yaBionJi and that \_by the promulgati- 
on of it, God doth as improperly give usChrift^ or dif able the Law 
to condemn m.~^ 98 

§ 35- 

M^ K'/ admirable doBrinc that [jhe Covenant juflificth by fuch an 
^ff<« Qaantitas^4rA faciendo Quantum, or Patcrnicas ficiendo 
pacrem, viz. informing, 100 


Bis profound Notioriy that the Covenant jufiifieth ht Aptitudmalitcr. 


§• 55. 

The Covenant faraoneth immediately, otir faith being but a condition, 
and not a caufe. ib. 

§. 36. 
M^K's horned Argument anfwered [jGodjftJiifies bj the Covenant All, 
orSome,&CQ,~] 103 

§• ^7- 

Af^K*s difperate Conclujton, that [_thui amanW'ifely jufiifics himfcif 

by beleeving, andmore a great deal then the Covenant by promifiMg^ 
orGodbyprvMulgatingit.^ 104 

§. 38. 
His further dejperateDoEirine [_fufifo Cos Adam brought death into 
the ^or Id rather then ^od ) in the ntw Covenant, Believe and be 
jufiified, JVhofufiifies the Believer, God or himfelfQ 106 

Afuch more to the fame purfofe, vainly intended to prove that I make 
manhis ownjufiifer, 1 07 

i §. 42. 
M^K,faitht theJudgeWiho pronoanceth the fentenee, or the Law, do 
notfo properly condemn a malefA^our as himfelf: Therefore fo the 
Believer 'jpiflifiethhimfelf, 108 

§• 43. 

whether M' Y^'s Client be ingenieufly infiruEled, Vi'ho being faved from 
the Gallows by hts Book^, faith, ^Grammercy to my Reading more 
then to the ceurtefie of the Law.'} • I cp 

§. 44. 

The f-ilfehood of M^ K* s Confet]uence, that \^he that performs the con* 

dition makes the grant become Abfolntef} if it become fo on his per^ 
formance* no 

§. 45,4^. 

He unworthily intimates that I deny faith to be a real effect of God on the 
foul : faying, he W' til prove it againfi me, and pretending to force me 
to confefs it. HI 

§. 4(5. 
Hefalfly affrms that I deny Habits diftinSl from the foul, 1 1 2 

§• 47. 
About the infirumentality of faith: the untruth of hid firfl\ An fwer, 

b . and 

and non-ftnfe or "^crfe ofthefecond. ib. 

§. 48. 
M^ K. faith, § . 47 . [_J fbaHmakf it appear to he both Gods ittflrnment 
andwAnsinfGmefeHfe~\ and%»^%* he faith [_I do not faj it u (Gcds 
Jnjlrumtm) proper /j. 2 llg 

§. 49* 
yl/rR. untruly faith, [^Faith « m much Gods Injirument oithe new 
Cevenant^ a^d gives an Ul defcription off^th, at hit reafon* ib. 

His next Reafun nothing to the purpofe. 1 14 

§. 51' 
Hi* ill explication of Gads ] unification by faith, viz. \decUring hereby 
the rtghteoufnefs ofChrifi to be bu cr9n.~^ 1 1 J 

§. 51. 

Hefirangely ajfrms, that [_man u the Subje^, not tht Anthour of his 

ewnalt ofbelieving.'^ 'b. 

He makes man his $'»n jufiijter. Il6 

Heodly faith J[_Faith hath a proper caufality up<m ottr^ttflificationpaf' 
fively taken 3 that is, upon our receiving the Right eoufnefs ofChrifl.'^ 


Heconfcjfeth that ^itisneedlefstofay,Faithit a pajfive Infirument.'] 


§. 54. 

He dangeroufly faith £Faith doth help the aSion •f the frincipal agent , 
that IS, Cod in our 'fufii feat ion. ib* 

S- 54- 

More of hisfalfe Accufation refelled. lip 

§. 56. 

He makes ]ufiifying faith to be an nA^ion "^hich i^ Virtually a Paffion^ 
and that is, A Jujfering tnr f elves to be led by the Spirit oj God, and 
his authority y againfi the fuggejiions of our own reajon, 120 

§. 56. 

But proves the InflrumentalitJ by filence, ib. 

§. 57- 
His infirument of Receiving n^ proper Infirument, as being no efjicient* 


*i^ Moral 

§. 58. 

M^taI infrMmems hdve m Mcral A^ion. ib. 

§. 5P- 

H§w illLMr K. makes a jeft of the Inflruntintalitj ofChrifs Covefi4nt 
$rTeftiiment% 111 

§. 60. 
M^ K*/ tinanfrptrable Arguing W'hereltt he VMnfftiJhtth Me, 1 2 3 

§. 61. 
?yheM I am f rowing that [jhe aB vf faith is not the Inftruwent of f*i- 
ftificAtion^ He confutes me bj faying, Faith is u Habit. 1 14 

§. 61. 
The reafon>^hy I "^illnot contend With them that onlj call faith, the in' 
firumcnt of Receiving Chrifl. ib. 

Divines affrming commonly^ that It is the ati ef faith, and not the Ha- 
hit that juflifieth, do thereby overthrow their oivn dtUrine of fniths 
proper In^rumentaiity in jfijlifying. I a? 

§. 62. 
M'^ K. firfi feigns me to call the Habit of faith afanHiped faculty y and 
then very gravely Schools me for it. 1 16 

§. 61. 
jibo$a the Real Identity cfthefouljts faculties, holinefs* ib. 

The VnreafonabUnefs of M^ K'j impatiency, 1 28 

§. ^4- 
Hoyo M\^^. can call ^Faith a Habit, equivalent to a nnv faculty. "] up 

D^ TwifTe*/ Arguments to prove that faith or other grace is no nei» 
pOKver. 130 

§> ^4. 

Faith is truly A moral porter, that is, A Habit or ^Vijpoftion, W^ithout 
^hich ttv Jhall not be t rue believers. 1 3 1 

§. 64. 
Ai^ K'j dead doElrir.e, that ]^ithoHt faith a man can tie more do ought 
towards receiving Chrifi, then a dead man can '^alkj>r ^eakS\ ib. 

§. 64. 
The Vanity of his arguing for faiths irfirumcxtal jf-fi'fjitfg, fern its 
giving life to the foul in alljpiritual operations, J 131 

b 1 Afore 

5- <^^ 

More of the ^eaknffs of hU arguings nl>out receiving Chnfi.maytifefttnL 

. S. 66, 

The end of L^^K*s undertaking, confidered. fvhethtr 1 Mnrrorthily 
handled D'^ Twifs and M^ Pcmblc ? An AcknovoUdgcmcnx of all that 
Deficiencji that M'^ K. doth tanco molimine ^roije me gniltj of, 1 34 

§. 6-]. 
M^ K. concludeth before he hath done his main task_^ Which fo oft promi' 
fed, viz. To tell m What ts the Tranficnt-j>ijiifjing-a^ of God. 1 37 

A conjeElure at his fenfe. He defirojeth hii Caufe UnttrvareSi Strange- 
ly mijlakes the nature of a Condition* 1 3 8 

§. 67. 
f unification hj faiths in Scripture fenfe y is not in foro confcientiac. 


§. 6-7. 
Gods giving faith is not his immediate jf^f^ifjif^g a^, proved. 141 

§. ^7. -.r.«>\>> 

Arguments proving that it is in Law -fenfe (commonly called Senten- 
Cia Lcgis) that Av are firfi jujlified hy Faith, andfo the Moral all 
tfthe Law is Gods immediate Nullifying aCl, 141,142 

§. 6^* 
The Conclufion* 145 


DMi ^: 


■■!T r. 

1 . 

^he TroIogMe'W M\¥i. 



§, I. 


N 3d 7Sl' 

^K T^-'S^ Q^>^7 ^ Hou^h I would not have you reftrained from ^revealihg 
fcUg^Sn lgJ«uJ ^V Truth, ye: if I had been worthy to have been of yqur 
counlcll, I fliould have advifed you to. Jbs^ve avoided 
this cjuarrelfotn w:^y. Our world J\athCo;/tcjuifl;i c«^ 
nough already j: and it comes not fi'©m lo good a roog 
(Frcy. I J. lo.) nor is ir fo good a lympcom, n^r dotl^ 
it produce fuch lovely cfttds ( Prov. n.io. & 17.19. 
& 19.21.) nor doth ic bring io good a name (^rov. 
11.14.) as may make ic fcem defuable in my eves- 
Had you confulted Solomon himfelf, he would have bid 
you IStrivenotwitbamiumthoutacaufc, if hekii.cdonetbeenohMm, Prcy.j.jo ] 
and igo not forth b^ftily to jlrivc, Icfi thou knorv not rvhit to do in the cnil thereof, vchcji 
thj 7icii;hhourbiih flit thee to JJjimc^ zs-^-'] for iTbc beginning offlrifciimToilknone 
lettctb out TMicr : therefore luvs off" contention before it bemedlcd ivitb, 17- '4.] it 
feems a ftrange thing tome, that you could findc no man 10 deal within the main 
Controverfie hcrechofen out, that was indeed againft you, but that you mull make 
toyour felfjanadverlary of one that you confels doth not once deny your Con- 
clufion. Unlefs ic be becaufe you arelikely with fuch a one to have the ealieft 
confliti. But then you (hould have remcmbred, that the Vidory will be as Iniall. 
I pretend not to fuch a piercing knowledge, nor to fuch acquaintance in the invi- 
fiblc regions, as to determine infallibly of what Province or Degree, of what qua- 
lity, <i/&«ia«4rcr, that fpiric was tha: raifed the l^orm of your i'afllonSj or to know 
exadly hlsnasicandfirname that animated thcfc your lines : Buclccing you are 
pleafed to choofc nie for youradvcrfaiy, 1 mull dtfirc you to bear with me if X 
fpeak fomctime Icfs plcafingly J and to ufe what paci^nce you have left, as know- 
ing you have drawn this trouble upon your fclf. And whereas youpuL me on a 
double iuiployment : one to defend the Truth; anJ the other to defend my fclfs 
fo I pcrfomi the firi^ fucccfsfully, I hope 1 may be cxcufcd if I be more negligent 
in the later} yea if I give you the day, and freeiy confefs as much ignorance as 
youchaige me with. Its true that I have not the Tides or Robes of Honour, and 
asUtilqdcfcrve thcmj as you here exprcfs. liuc might I be furcthat I have right 

G to 


to that farre better Title (of piety) which you are plcafed to bcftow on me, I 
could cafily allow you the other. I remember tbcdefcription of the old Chiiltians 
by fhtitaaitu Fdtlix, {T{es qui non babitu fdpitntiam, fed mcnte fraferimm ; nen elcjui- 
nurmj^ns, (eivrJmtu: glorixmur jios confeattos quod lUi fumma cottentionc quttfl- 
veruut, Tiec tr%ien!refotucru7it.'] And ibm oi Mranduld iFtsUcitjuemphiloftphUqua- 
rit, Tbeoltgutnvcnit, 7{fligi» poj/idet."] And to contend for the reputation of being 
Learned, I (hall fcarcc think is worth my labour, till 1 have higher thoughts of the 
prjic. Mem thoughts and words area poor felicity. Applaufe is fuch an aery 
noui i/hmcrttj that I fee few thrive by .' (though I muft confefs that in mc,-as wcH 
as in orhers, the unrcafonable fin of pride is daily ftirring, and convincing me by 
experience that it is mortified but in part.) O that I may have the honoui- of be- 
ing a member of Chrifl, and then I can fpare the vain glory of the world ! ycra ibi 
glorii erit, ubi laudantU vcc errore quifquum, nee aduUttonc Liudabitur: f^erut honor 
qui nuUi vcgabitur digm ; vuUi dcfcrctur mdigiio : fed ncc ad cum ambiget uUtu indignut, 
ubi nuUuipermittciur cffemji dignui : laith Auilin, de Civit. Det,U ult. cJp.uU. Only 
I muft crave this of the Reader, that my confclled wcakncli be no prejudice to 
Godstruth; and that he will not judge of the caufc by the perfon, nor take the 
name or perfon far a fault J which is the thing that the ancient Chiiftians did lo 
deprecate of the Pagans, and therefore I hope every Chriflian will grant. And 
I muft alfo defirc that want of fmooth and pleafing wordi may not be judged the 
want of truth. Evimvero diljoluti efl peBorii in rcbiafcriif quxrere vduptitem, (g' cum 
tibi fn ratio cum male fc bibentibui atque ccgrit, fonts auribm infandere dulciorcs, non 
fncdicinim vulncribiK admovere : inqmt Arnobius U.i.adv.Cjent. f.^^. I confefs I 
do deeply compaffionate ordinary Chriffians, when I think what a hard thing ic 
is for them todifccrn the truth, among all the ftTiooth words and plaiifible argu- 
ments of Learned contenders. Ufually they think every mans talc good, till they 
hear the other i and then they think it bad : and a; lali when they ice what fail- 
glofles a Learned man can put on the worlt caufc, they are ready to run into the 
other cxtrcam, an? to believe or regard nothing that rli;;y fay. As MtKutiu^ Falix 
faith, iJltius mrjcordeiotogencredijpiajindi: qtto^pleritmq'ypro di[fcrattit(m viribta 
GT ctoquentiapoteflate, etiim ptrfpicuix veritjxii toniititnutctur, Idacciderc pernotiim 
eii auditorurnfualiute, qaidum vcrborum Icnocinio a rerum intcntwuibm avocantur,fiae 
deleciu ajjentiuntur diHii omnibus, r.ec a reef is fdlfa fcccrmtvt, ncjciciitcs mrj^c tS" in in- 
credibilt vcrum, (^ in vtrifimili mendacium. Ittquc qne (xpitta ajirjcrxtionibiei credunt, 
eo frequentiui a peritioribws arguumtsr : fie djfidue tcmeritate decepti, culpam judicii tnvf^ 
feriivt ad inceru qaercUm, ut damnatis omnibus mdist univcrfa fujpaidcre, quim de 
faUacibus judicarc.l But let fuch at Icait hold faft the Foundation, and remember 
that we are all agreed in t !)at. 

The Xeader that I cxpt<fi fliould profit by ifeefe Writings, muft neither be u •- 
tcrly unlearned, nor fo learned as your felf. For the former are not yet capable of 
it J and the later are beyond it, ,and will hardly learn from any but the more (earn- 
ed. It is the younger fart of Studenrs whofe edification I intend : who are neither 
quite above, nor below my inftruftionsi nor fo engaged to a Party or Opinion, 
but that their mindes lye open to any evidence of Trurh. ^rcevcnttcs cnim falfx 
epinionis errore hnmxnut nuiitus, al veri rationcm perdpicndan, dursa tff pcrdi^cilif 
invtyiiiur, quantifcunque teflibia urgutur. Mavuli erum pravi ihgmitis (ertentijim ^ qua 
femeL infeHta e 3, pcrvcrfus vmiiare, quam hinc euudcm tantit dtvinsrum himinarnmqi 
legum awhorttMibua refuntam falubriut immutare : inquit Vigilius contra Euticb. li.i. 


Laftly, If you fliould be in tbe right and I in the wrong in any one Philofo- 
phical Controvetfiej 1 inuft exped that the Reader do not thence conclude, that 
you are ri^ht in your Theology, And I could wifli that you had fo mean thoughts 
of your Philofophy, as that you might no: build your Theology on it too much > 
nor thiiik much the better of your VVritings, or of your felf. For doiibdefs when 
the Canon of a Council forbad the reading of Heathens Books, thcfe things were 
rot to highly valued as now. I approve not of that cxtream neither: but fhall 
conclude wich that ferious exclamation of ^^eH(<50ritJ'(LfgJ{.pfrC&ri^/'i«.p. 13,14.) 

dheoua.'rt., y^)']i '\o ■i'trnKHiiiVoVi yj'iV 1^ K^TV^fiou/xivav, l-jJhu[y.oi'cti knroitKtiy, 
«Vt Teti -^^i ,a( Av]i n i^to^v 7a\7 i^^ovi tiyeiiTcj.v, Sec, 

Pag. 155. M'K- 

For the fuller opening oftbU pdrtkuUr, J mtl be content to wi^c fame Digre^ionfrom. 
jour Beoli, andtojhtw k Thxt there can be no new immanent a^ in God, Againfi M' 
Uaxter. i. Thit there it (omevDhit like ^ufltfication in that imminent aU efgod, -where" 
If kc decrees from eternity to juftife AJid condemn men. And 3. thst yet that immanent 
gci.fxnnotbc jliLed ^ufliflcatioH ; nor if it meant fo by Dr. TwilVc «r uWr.Pcmblc 
thdt I k'iorv', and fo that purification it not from eternity: and then I full return t» 
you, Set, 

§. z. 

R. S. V^Oul- Digreflion, methinks, is very fudden, and the occafion to a ftrangcr 
I haidly difcernablc : Its like it was the uncouth apparition of fome ruling 
wight of another Oibj which made upon your intcllcd that ftrangc impreflion, 
which caufed you to reel thus out of your way, and lead you unhappily into this 
private path, or rather bewildred you it? this Maze where we now finde you, Buc 
whoever led you in, charity commands me to do my part to help you out, or ac 
leaft to warn others that they do not follow you. 

I. As to your firit undertaking, I confefs it was very ingenuoufly done, to fay, 
You will do it [againft Mr, Bjxtfr] and not [againft his doftrine or opinion,] 
acknowledging atterwards that I deay not your Concluiion. But I am ufed 
to Difputc againil Doftrines, and not Pcrfons ; and therefore will give you the 
better in this. 

1. Your fccond undertaking is more admirable then thefirft. For I have met 
with fome belidcs you that dare adventure oi\ the former, but never man that durft 
attempt the later. Is it not enough for you to prove Gods Decree of juUifying 
to have fomewhat like Juftification ? but you muft alio prove, that the Decree 
both to juftific and cOHiewH, hath fomewhat like JuiUfication ? If the Decree to 
condemn a man have fomewhat like juilifying him, then the Decree to torment 
him in hell hath fomewhat like glorifying him : and the Decree to kill, hath 
fomething in it like quickening him. You mall fly to feme _,eneral point of fi- 
militude, or to the Lord Brool{Cs doftrinc, that all things arc 0:ie, to make this 
good. Buc if it were but your overtight, then I hope hereafter you will be more 

C 2 com- 


compaffionate to yout Brethren, and no more fo Tolemnly call men to [ fee ttic 
hand of heaven, in the pompous difplay of their folly, to appear moll ridiculous j 
and toadove the hai.d of God in infatuating their paitSjtrc] as you do by Mr. 
Goodwin for a fmaller miltakc then yours. Alas what man fo Learned and accu- 
rate, as to be free from all overfjghts. 

3, Uu: indeed Sir I cannot fo eafilycxcufe your next crrour, annexed to the 
third part of your undertaken- task J where you fay [>Icr is it fo meant by Dr. 
Trrtji at Mr. Pcrai/c that I know.] What is it that is not fo meant by ihem ? Why 
thit this Im.nancnt aft can be ftileJ Jullification. You have b:;ldly ventured to 
vn.cthos : and 1 will be bold to try how well. Either iistrue, or not true thac 
they fo meant : If truCj and undeniably apparent in the Writings of one of them, 
if no: both, and oft repeated by hi.n, and yet Mr. Iiy^- knoweth it not, why then 
ficdorh not only write before he knows, and Vindicate men before he undcrftand 
whether they arc guil:y or innocent, but makes it the i;reat motive of his underta- 
king, as [not having the patience to fee lo worthy Divines fo unworthily hand- 
led.] It in the miuft of his impatience he knew not this, then it fecms I am not 
alone ignorant of the bulinefsthat 1 meddle with. But I will lay it open to the 
Judgement oithe Reader, whether the thing be true or falfc ? and whe:her you 
_triigh: notwifhlefs learning have known this if you would ? and ou^ht.not tohave 
known trie caufe before fo zealous a Vindication. 

DTTi'//iriHi.C^rir.li.i.part i.§ zj. ^. (vol.min) 171,171. Sic fcrioit lOmnk 
AHmlif uUijiutioejljuQifiutio, (ff omnti jufiificatio fimpliciter JiSlit co^igrueutqrex- 
jionenda cfl de juflifationc aciudli. '2^m AnAlogum per fc pofitt^ Jlut pi\o^fsmojiQri 
ftgnifcdto.'] {_Sed lihct bis p-iitlifper immonri. -^::eium critHU peuutorum Kemtffia 
qu: fidcm confcquctur ; (^ qiiam oportcit spiriua (wicfo acccpwn referred 'RcmiJfiB 
entmpeccatorum, fiquiddttatemin^icini, vihddiud efiq:amaut ^ Hnitionii '-^giiio , 
aut Velttionii pimendt negatio. Sit crgopccau ^cminerc, mbiUHudqium nollcpunire. 
At hoc nolle punirc, ut a^us immjinens tn Deo, fuit db atcrno, ncc fidcm cojifequit^rjSic. 
^uoivero operxtionc SpiritusfjinBi nobis cxbacpjrtc, per fidcm contiugn, iSud cjfc 
iwn potcjl quam fenfus grdtitz Dei, 8ic. '^liure fi-quilmorte fuJ. 
* Are not Chrifts vobis impetrat (^briflia, quod ad pcccatorum nojlrorum Kcmtfto. 
Merits and the' ncm attiiicdt, (ctifum* iJium<imoris ViviHi pcccitamjirj rimit- 
Spirirs gifts here tentis,nobisimpctretneccjSce(i. E( pag.279. c.i. iNum jujiitiA 
highly honoured? Chrifii dicitur 7iobi> nnpuuri, (^ merit a ipfiui nobis applican per 
fidcm, 7iojt coram Deo, fed ipud confcictttij^ noftrM ■• qiutenuipcr 
fidemgeneratur in cordibm noftris feiifca (^ agnitio bujtu filutaris apphaiionis exa^norc 
"Dei quern exfidegujlimm ; (^ Jptritiuhter (entimyi nos jiifiificantem, i:f in filios fuos 
adoptantcm, ex quo nufcitur pux confcic7ttia. f^mrc ante fidcm hxc Cbrifti jujittia no- 
ftrafuit, quatcjiKiexiutfntiojieTJei pxtris (^ Chrifti mcdiaioris pro 7iobis prtsjlita, Si.c. 
Sedadvcmcutefide quamineordihmnsjiris ^p (xncl'M acccndit, itnn dcmum agnofcitur 
(^ percfpitur hie amor Dci erga nos in chriflo jfcfu. Undc diciturjHJlitia thrijli imputari 
•nobis per fidcm, qutanonmfiperfidcmdign'jfcittiritD(o nobis imputari : (ff turn dcmum 
juftificari dicimur ijKtgeiieris jujlificationc, ata-, xhfoltittone a peccatis i:oj}ris, qiitepacem. 
ingcueratcoufcicutiis 7w(iris- Hocantem duobice argumciitis confirmo. i. ^^iupcrji- 
fittiam C'l^rijli non modb ajicquimur remijfiojxm pccatoriim, fed (^ fidcm ipfam, atq, re- 
ftpifccTitiim, hoc cji, cordis c?rcH?Mc//;oncw, Eph.i.g. ergo ctiam ante /Idem i^ rcfipi- 
fcentiam ipplicaturnobis jufiitiA Qhrijli, utpote propter quam gratiam ajicquimur t§ica- 
cem ad credendum in ChriHum C^ agendum pxiiitentiam, Altcriim cfl, quia juflificatio 
& abfolutio, prom fignificant a^um divinx voluntatis immanmcm , (itnt ab xternt. 



tivitti autem vcluntatif votificatio cxurm, per m$dum ahfolutmU cujufdam judieiilU (^ 
fore%fis, qti(sfitperv(rbumi^ jpnnutn, fro tribunali confcJauia uvtufcujiifq-,, hsc eft 
iUi fujhtia Chrijii imputjtio, ucma; pifiificaue (^ rdr.ijpo atqite abfolutto qua jidcm 
ccvfequitur.'] Et covt.prafat. j^.ii.h. E>.''riccr,invcrfUmtfir(m:jfior.tm peccatcrum 
preut iji aSiui in Deo mmavem antcccdcre rtoftram fikm ts' rcfiprfcuitiam : ^cbh vera 
vonnifipcrfidemimotcfiit, cu^fu ctium fiduciamuhuaJhuc ctvfirr^Aiior aaut per re- 

Lib.i. Part.i.p.iy^' l^uftifcatmcmvcrdc!^ "^ecovdliatmcm fro coJtmhahcri 
abtArrninio (quod(^v(rum(jtJi:/i. And ne oft niaintaiiiC*b the eternity cfRc- 

Lib.z. P.i. pa2.4;54. [ Ergo aiim atite fidcm Tctn i:ohi< rccovdl'iitta ((l : ticque 
tnimnift jsm rcccrtciliatus (fy' propinvs grauficAUir iiolis fidem. ^ad qnod rerrillio 
pcccatoiuni (^ acccptutiotejiri, Non nili actus interr.r^s & immantntcs/» Pro no- 
tant : aijus gCTicrha£{i07iCsi.on (uioriur.tur D(ode ro'io.l Lege ult. (_f^ pcUcu l^iixti 
ifld dijiitiguercfoicrimus do rccoiuiliationc duflicitcr dcfj : 'j\u>a (^ Vcus rccoualiivit 
vos ftbi in C hrijio quoad ret -aritatcm ; tr" ?« mivijlris (uis pofuit verbum ncovcihationis, 
quoxd cju(dcmprxtioiievcritj.uscvidc7itium(^niumfcjhiuorem. Sic cum ivmu: cJfcmNs 
dicimur rccDutlinti fui^c Xeo quodd rti vcruttem : quodnmcn ron iiifi per Evav.gci^ 
prxdictltioftcmjit queid cjujdcmvcrittUispatcfjlliomyn (j" (jlutarcmcommunicattiticm.^ 
Etp.43J. IJt Armin:us:ipplrcatiovcmr€m}J[i07iis pcccutorutJt, ita ivtirprcimvidetur, 
utpcr applicjitioncm fint, (:f:r jdntquufidc iioiocjjcvicipiut : qupft viro von rcquiratur, 
ut jam d7:tea cxijiiit qued appluATidum cji . Nobis vcropc rii(iiiu€7idum vidclur. Cbrijius 
mortc (uA r.obts precuravit redfmuevem a pcccatis, cum Vco rcconciliuttoKcm, (<;'pccfa- 
tdrum cmnium rcmjficmm ; qvx quidimptrprxdicitiojicmEvir.gdij (y per fidcm, vohis 
■applicavtur, mnutfitit^lcdutTiobisinvotcjcaht. Nam ratJotxmtm7:cm fupcrutqucmodo 
appVciri pojfif tliud quod vondum cji, £:c.] Pag- 454. Ncftru vcro :7itcrprctdtio fic pro- 
ccdit ; cbrijius nobis acqwfivit mute (ua rcdimpttoum (^ca(cm (2r aciuaUm, id cjiy 
a^u&Um pcccatorum remijfitricm, (y' rccovcihitionan cum Tco. Jppltcantur auicm rjlx 
perpradicationcmEvangclij. vcnutde vtvofiuvt, feint vohii i7i7;otcj(avt,Scc. s/^t in- 
quies, aciudis Remiffit pccatorum eji ipfa '^ujhficatio: ^uflificatio (cquaur fidcTA : 
%im fide jullifcamur: ergo vcmivc pcccata remittunur antcquam credit. Ki^07idc6, 
^um docctjpojlolusnos fdejufxificiri, mhilahud ex vifjitutodocct, qujm %os jujtiji- 
caripcr [AVgiancm Ckrtfti, five propter chrijtum crucifixum.'] Ai.d in the Index he 
cwnsitj that Rcm:J[io acfiialU cji ^afiifiutio: and therefore wc may take what he 
faiihof remifiion as meant ofjulijfication. 

The like Ljb.^.pag,i8.(^ lib.' .p.i. pig. zjz. which we before cited part of 
iNec fane occurrit fpeciesaliqiiar:itior.T5, cur recc7iciliati9 icg^tur incrdv.em cumtmpe- 
traticue ran!jf!C7ih,^u{iificatwvii (^ rcdoTJptionif , pctiui qudh! lum aHuali Rcmiffione, 
^ufiificatic7!e (3' Redemptiove.'] bo that he pius adiial Jiiiiifn.ation with Rcraillion 
and Reconciliation. 

So centra Cervinum pigA^. Et quid qua fe Adcptio eti quam covfcquimur per fidem i 
T>ichcfe Aiccptatioum'Dci. <^id autcmcji .' cccptuiie f yl7.ru)nai{ut inDeo immA' 
nens ? An vcro aclta Vco mmar.i7is fupcrvcxii de uvo ?"| 

Its undeniable in this that Twifje dorh net only tffirm Rcmiflion aini Rtcohci- 
liat'onand Adoption to be before we are born, imir.cdiatly en ChrilU death;. 
but alfoto be immanent ASs, and irrm Eterni-y : and tl.cugh he be mere feU 
dom in thus ufing the word [Ji flilkancn] yet he affirms Reccrciliaricn'' ard 
RcmilTion ( w hich he faith are t:cm Etci nity ) to be the fame thine with Jufti- 
ficaiicn : yea he cxprcfly cr/.itkth thai eternal in maiunt aft [ Julbfication.l 

C 5 Ana 


And did he only affirm Remiffion and Adoption and Reconciliation and Acce- 
ptation to be immanent afts and from c:crnicy,I belceva tew fobcr men will think 
it any better, then to affirm ibc Ume of Juttification. Yeahcplainly intimates 
a diflindionof Juftification : one from eternity or from Cljriftsdeath, and the 
other upon our believing : And therefore when he [peaks of Juliification by faith, 
he cals it [that fort of J uftification] intimating the other fort. 

Now for Mr.'Pemblc, as hecxprcflv maintains Juftification inferoDei robe 
long before we arc born, even on Chrilts dying, fo that is all one to our purpofe, 
as if he maintained it to be from eternity. And it were meet that feme of you 

fliould have fhewed before now, what Tranfient aft it is by 
* Ipuy joit Sir which particular finners not yet born ( and therefore not yet 
remember to do finners) arc jullitied at Chrilh death * ? If it were (as Mr. 
tbhinyournext. Pemble intimates, I think) G^ds accepting the Price, its 

worth the while to (hew that to be Temporal and Tranfient, 
when Dr. TwiJS will have his accepting ef man in Adoption to be immanent and 
eternal: But if you maintain Gods jultifying aft at Chrifts death (whether un- 
dertaken oi' fuifercd ) to be an immanent aft, then it muft be before Chriils 
death, even eternal too. hU. Pcmbles words are, f'ini Gr^r. p. ii. [But with a 
diitinftion of juitification. i. In for o Vivino, in G^ds fight j and this gseth 
before all our fanftification. Vor even whilft the Elcft arc unconverted, they 
are then aftually juilified and freed from all finneby the death of Chrilt : and 
God fo elteems of them as free, and having^ accepted of that fatisfaftion, is aftu- 
ally reconciled to them. By this Juftification we are freed from the guilt, of our 
iinnes : and bccaule that is done away, God in due time proceeds to give us the 
grace of fanftification to free us from iinnes corruption, ftill inherent in our per- 
lons- 1. Infaro eonfcientiix, incur own fenfe : which is but the Revelation and 
certain Declaration of Gods former fecret aft of accepting Chrilts Righteoufnefs 
loour Juft.fication.] Sopi^.xj. he fpeaks again of th/ fame Juftification in foro 
Vet, and faith, that all the linnci of the Elcft arc actually pardoned, the Debt- 
Book croflTed, the hand-writing cancelled, cifc. and that this grand tranfaftion 
between God and the Mediator Jefus Chrift was concluded on and difpatcht in 
heaven long before we had any being either in nature or grace.] This phraft of 
[difpatching it in heaven] makes me conjefture that it will prove fome immanent 
aft which they call Juftification at Chrifts death. Lay all this together, and 
judge whether it be true that neither Dr. TrvijS nor Mr. Temble, do mean that the 
immanent aft can be ftiled Juftification. Or'if it were true, whether Juftifica- 
tion before we are born, is not an crrour fit to be refifted. Indeed it is true that 
Ml. I^. faith, that neither Dc.TvfiJi nor Mr. Pemble did ever mean, that [ the 
Decree of God fram eternity to juftifie and condemn men, is to be called Jufti- 
fication :] For the Decree to condemn men cannot well be called Juftification : 
But I believe this being but Mr. t^. overfight, he will not make ule of it to juftific 
his third Propofition. 

Mr. IC Digreflion. P. i. 

WHethcr there may be a new immanent Aft in God >] Tothefirjf, 'By in 
imnHncnt iff, we man fitch of U terminmei tn the Jgent ; ani not in any thing 
Without it. HosfthAt there can be any new itnmincnt iSl in God, M. bix^ci: doth ntt 


C7] , 

adventure to i^rm. Otiljf he u pteafeJ to fij thU , iThat all immafient aBs in God are 
ctermll, he thinkjs w ^uite beyond our wtier funding to linow. Aphor. fa.g.i-j/^.'^ 
aid he caBcth out fomcwhat to render h fufpceied, p. 17^. vchicb I J1)aU fxtmine by 
Aid by. 

§. I' 
K.J^.nr^Hey fay of tbofe that arcLred louldicrs and ufed to bloodshed and Vi- 
JL ftory, that the Rare muft make them fiei'h work and finde them con- 
ftant imploymentj or elfe tl-y will inake woikand finde imploymesn for thtm<, 
felves. A Polemical Divine much ui'cd to Dilputaticns, and tlcteby to the glory 
and Ttiumph ot Viftory, i<j as it fccms by this Leanied man, in ihefatre c.-»rc. 
Mr. Geoi^w/n found him not work eroughj and rather 'hen he would want more, 
hcmakcs to himfelf an adverfary (for he faith, ic is againfl Mr Baxter) which 
here in the beginning he confefletb, makes not himfelf one, fo much as by a de- 
nial of bis Prcpofitionj or an affirmin;; the contrary. Could you findc never a man 
in the world to deal withj that affirmed that there maybe new immanent nfts in 
God ? If you could, they had been fitter for ycu to take in hand : For its likcj 
they would purpofcly have maintained that alVcrtion with fome ihew of rcafon : 
If you could not J then your dodrine is fo univerfally received, that I (hould 
think it fhould not need your Arguments novy to fupport it: And then yon may 
well conclude, as you do, that you have done little by this Difpute j if you have 
but laboriouily maintained that which no man denies. But it fecms to me it was 
fome rcafons 4& fcowtw, from the perfon of your chofen- feigned adverfary, rather 
then from thecaufe that allured or impelled ycu to tJiis encounter. 

As you well begin with fomc explication of your fenfe, fowill I alfo r and 
tjjc rather feeing I have little elfe to do. Idtfire the Reader therefore to undcr- 
ftand this much of my thoughts about the lubjed in hand, before I proceed 

I. IngtneraU, 1 am very ftroniily perfwadcd that it is one of the greateft fins 
that a great part of Pious Learned Divines are guilty of, that they audacioufly 
adventure to difpute and dettrrrir.c unrevcalcd things j and above all others, about 
the Narure and Anions of the Incomprehcnfiblc God. And that this is the very 
thing that hath divided, wcakmd and luinedthe Church, more then any one 
thing, except plain contempt of God : And that it is under the wounds of thefe 
ovcrwifemtns Learning, that the poor Chuicli hath lain bleeding many hundred 
years. Our Contentions, Envyings, Hcari-buinirigs, by peiverfe zeal, and much 
of all oar warrts and calamities, are long of this finne in thefe men: That as the 
Rom ilh Clergy are juftly cftecmcd the greateft Schifmaticks en earth, for their 
audacious and unmeicifull adoiticns to the Greed, making fuch anumber of new 
Keys which heaven muft be opened and fhut by, which God iitvcr made : So are 
thofe zealous Learned men, the cruel diriders of the ChiacL . by L^cafioning our 
contentions, that will with boldncfs pry into thij-'^s unrcvcsied, and with cenfi- 
dence and peren^ptorincfs detcnrjf.c themj and then with !ci!j^, and fubtil and fer- 
vent argeiings maintain them, and makcihcnifetm neceflsr; to the peaceof the 
Church, or the fcundnefs of our fai.h. Scarce any ' 1 r thing hatbircrc fully difco- 
vered 10 me the fraiUy and fearfuilprs'ity cf man, then this : To think, that fo 
filly a worm fhould be no more acqiiaintec with his own wcakr.efs, and the infinite 
diiiancc between God and man j uud fliould io confidently th:nk that he knows 



what he dotU not know ! yea and what he canno: know ? yea and be angry witti 
ill the world tliat wil not lay, It's true ) and \^iil not believe that he Icnowswhac 
he prctcnJs toknow ! It aman fliould periwavic methaclknow how nvany An- 
gels arc in heaven, or how many dales it will be till Chtilh coming to Judgement, 
one would think it v.ere no hard matter for me to know that I do not know any 
fijch thing. Burit 1 lliouid perfwadc my fclf thit 1 know it, and rtiould cxpcft 
that all others ihouid believe that I know it, and would w.ite Volumes to prove it, 
and count all thofc ignorant or erroneous that will not believe me, or that will not 
fay they knew it when they do not, as well as I, whether this v/eie the part of a 
man awake and in his wits, let others judge. How much raoretcyond cur reach 
isthc unfearchablc nstiireof God, further then he hath revealed hi.Tjfclf in his 
Works and Word, whicli, alas, aftordeth us but a t:limpf: of his backparts. Yea 
the wonder is yjt greater that thei'c lame Learned Divines, when they are at a non- 
plu in their arguing, will plead mans ignorance and incapacity to put oft their 
adverfary and blame others for too bold cn'iuiries and intrulions into Gods fc- 
crets : and moft of our Reformers do fpeak .hardly of the Schoolmen for it ( and 
verydefervedly ) and yet will not lec the guilt in thcmlelves. No man freaks 
more agaiiift his own natural inclination in this thtn I do : I feel as great a deiire 
to Know, and to pry into any thing that others have dilputed, and as much natu- 
lall delight in the reading of the moft audacious fubril Dilputers, as others do. I 
was won: to fay, 1 could get more out of Aquinif, ScotM, Dunndtis, and fach like 
inaday, then out of many Ancient Fathers, and later Treatifers, inamoneth. 
Uut I fiadc that as dciue to know was the beginning oi our mifeiy, fo is it the 
continuance. Why do men fear thcmfelves no more, in that which innocent 
tAdim was undone by ? I finde that this bait of knowing things unrevealed, doth 
bat entice men into vain hopes, and labours, and felf-deluding promilcs, and 
flatter men into a plcafant lol's ot titie (andworfe:) and in the env\ failcth all 
theii expeditions : and the Learned Diipatcrs come off as Aiam did, with Gods 
acknowledgement that he was like God in knowing good and evil (Ironically, as 
fome Divines think j or exprefling his unhappincls plainly, as others.) Tbofe 
leaves of Brdiwirijraf and Tvfi^ ymi.a^nA dcfcient.-TUcd. See. which I was wfont 
to readc with longing and delight, I confc.'s I look on now with fear j and many 
Learned Schoolmen (fpecially on the firft Book of the Sentences) I read, as 1 hear 
men Iwear or take Gids name lightly in their co.nmon talk ; even fcldom, un- 
willingly (looking for other matter) and with horrour. Yet how oft doth Dr. 
Twijfe tell tArminm and D:. ^^cliien of the finfulnefs, unfafenels and uncertainty 
of departing from the Scriptures in thclc hi^b things, about the Nature and De- 
crees of Qod? And what Br<idwj.riine excellently faith, 1 defirc the Reader to 
fee in him, de Q^ufi Dei, l.ic-i. tc/ro/ j». But clpecially I deiire the Reader to 
perufe that excellent Epiftlc ef (JoLitu in Bcvcrovicm dc Termino Ttf j j which 
contains what I have a minde further to have faid of this : with GjIj/ch/'s iivlt 
Chz'pz. deLibcrtxtc Dei (Ub.z. dehl.) which fhews how far God is above all out 
higheft names and notions : and thac Veui ab lUis Liber eH : with much more a- 
gainft the Dod.inc thit I oppof:. See alfo CirJ. ContireUut de offido Epijiopi, ope- 
rum p. 410, 41 i. and v/hat heciteth out of f^ionyfius. And I intrea: you toicaJe 
feriouQy that ncta'^le piifige, 1 Tin.6. i,4>^- where pride ij fliewed to be the 
root, and fuppofed knowledge faid to be but Doting, and they are faid to 
knsw nothing, that thought they knew moftj and the lad cffeds of all are ma- 
..j,„. 4. I do 


^. T do think thst moft of our pi'ofounJ Difputesj wherewith die Dominican! 
ami Jefiiitcs, the Arminians and Antiaiminians have Lsatnedly troubled th: 
world, are giiihy inpart, ofthis hainousfinne before mentioned : and that thcfc 
great Dodors do dii'pute for the mcft part or they know not what. I confcfs its 
tifual with men that know little themfelves,to think that others know as little, ani 
to meafure the knowledge of other men by their own : and fo ics pofllble I may 
undervalue the Learning of thefc men, becaufe having none my felf, I cannot un- 
dcrlland the lar^eneis of their capacities, and fublimiiy of their fpeculations. 
However I am fure I am wifcr and tighter in one point then I was : For when 1 
ftecped my thought* in their fpeculations, and was my felf of the fame cxprcfs opi- 
nion with one of the parties, I thought that I begun to grow fomewhat wife my 
felf; but now I know I was deceived, and it was my folly, and that I knew not 
what I thought I knew. And though I will be bolder to befool fuch a one as my 
felf, then menoffnch fublime incomprehenfible knowledge » yet its my opinion 
that they are but men ; and what a man is though I do not yet fully know, yet I 
am daily both ftudying and trying : and experience which i. the teacher of fools, 
hath taught me this much of him J that he is no Deity i nor one of the Intelligen- 
ces that moveth or comprehendeth the orbs; that the wifeft are not fo wile as 
ihey would feem, or as they imagine thcrafelves > that all their conceptions which 
they judge fo comprehenftve are comprehended in thecompafs of a narrow skull, 
and there lodged in a puddle of fuch brains, and humciirs, that a little knock if 
it hit right may make the wifefl man an Ideot, and drive cut all that profound 
Learning vshich M'l^. thinks is fo near kin to the knowledge of God. 1 confefs 
of late I haveaccuftomed my Iclf to fuch mean though $ of man and his imagina- 
tions, and fuch high thoughts of God, that I reade many of the profoundcft 
School Divines (whom yet in fome refpccli I honour) as I hear children dif- 
couvfing of State matters, or Theology; or as if I heard two difputing in their 
deep. The Serpent hath beguiled us as he did Eve, by drawing us from the fim- 
plicity that is in Chrift. Vain Pbilofophy hath been the bait to deceive the 
Church : And fo we are judicioufly broken in pieces and ruined ; and have learn- 
ed to our coft to know good and evil. I think there is no hope of the Churches 
recovery but by returning to the primitive Chriftian (implicity ; and uling Ari' 
fiotkis a help in Ntturals, but not preferring him before Chrift in the teaching 
of the highclt fpeculations of Theology, as ifwemullgo learn Gods nature of 
Arijiotlc, where Chrill leaveth us at a lofs. When tnofe Learned men, who 
proufling thcml'clves wife became— —(hall become fools that they may be wife, 
and come quite back again to their cognofce tcipfum, then they may know more of 
God then they yet do, and yet pcrciive that they know lefs then they thought 
they had knowu : and then their know, edge will cdifie which now pjf- 
feth up. 

J. I think that man can have no. poGtive proper cor. ceprion of Gcd, at Icaft 
befules cvi (whicii the Scotilb think proper) and that there is no word in humatiC 
hnr,ui e that can exprcfs Gods nature in Itiid propiiety, but all our notions of 
him art fo exceeding impcrfcft, that they rxprefs more of our ignorance then of 
our knowledge. I0}ite is bold to fay ( InfiitHt. Pcripatct. l-^.USi. 9, 10.) that 
fiohe of the Names that we attiibute to God, hath a notion which hath in God 
a formall objtft : and that that fcicnce is of all other the moft fub'imc and proper, 
which iiv^uireth into the impropriety of the names that are fpckcn of Gcd, and dc- 
nicth ihem all as to him. 

D - 4. 1 think 

4. I think tbst there ii no fuch thing in G3d as UnderftanJing, Knowledge, 
Will, Intentioa, Decree, IcleAion, Love, ^c. as thele are by men conceived of, 
andexpreflcd : And that man knows not what it is in G^d formally which thefp 
terms are ufcd by him to cxp:efs. And that it is a farre lefj improper fpecchto 
fay, that the Firmament is a nutfhellj or the fun is a i;low-woriB, ortodeno* 
minaic thereai'jnof men from the apprchcnfions of a fly or a worm, tbcntoat* 
tribute Undcrftandjng, Wili^f. to God. What the impropriety is,we rtiall fpeak 
to more anon. 

5. Therefore all thofe reafonings concerning Gods Nature or Afts, which 
arc drawn mecrlyfrcm the nature and afts of manj3S concluding from a fuppofcd 
Analogy of attribution (much more a formal Identity) is a vain deceittuil rex- 

6. Yet as Scripture fpeaks of God in terms improper, according to mans ca- 
pacity, and fetcht from mans nature and afts, fo muft we both conceive and 
fpeak: tha: is, not believing that thefeare proper expreffions or concep:ions of 
God, bat that there is that in God which we cannot now more ti.ly conceive of 
then under thcfc notions, or fi.lier exprcfs the 1 in thck terms. God hath nothing 
properly caled Knowledge or Will : bat he hach or is tint which man cannot fit- 
ilerexprefs or conceive of then under the notion of Knowledge and Will: But 
what it is, God knows. We mufl fay, God knows, and God wiileth j and G^vi 
mnft fay fo to us : For eife man could not hear or fpeak of Gad, if God conde- 
fcended not to the language and capacity of man. (^'Amero faith, even of our 
moft perfedl ftate of glory, that Fmi "Deonilaliui cfl qiumpotcnti4,pifientia, be* 
•aititis divina fructumperfipere, quern ireaturAmodu4(^ ratio fcrrepoteJl.Scc. Et vu 
deturDcuitxperiunJequisfit (i-Jo 3,) Et quilemfe crgiinos pTajlct,c<xterttm {^quic- 
qtiiidicfuent(choU(lict, homines acuti quidem , fed in hoc Argumento nimit icutt, invi- 
pbilk cji vd AngcliSi. quihia ad Dei conjpcBum nulla peccati libet, foU natura imbeeiUi- 
tit (crcAtur^e enim fum) aditum intenlufit. PrxleH- dt yerb.Dei. CjUfc. c.7. p4 j J. 
I am more certain that even the eye of our undcrflanding hathnodircifl and proper 
fight of God, while we are in the flcfli. 

7. Ye: thefe attributions of Knowledge and Will, to God, are not falfe- 
hoods, for there is really fomewhat in God which thefe are made the impro- 
per exprefTuns of. E^uivocals and Analogies are not eo nomine falfc ex* 

8. I am fo farre from thinki»g that it is by Analogy of Attribution ( as the 
Schoolmen call it ) that Knowledge, Will, Cr"*?. are attributed to God and the 
creature i that 1 think thefe afcribed to God by an exceeding farre fetcht meta- 
phor, funherthcn (as I faid') if I fhould call Heaven a nutmcll ; there being a 
thoufand fold more likenefs between thcfc, then between Gods Knowledge and 
Will, and mans : For between finite and Infinite there is no proportion. Yea I 
will not undertake to prove that the Ratio bomonymitu is not in Us, only, and not at 
all in the Things. 

9. Yet no doubt, the thing meant by Knowledge and Will when attributed to 
God, is not only, as many fay, molt eminently in God, butisfolely in God j 
that which is called knowledge and will in man being not the fame thing, but tota 
»enere diverfum. Eut yei the conception that we have of Gods Knowledge and. 

■ Will is but improper derived from thefuppofed fimiiQ, vi'^^. cur own undcrlland- 
ing and will, which reprcfenteth it with exceeding imperfedion. So that 
the leraw of Knowledge , Will , Decree, (jr'f. are fpokcn firil and properly 


t««3 . 

of the crestur«, and thence Improperly of God, 

JO. Yet I acknowledge rhat though all thcfe terms of Attribution, at to God, 
are exceeding improper, yet there are degrees of impropriety } fome being more 
improper then others are: And fo I doubt not but that the terms that are takeA 
from humane paflions and imperfcdions are more improperly applied to God,tbcti 
thefc forementioned of Underftanding and Will,C7'c« 

And thus I have told you fome of my thoughts, that M'IC> may know on what 
terras to deal with me, and not contend with one whofe minde be underhand* 
eth nor. 

And as to his defcription of Immanent Ads, I deny that there is arty fuch 
thing as an Ad in God terminated in himfelf, fuppofing that you fpeak not of a 
meer objedivc tcrminatien ( as I know you do not j For elfe you would call ma- 
ny of thefc tranfient ads, as having an cxtrinfick objed.) All acknowledge no 
certainty of a proper Ad in God, fo I acknowledge no pofitive termination of 
that which io him we call an Ad i and we call it immanent but in that negative 
fenfc which the later daufeof your defcription doth exprcfs. We are like to 
make a good difpuce of it, when I am forced to deny the fubjed, as being a 

Mr-IC'T N the mean tim, eut of the rtffcH I beir to the memorj of Dr. Twi (Tc, / edn- 
^notferbeartofajy thdt (Mr. Baxter hti better cojifuUed hit own honour if he 
had [aid ntthivg to the iiffangement of that Reverend mi Kenownei DoHor : 6f 
whom he ffea^s very Jleightingfy more then once in hk otherrvtfe excellent Treatife of 
Infant- Baptilm , and in all hit other Bool^t : In xfhicb I could mjb there were not fome- 
vfhatoftbe ToUrinal part not anfwering that of the Devotional l^at ZJr.TwifTc 
bath fail of ^uftifjcation-from eternity, upon thU ground, that there ean be no ntvf imma- 
nent aHinOod, and horvmuchfome in the Synod (aid agoing him, and boxv little he 
replied for bimfelf matter j not : he vug now grorm old, 

Et videas feflbs Rhadamanthon & ^acon annis, 

L/^ec»ougfr, Mult urn mutatusabillo 
Hedore qui rcdit exuvias indutus Acbillis. 

iVben he beat Arminius, Corvinus, Tilenus, Penottus, Bellarmine, Z)r, Jack- 
fon, and I ^norv not how many more out of the field; & folug vacua dominarus 
zrem left them all bleeding, as Afr. Goodwin would huvefaid, at tbe feet ef his lV,i- 
tings. It may be he was now at hji, but magni nominis umbra, but whofe very 
name really did moji of the fervice , and I am furc war that formiduble thtr.g to 
the learned Adverfary : Hut as old as he wa , I qucflion not bat he could brjc 
eafily made this good , There is no new immanent a:^ in God ] agaivji M that 
opposed him in the Synod, and !Mr. Baxter to boot: avd I would fu:n bur ary 
of them all thit oppofed bim , to ^ive a fatkf/i^ory anfwtr but ta this one Argil- 

D* $4. 


§. 4. 

K. 2. i.V^Ou nccdnot argucmc toa higher refpcftto Dr. rm|/ir then I have 
I cvcrmanifeftcJ, except you would hare mc fay, He was a God, or 
an Angel, or an Infallible man. 

a. If you cannot forbear, as you fay, its pity you ftiould be hindered : Men 
and women muft fpeak when their lift is fo great. Who can hold that which will 

3. I confcfs that I did not much con fult mine Honour in that writing. Elfc 
you had not found your felf work as you have done in thcfc leaves. If you mean 
the Honour of my Honefty, your proof mull do more to the determination then 
your aflertion : If you mean the Honour of my LcarniRg, do not you knew well 
enough, how little I have to confult ? He that hath nothing , ha:h nct/:in^ 

4. [ Sleightingly ] is a word thac will kretch , and therefore I will not 
charge you with untruth. In one mans fcnre , he (leighis a man that cals 
film [that famous excellent Divine:] but in another mans, llti^hting tii;- 
nifieth the efteeming of a man below his worth, and cxj^rclVing 10 much, or 
fctting light by a man. I am miferably troubled with thofe kinde ot people 
that cannot endure [ Weighting ] as they call it, above all folks in the world. 
( I ufe to call them plainly, Proud people, here in the Coumrey j but if I were 
to talk to Learned men I would ufe more manners.) They think I fleight them, 
if I do not applaud them, or compleineRt with them, or if I commend thenrnst 
with fo loud a voice as they expeft (and they area people that are never {ow in 
their expcftations :) or ifldobut praife another above them, or Ipeak to ano- 
ther before them, or be rtiort with them ( when I am bulje ) when they look for a 
longer more refpcdlfull difcourfe i yea if my Hat ftiould be over mine eyes that I 
fee them nor, or my memory fo fail me as that I torget them ; thele and abundance 
morel an> guilty of flcighting every day, that I am now grown accullomed to the 
vice, and fhamelefs in hearing it charged upon me. But I lufpeft that my flcight- 
ing Dr. Twijfc confirteth in my fuppofing him to crre, and telling the world fo : 
that is, in taking him to be a man: for hminumtji errarc : and for faying he 
knew but in part, that is, ttiat he was not glorifi.'d on earth by pcrfiftion. If 
you could have charged me with any more the:i this, would you not have done it ? 
J fay, would you not ? when the Vin«lication of this Reverend man was the end' 
of your cncountring me ? and it boylcd fo hot on your Itomack, that [ you could 
not forbear : you had not the patience to fee (o Worthy men fo unworthily hand- 
led. 3 "Yea your feif affirm that which is his dodrine to be unnue, and yet I fl.ight 
lliin for faying fo '. Lay this with the commanded Adoration ot the footfteps, 
ajid it fce.iis, it is high matters indeed that you expcd- 1 doubr, by this, that you 
will fay, I flight ;'0M before I have done, either becaufe 1 praife you nor enough, 
or becaufe I take you not for infallible and indtfedible, or bccaulc 1 value Dr, 
Treilfc or McTtwfc/c fo very, very, very faire before you ; when yet lam accufcd 
of flighting them. Sir, thele Reverend men, I doubt nor, are perleded Saints 
in heaven, and hate pride fo much, that if tfiey know i:, they will give little 
thanks to him that will contend for the honour of their Infallibility, yea or for 
the guiUing over any of their errours i mu:lilef», if their honour fhou'd be made 
a^fove tp the entangling of iha godly, and a means to the promotinij the 

Kingdom of darknefj, and oppoCrg that Truth which they love bettCr tb«n 
their Honours, and the diftioncuiing of that God whcfc gloty is their fe- 

Yea let mc tell you that I take my felf bound in confcience to fay more then 
«yer I have yet faid, and that h this [ AlLyoung Students that will deignc to take 
advice from fo mean a man as I, as ever you wculd preferve youi graces and ccn- 
verfations, preferve, your Judgements } and as ever you would maintain the Do- 
ftrine of Chrilljtake heed of the Errors of the Antinomians:and as ever ycu would 
efcape the fnare of Antinomianifm, take heed of thefe principal Articles of it fol- 
lowing : [That ChrilhfatisfaAion is ours quiprajfiti, befoie the Application > 
and that lo far, as that we are adually Pardonedj j^'^Jfi^d, Reconciled and A- 
dopted by it before we were born, much more before we believe : yea that Adcpti- 
on and Rcniiflion of fin are immanent ads in God, and fo are from eternity, even 
before any death of Chrift, or eflncacy of it : That pardon of fin is noihing but 
Vd'cmn'^unirc : That Juilificadon by faith is nothing but Jultification in for o 
covjctaitia, or the fcnfc of that in our hearts, which was really ours from eternity, 
or frcm Chrilis death, or both: That juftifying faith is the fteling or appre- 
henlion ot Gods eternal Love, Rcmifiion and Adoption. 1 1 fay, take heed of theTc 
mafttr- Points ci Antir.ctniarifm : And as ever ycu would avoid ihcfc, take heed 
how you receive them on the nputation and plaulible words ot any Writer: and 
efpecially of D' Twij/i, who is full of fuch palVages, and being of greater learning 
and cltccm then others is liker to miflead you. For you know, if youreceivc thele 
then ycu mu If receive iherift, if you difcern the concatenation. For if all your 
fins'were pardoned as loon as Ghrift died, then what need you pray for pardon, 
or Repent or Believe or be Baptized for pardon ? then God loved you as well 
when you were his enemies, as fincc; and then how can you be reftrained from 
fin bv fear < (^c. And that you may know I fpeak not this in flighting of the 
D< dfnr, as M . f{,. chavgcth rre. i. I profcls to do it mainly fcr Gods glory 
and Truth, and for the love of fouls, a. 1 take my felf the rather bound to it, 
bccaufc 1 was once drawn my Iclf to feme of thcfc opinions by the mcei hi^b cfti- 
mation ot Mr. Ffwi/eand Dr. Tvi^iffe. J. I prcfcfs ilill mofl highly to love and 
revtrence the names ci iLvfc two bkfled excellent men, as formerly I never honou- 
red any two men more. For Dr. Tw/^, I am more beholden to his Writings for 
that little knowledge I have then almeif any one mans, bcfrdes : and for Mr. Pc»i- 
hle, for ought I can fee in his Bock of Juftification, he revoked this fame crrour 
tvhichinhis f^tudic Grtt. he hath delivered : fure lam, no two mens Writings 
have been more in my hands, and few mens nam.s are yet fo highly honoured in 
my heart. 

This much I take my felf bound to publifli for a common warning. And I' 
would further advifc all to take heed how thty entertain Dr. Tvii:jS s dcdrine abouc 
the caiife of fin j of which I ("hall be ready to give my reaion when 1 have a call } 
l>ut will not now cigiels Co far. 

5. Vorvourgocd wilTi [that my Books bad not fomething in. the Doft.inal 
part not anfwering the devotional] Ttinnk you-. But, alas, igr.oiancc and errour 
will not be healed with a with: Many a year have I ftuditd andpraicd againii 
them, and yet tbcy Itick by ine ftill. But had I erred in the Foundation, it would 
have fpoiled mv Devotion : tor mnrccfevhitttr, ubi dc Vconc7ibcvccrcditur : And 
I had rather be defective in Icller drdrinals, then in Devotion- And thoujiii I 
am as confident that you erre in fame of your Dcdrinals ( as I fliail arron ma^j- 

Dj !.i;) = 

fcft ) a you irc of my erring, y« T heartily wirti your Dcvction be u good u 
youc JuJgcmeiu in DoArine j ani I think I wilh you a greater blefliag then ydji 
wi^cd rac. 

6. I donot well rcliiTi your^xccedingcoldnefs in G3<^s cftHfe, who ari h hot 
for man : When it is for the Honour of your Leaim. 1 Bcthren, (_ you hive not 
paticncf, you cannot forbear.] But what Dr. Tw/Ji hath faid for Juftihcatio.i 
from E:ernity, on the ground that there is no new immanen- ad in God, this 
you fay, Mdtters not : 1$ it a phrafe befecming a Preacher of Chrilh Tiuth to laY> 
[rt mitters rut f] When that Truih is conrradided in fo hij^h a Point ? and the 
foals ef men, and the peace of the Church fo much endangered ? AGiUto might 
better have fpoke thus. E^glini hath not fpcd To wcli ^y the Aniinomians of late, 
esthat any knowing friend of it, (hould fay, It matters not, when fuch great Di- 
. vines promote their caufe. 

7. And where you alfo fay, that [ it matters not what fome in the Synod faii 
againft him, and bow little he faid for himl'elf.] I am notof your minde. 1. 1« 
it only the ve[iigu T>9Si8ru Trvijfi (<f H. I^. that are to be adored ? You fliall give 
me leave to honour you much, and the Dodor more, but the Aflcmbly more 
then either of you. %. I do not think the Dodor was fo weak, or at leafta good 
caufe fo friendlcfs in the AtTembiy, bat that himfclf or fome othtr would have 
done I'omething conliderable to the jaftilication of his caufe, if it had been jafii- 
fiable, j. I will be bold to ask you, the next time I fee you^ whether all your 
heat and impatience for unworthy handling or flighting the Dodor be not meant 
againft the Aflerablyas wellasme ? or if not. Whether it be not refped of per- 
fons that made the difference? or rather the fecuring of your reputation, which 
you might think would be elevated by a Vidory over others, or at Icaft lofc no- 
thing, though the perfon were fo contemptible, as not to adde to your glory j but 
by an oppofition totbe AlTembly it might have been dafht in pieces ? Or if the 
Antinomians being queftioned by the AiTcmbly (hall allcadge Dr. Twin's words 
(frequently and plainly uttered ) for their Defence j and the Dodors caufe be- 
ing hereupon quettioned (hall tall without any juftification i I pray you rell me. 
Whether there may not be the fame neceifi-y for i»to take notice of his lirrours as 
><he Alfemb'y ? and whether after them we may not doit (while we honour his 
tWorthas much as I ftill do) without flighting or wronging hiqj. It ii more 
diflionourto beQueflioned by an AlTembly and come ftff unjuflifietJ, then to be 
judged to miltake by fo contemptible a pcrfon as I. 

8. Where you fpeak of [his very Name doing moft of the fervice.] I do not 
undcriland what lervice you mean. 1 know you mean not the fervice done in his 
Writings: And fure you dare not mean [the fervice done by the Aflembly :} foe 
that were to make them a contemptible AlTembly indeed, if a mans Name, yea 
,inigni nomtnk umbrj, did moft of their lervice : And it were to think as balely of 
tftcir fervice as the worft Sedary doth, that! have met with. It were not worth 
fo much colt, and fo many years pains, nor worthy the Acceptation of Parliament 
or People, if ic were bu: the oftspring of Dr. rw/l/c's Name. But Sir we hava 
received fruits that (liew they came from another caufe then a name or the (hadow 
of a name. I confefs I valuetheir leaft Catechifm for children above all Mr. 
!(,cniaU's learned Labours, were they twenty times more of the fame quality. I 
never heard but oie Learned man fpcak contemptuoufly of the Allembly, and his 
friends fay it was becaufc he was not thought Worthy to be one of them ( I ex- 
cept thofe that wereagainft them in the Warrc J where heat of oppofition might 



occafion difeftkai .* But if this weic Mr. J{,'s cafe, yet methinkj when he changed • 
hisCauleand Party, he flioiild whhall have changed bisefteem ofthe Aflembly.) 
But its likely that Mr. I^. means that it was the Dodors Name that did moil of 
the fei vice of a Moderator > moft of his own part in the Aflembly : It may be fo : 
But if he had nothing to work by but his Name, y« bad his caufe been good, it 
would inthai Alfembly have found feme friends. But wflat you mean then by 
the following words, I do not well know,th3t his Name youarefure [was that 
formidable thing.to the Learned adverfary.] Perhaps you mean your felf, by the 
Learned adveifary, of whofe fears I contcfs you might be fure, and fo might 
know the Name or Word that did affright you : elfe 1 cannot imagine who you 
mean, except it were the Kings party or the Epifcopal Divines together : But for 
Epifcopacy, I know of no Difputejthat ever the Aflembly had upon it, and fo 
bad no adverfaries in adifputing way j at leaft during Dr. rw//?'$ time. And 
for difputirg the Kings Caufe, I think they did as little in it. Some chofen men 
in the Trcstici indeed difputed againft Epifcepacy, but with other weapons then 
Dr. Twiffe's Name. If you fhould mean that it was Dr.rw/j/e's Name that made 
the Learned Epifcopal Divines have Reverend thoughts of the Allcmbly, I mult 
tell you that there were in that Aflembly no fmal! number of Divines ot that tx- 
cellency for Learning, Piety and Minillci ial Ability, which might command Re- 
verence from the Learncdeit adverfaries of you all. 

9. But though his Name did all the fetvicc ; yet you [qucftionnot but he 
could have eafily taadc it- good, That theie is no new immanent aft in. God, 
againfl,C?"'^] It ieems by this that you think this the caficr to prove ofthe 
two: And indeed I am ac(]uainted with none that arc minded to cp- 
pofe it, 

10. Nor is it reafonable for ycu to fay, that you [would fain have any of 
them all that oppofed him, to give a fatisfadory anfwer to your Argument,] 
when you know it was not in that Point that they oppofed him. Would 
you make more your adverfaaies againft their will as well as me? or do you 
long for more honourable Antagonifts to cope with? And whais your Argu- 
ment ? 

Mr-K,. j F there be in/ newimmdvent ASi in god, it tnufi be eithir cfhkUnder- 
* ftandirtg or his tf^ill : Of his Vn.icrjian'divg there an bcnove: clfe mufi he 
kwTBf foPitvphai a Ticvf, whiih-i7}ferrci he VPiif Mt Omr.i(cicnt, l^mvp not all before this 
new iff oj K^ervUdgc: If of his iViU, then either this new iff is for the better er 
worfe or indiffercTtt .' If for the better, heivAt vot'ab(olutelj perftB before, as being 
capibk of bettering : If for the vntrfe, be is 7iot fo per fell Jtnce this iff a/f he m/s 
before; vchich is to mil{e him Uj! perfect ly his neve aB : Jfmiihir, then is ikis iff 
fu(b Of might Of rveli h^ve-been out of in : and then it is an imperfccfien to aff fo im- 
fcrtiuently. This famet/irgumint as I take it msde ufe of by Mr. Goodwin hmfelf 
tHdliliecafc, audihcrcferc he will im be offaidcd bow highly [oevrr I value it as an 
itr ejiraz^able Demon fir aiiMt.- 

$^ J. 


■■ '^ '• , s. 5. 

R. S'H Emcmbcr that I fay not that your Dodrine is Untrue, but Uncertain^ 
l\li may be pofTibly as you fay J but whether you can tell that it is fo, or 
prov;ittobc To, I Jjubt. To your great Arjumcnc, I exped better proof of 
ycra: mujor Piopofuion, which indeed hatb none at all. Two things I expcfted 
youlliould have proved: i. That God hath an Underftanding and Will which 
ad i properly (o called : or that you know what it is that is improperly called 
Gods Uiidcrftaiidinj; and Will? i. That God hath no immanent Ad but of 
hisUnJerllindin^ or Will. Ts begin with the lalt : I will not fay, duur tcrtiuvt . 
For I dare not fay properly diintur duo: Bat I will dclire you to prove your major t 
and Ithiak that in the fame fcnfeasGod is faid to have an Underilanding and 
Will, for ou^h: you know he may have other ads, which thofe two notions will 
not exprefs. Fur i. You are uncertain whether Angels may not have other fa- 
culties or aclj-imtianenr, belidcs Undcrllandmg and Will : ( If you fay, you 
are fure they hive not, prove it :) and fo others may be alcribed to God by Ana- 
logy from them, as thcl'e be by Analogy from man. You know perhaps how ma- 
ny fenfesy:)u hive your felf; but how can you prove that no other creature hatha 
fixth fenfe, which you are uncapable of knowing the name or nature of? So how 
know you but Angsls may have powers or immanent adsbcfideUnderftanding 
and Willing, which you know nothing of for na-mc or natuic ? Muft all Godi 
fuperiour creatures be needs meafured by poor man ? How much more noble crea- 
tures hath God, then thefe below that dwell in dull ! %. But if you were ac- 
quainted with all the Angels in heaven, and were at a certainty about the number 
or nature of their powers or ads, how prove you that God hath no other ad then 
what Undcrltanding and Willing doth cxprefs ? That one unconceivable perfed 
ad in GjJ, which Eminenter (by an unconceivable tranfcendcnt eminence) is 
tinierjiinding and fViUing, ( yet but Analogically 'fo called) but properly and for- 
mally is neither, but lomewhat more excellent > is in all likelihood very reilrain- 
edly or defedivcly cxprelfed by thefe two words > even as to the objcdivc ex:ent. 
How know we but that in fome of Gods c<Q.atures, or at lealt in Gjd himtclf there 
may be fomcthing found bcddes Entity, Verity, Goodnefs j or any thing that 
istheobjcdot Intelledion or Volition, whereof no man had ever any concepti- 
on. However, is it not unlikely, yea a dangerous imagination, That the pow- 
ers or ads of fuch wretched worms as we, Hiould be lo tarre csmmenlurable with 
the Jntiniie Mijclly, that as wc have no immanent ad but of Undcrltanding or 
Will (or fubj dinate tothefc) fo God hath no other? or none but what are ex- 
preiTcd in thefe two notions 1 Alas, that iilly worms ihoiKd fo unicverently pre- 
lunie I and pretend to that knowledge of God which they hive not ! and might 
Co eafily know chat t hey hive nut ! 

And for the former, How farre G id harh an Uideittanding or Will, I 
will perul'e yo.ir won^s to Milter Qoodwiu when i have done with this Se- 

This were enough to your Argument and Challenge : but I proceed to the 
confirmation of your implied w/«or. And i, I caii'y grant you, that it is certain 
there is no Addition to,or mutation of Gods ElVence. a. I think all the Ads af- 
cribcd to God are his Elfence, and are one in themfelves confidered. Pardon.that 
I do but fay [I chink :] For though pri.iciples of reafon and Mctaphyfical Axioms 



fcetntolead plainly to this Condufionj yet I am afraid of pretending to any 
greater Certainty then I have; or of building too much on the doubttull con- 
clulioBS ot mans flippery Reafonings, about the nature of the Invilibie Incom- 
prehcnfible God. I think it moft futable to Gods Unity and Simplicitv, that all 
his immanen. afts ( To called by us) are Himfdf and are One. Biitldave not 
fay I am ccitain that G^d cannot be Simple and Perfed, except this lv: true ; 
both bccaufe He is beyond my knowledge, and bccaufe the doftiineof the Tri- 
nity alKrcrti us that there is in God a true diveifity conlilting with Unity, Sim- 
plicity ind Peifcdton of Eilcnce. j. You know not what the fubjeift ot your 
Propoti ion is, (Gods ads of Undcrllanding and Will :) and therefore you arc 
unca^'ible of men peremptory concluding deM»dis, knowingly and certaiidy, as 
here you prertud to. 4. You cannot prove that there's any luch thing in God 
as an Imminent Aft, or an Utidcrllanding or a Will in proper fenfe : but fomc- 
thing thtie is which we cannot fitlier or more profitably conceive or exprcls then 
under fwch notions, drawn Analogically from mans ads of UnJcrltaiiding and 
Willing. Now if wc will rpeak of Godslncomprehenliblc nature by Uich Ana- 
logy, and put the names ot Undcrltanding and Willing on God, as borrowed from 
mans unde'- (landing and willing , then mull we accordingly conceive of 
Gods unuerftanding and willing, as like tomans in the form of thefe ads ( foe 
wc can reach to no higher conceptions, though thefe be ntterly improper.) Now 
tnansadualintelleftion do:h connote [and fuppofc an iniciligible objcd, and his 
Will doth connote and fuppole an appt:tible objed ; and confeqiiently it cannoc 
be expeded according to the utmoll imaginable natural perfcdion ot them, that 
either ihould go beyond the extent of their objeds, or be fuch 
ads without their proper objcds : * Thefe things thus pre- * Even Af CJodt 
mifed , fome will perhaps rhink you I'ufficiently anlwered Omnipotency k but 
( when you fay,it inferresthat God was not Omnikientjknew didi ad pollibi- 
notallj^c.) by telling you 1. That as Omnifcicncy ligni- lia, fid. Aquin. 
fies a Power of Knowing all things, Analogically afcribed to i.^.ij a.i c 
Goi ad aptum humanum asdilUndfrom the ad of knowing; 
fo God svas ye: Omnifcient. 2. As Omnifciency ligiiifieth the adiial Know- 
ledge of all intelligible ob/eds, fo Gjd was Oiinilcien- And no more isrcqui- 
fitetothe perfedion of his Knowledge. ^. But an Objtd 
may have not only its real but its * intelligible Being de tiovo * See Bu\ iJane of 
which it had not before; and therefore as Omnifciency iig- that queilion in bu 
nifieth the Knowledge of all things that will be intelligible, as EtifiJ^! (0 fir as 
well as thofe that now jrc intelligible, To (fay they) it be- to Iherv the grot 
!ongs not to Gods perfcdion to be Onnifcient > for iris un- di^aiUy. 
naturally and improperly called Science (and fo Omnifcience) 
which hath net an Objed. Their foundation ( which may feem abfurd to you) 
vi"^. That fome things may ic/iovo become the objeds of Knowledge, they declare 
thus: I. They luppofe, that though God be Indivifible, and fo his Eternity be 
Indivifible, and have neither in it, Prxtcritum nor Futuntm, nor '?{j<hc neither, 
as wcnnderlland it, as exprcffing a pre.'ent inihn: of ti.ne : yet as Cjodknowe; h 
not Himfelf only, but the crearure alio, fo he knowech not Etei nity only but 
Time : He knows how things are ordered and take olace in mans Divifible mca- 
fure of motions: and therefore he knows things as Pad, PieUnt a:»d Future, 
quoidbomincm ii;" tcmpus, vihich arefopall, prefen: and fu urc. Ani he doili not 
know aching Pall to be Prefcnc {quoiite>npM(S'hominem) norathing Facureto 

E be 


be Paft : bu: knowj things truly as they be. i. This being prcmiicJ, theywiil 
thcnafl'umCj that T«fr and Pju/ did not aftuallyexift from ctcrniiy ; Chriil did 
not a£tually fuffcr from eternity : and (o the adual cxiitcnce of Pact ia 
tiunc tcmporif, was not an intelligible objcd from Etcrn'ty : and therefore they 
think they may conclude} iliat it could not be known from Eternity. They 
will u'gctiicir rcafon thus : i. There was no Time from Eternity (thatisjbc- 
forc time:) therefore it could not be intelligible, that Peter did adually then 
cxill in Ti r,c. x. Elfc you will confound Futurition and Prcfcnt exillence: 
God d'd know from Eternity, that 'PcttT would exift in Time, r e. futtiriiionem 
Petri: 'bereforc it was notTcrcr'sprefcnt aftaalexittcncc that he knew. 3. Tlic 
nature oi forck^orvUdgt is to know things as futurCj and therefore muft not be con. 
flunked with knowledge of things as exiltent. 4- This propofition before the 
creation v.3$ not true ITctcr doth actually exift:] therefore God could not 
know it o be then true. But after Pctcr'i birth it did ie novo become a true pro- 
poiltioi) : and therefore muft be ic novo known t» be then true. Before that, it 
was only true that iHac PrQpofitiovera fnturdcjl'] but not Ivcra eji :'\ therefore 
no more but the futurition of tlie Truth could be known, and not the adual prc- 
fent crxiitence ( as referring to time :) It is not all one to fay IPetnucrW] and 
[Pi;fr«4f/i] nor all one to know it. 5. The contradidory Propofition was thcr> 
true [Peter doth not exift :] But both contradiftory PropoHtions could not be 
known to be true together, that is from Eternity. Therefore God did then know 
the Negative Propofition as then true i^ etrua nen exiftif :'\ and the Affi.mative 
defaturo to be true iPctrta futuriu eft, vcl extjiet:'] but he did not know the Af- 
. firinative dc cxijicmiA pr^feuti to be true from Eternity [ Fetriu in num tempcrit 
exifljt] no nor ITetruanHunc a/Etcrnitatii cxiftit c") for they were then falfe Pro- 
pofitions ; nor yet was it then true that iTempM uHu fxi/hr] If you fay. That 
there were no Propofitions from Eternity, and theretore they could not be true 
or falfe: this alters not the cafe : for 1, We fpeak on fuppofition that there had 
been creatures to have framed thefe Propofitions. z. If we conceive not of Gods 
Undcrftanding as knowing the truth of Propofitions, concerning thirigs, we (hail 
fcarce have any concep ion of it as an Underflanding at all. 5. 1 lie Schools 
commonly fpeak of the Eternal truth of Propofitions, e.g. de futurii contnigcatt- 
bua. 4. There are Propofitions in Time, and thefe God knows: and thatsall 
one to the prefent cafe. At I{oihs fiood God knew not this Propcfition to be then 
true l_Pctrtii cx'ftit :"] for it was not then true. Nor did ht know then that [it 
is true in nunc temporis quo cxtjiit Tetras] bat only, that it rojU be true : For Futun 
and not things prcfently cxiltent are the objedii of Foreknowledge : and that 
[_T^nc tcmporif'] it felf did not then exift. 6. O.hcrwife it would be true that 
All things do cocxilt with God from Eternity: (which is difclaimed by :hofe 
that are now oppofed :) and fo that they doexill trom Etcrni;y. For if this Pro- 
pofition were known to be true from Eternity {fPetms exijlit, vclDcococxiQit,'] 
then the thing exprelied is true, Peter did fo cxill and coexiit. For that wi'ich is 
falfe cannot be known to be at the lame time uuc. If it be granted therefore Jiat 
Pcrer did not cxilt from Eternity, and confc-quently that that Piopofition was not 
then true, nor intelligible as then tvue, but only as of future Verity, then when 
God in lime knows it to be of prefent exiftent Verity, he knows more then when 
be knows it to be only of future Verity and of prcfcnt falfhood : And [-o about 
the creatures, Whtn he knows that they do exift and knows them as exifting, h€ 
knows more then when he knew ibem only to be future and as fuiure. For if it be 



not more to know a thing as exigent then as future, and To knowledge be not dr 
vcrfified from the objeft, then it is no more to know fomething then nothing : 
For thercafon is the fame: and future is a term of diminution as toexiftcnt* 
And then it will be all one to know [ jMiiJf is damned] and [Prter is favcd :] 
[jfACob is loved] and [E/ia is hated.] Yea then it would be all one it {pcrpojfibile vcl 
im^ffibtlc)k were knownCFefcr is damned] and l^udaf is favcd] or [Petcr is favcd 
and damned :] and foit would be all one to know fahhood and truth. 

Many luch reafonings as thefe will be ufed againft you. Of which if you would 
know my own opinion, I think they arc de ignoiis, dreams, fightings in the daik, 
yet much like your own. And though 1 know feverall things ihar you may fay 
aeainft thisrcafoning, fo do I know much that may be faid againlt yours: and, 
I think, both fides would do bettcrtoprefcfs that ignorance which they can nei- 
ther overcome nor hide. How conftantly do the Schools diltinguilh between 
Gods Abiliaftive and Intuitive Knowledge ? Scicntiam [implicis intcUigcntix (3* 
purx ^''iponH ? and tell us thar the former in order ot nature goes before the other ? 
If this be {o, then God hath a Priut and F<|/Jm»4 intheafts of his knowledge. 
The like we may fay between Gods Knowledge ofKimfelfand the creature. If 
they think it not abfurd that etiAtti in mcnteDwinA there ftiould bea tranlition of 
thingi e numero pojfibilium in numcrum futurorum, ini this fine mutatione i why may 
they not admit a knowledge of things as exirtent only when they are cxilfenr, 
and of things as future when they arc future? and this fine mutatienc too? For 
the diftindion qnoAi moment a temper k, will make bur a gradual dificrence, in point 
of mutation, irom thu quoni ordinem mtura, vel moments 7{itionfs. All dillimfli- 
on, that hath real cround, denotes imperfeftion, according to our highell fpccu- 
lators, and fo mult all be denied of God. I retufe not to fay (if 1 mull fay any 
thing) of both as Mr. BxtIotq doth Exercit.f. ( think him not pedantick, becaufc 
he is bound with Schiblcr:) CMutitioilU ejl folum in objc^o cognito, ven in cogno- 
fcette, (eucognitione ; eumcognitio divina abobjecfo non dcpendet, ncc ad mutmoncm. 
objeBimutJtioncm uUim pMitur, Sec. Cum ideo Admittit Alvire"^ res primo e(fe pofi- 
hilet folum inordtne ad potentiam (3' futunM in ordir.e ai voluntatcm.nccejj'e cjtut prius 
cegHofat cognitionc abftraSitvi ( quii ut pojji biles ca folum cognitione cogvafci pafSmt ) 
(^'pojledcumpcrvoluntAtcm fiuHt futures, (j'etiima^ttexijieutes, illa/s cognitionciH' 
tuitivl cognofcctVcus. At bine nullJ. in Veomuutio jejuctur, fcifolum tnobjcilo {lit 
fateutur necejie e}i ) Et per confequenshoc dMo, quod [cientiADeiababflrj^tivx in in~ 
tuitivjmmutiretur, txnienmn fcquetur DeumeJJe mutabilem, vel cognitionem (mm ex 
parte rci ; fed folum quod objeilo viriato, intetteHua nojlcr, Viriofj ei denomimtiorss 
attrjbait: ut quod ^ JHtuitiv-t, qusd abjlracfivi, quje folum fitnt Jtnomination^s variee 
cognttiottt divina ab intcUecfu nojtro impofitx, pro diver fo rc^eHuad creatunm, ciim tnft 
fit omsino fmplcx o* iKViriata.'] 

Bat then I would fain know whether there be not the fame necefliiy that the 
difference between objeds [only future] and [ presently exiltenc] fliould caulc 
our undcrftandings to put the forcinentioned various denominations on Gads 
Knnv^ledgc, as the difference inter Pojfibilia (j' Futura, doth focaufc us to puc 
on it ? And alio whether in the fame impropriety and imperfcdion, the very 
notions of [Undcrllanding, VViiling, Afting, Immanently, eiT'c] be not I5f'J9• 
5Jli»4^20ncJ ii tnrcWf (f?H nojiro impojita, or alfumcd by God in condctccnlionco hu- 
mane wcaknefs, cxprefling but fome little, very little, of that Divine 1 know 

no: wha:. For that fame thing which man hath a true formall conception of un- 
der the notion of [Knowing, Willing] is varied according to the variety of 

E 2, objeds • 


objefts : But if it be not fo with God (as I muft think and fay, It is not, if I 

prcfume to think and lay any thing of ir,) that is bccaoi'e Knowlcd^r and Willing 
in Him are nJt the things that wc by thoic tcririiulcto cxprcis i nor yet 2ri) thing 
that \vc can have formali proper cmctptions of: And b) the iamc ntciflity ana 
wairant as we do bring down the Divine nature loiow, as to apply to it t lie noti- 
ons of Acting, Undei Handing, Wiliing j may we alfo apply to it the noiicns of 
Afting, Knowing and WiliiKg dcncvi; contciring a further addition to the im- 
propriety of Ipccch. And therefore as God himftlf doth in Scripture accomo- 
date himfclf to our capacicy , by alluming the terms and notions of Undcr- 
ilaniiing and Willing, lo doth he alfo of loving where he before hated, 
with divers the like , which in man would imply an innocent muta- 

1 have here given you fome reafon of feveral pafi'agcs of mine, which your fol- 
lowing I'ages carp at, before you difcerncd my meaning, as I fhall fliew you fur- 
ther anon. 

So much to your proof that there is no new immanent ad in Gods Under- 
ftanding. One word to what follows about his Will. 

Where ycu argue thus; [ IftfhU iViR, then this vcw aef is either for the Bettert 
or jVorfc, or Indifferent, &c.] ^vf. In Itrid propriety, it is taken as unprovcdj 
that he hath Will, or Immanent afts. But Ad captum htmdr.umis >/vc irc ncccSi- 
tated toalcribe Willing and Ading to him, fo they that think they may on the 
fame grounds afcribe New a^s of Will to him ( as the Scripture undoubtedly 
doth,) will think that your Argument is fufliciently anlwercd thus ; 

1. This arguing fuppofcth mans filly intellcd capable of comprehending the 
Reafons of the Ads of the Almighty j as if it cannot be, except we can appre- 
hend the reafon of it, and whe:her it be for the better or worlc or indifferent ; or 
what it produccth, or to what end it is : which is a nioli bold arrogant picfum- 
ption in Inch moles as we arc. As 1 faid before, you know not whether there 
may not be more A&'e6iiom or ^odi cntiitm open to theDirine Intellcd and Will, 
or Nature,then we have any name for or conception ot : And though mans will 
look only at the goodncfs or appetibility or conveniency of objeds, yet you know 
not what Gods will is j and therefore know not what is its adc(}U3te objed. Many 
other reafons alfo of the obfcurity of this might be given. 

2. It will be anfwered you, that the laid New ad of Gods will, is for the 
Better* But then they will diflinguilh of [Bcr»er.] i. They will fay, It is 
Better quoad rerum ordinem : and it is Better to the creature: (as for God to love 
bim that before he bated: or approve of him, whom before he dif3pproved.)i 
a. They ciiftinguifh alfo between that which may be faid to be Ik-iter to God 
himfelf: Either Really, by a real addition to his perftdion ; and fo nothing can 
be Better to Gad: Oi' z. Relatively and Rcputatively ; ax God is faid to bc 
Blcfled, Gioiified, Honoured, Wellplcaied, Exalted, Magnificd.CT'f. And thus it 
may be Better to God, though he receive no real addition of felicity > am! fo not 
Vain or IndifTcrent. 

g. They will delirc you to Anfwer your own Argument as to tranflent Ads, 
and they think it may fcrve as to immanent ads. (Remembring that they fuppolc 
that there be new ads in God without mutation j btcaufc they fuppofcthat thofe 
very things that we call immanent Ads in him are but denominations of his fim- 
pJe Elfence, according to the various afpcds or refpeds of the objcds, which 
make no more, mutation then relations do.) Was Gods ad of Creation, of rai« 


fing Chrift from dcath-tT'*;' for the Better, er Woffe, or Ixidiffercnt ? 1 th}nk 
you will fay as before, thar it was not Better as to God in the adding of any r«al 
felicity to him : But to God Reputatirely and Relatively, and to the creature 
really, it wa*. Pcttev. So will they fay about immanent afty, which may perfeft 
the V. hole ( as the Honour of the Prince is rhe good of the Commonwealth) and- 
may be neceilary titlie Goc-d of paricular pcrfors j andthc rcpucative Good of 
God hiniuif. Iti I'aidjGcd made AH things toi IhrnfcU", Was it toi Betterto him- 
felf,orWorre.or IndiflFeunt ? 

4. 3^ i; Better I r VVoiTc for a !ooI;ing G ; 1 tha: it receive a hurdicd various^ 
Riecitidcvovc f Y-^u willpcrhaps fay, It ,^ no difpaiRocmepi :o the Glafs to be- 
rct fPfivc of ncwjf ifjcj without being made Bcitct v Wori'c : as alio thic its re- 
ception is pafTivc. and fb is not Gods UnJcrftunding a Wilir.'^. 1 know not 
whac it is : but I contefs it mufl needs be a very imprcj f ci.nc«prion to conceive 
of G^-i as paflivc in kn.nving. And yet man hatii no rue app.ehenfion of a 
knowledge which i» wholly fine fajjiohc : Bur how pro'^'c you that God cannot, if 
heple.-'fe, by his aftive Knowledge, Know dcncvo, wi.nouc becf.ning Better or 
Worle ? or doing it in vain ? Arc you lure th't cvciy new a(5c of inteilcftion 
(even in a dream) doth make mans underftanding beiter or worle ? or clfe is vain? 
I confefs more may be here faid. 

J. Having done with your Argument, they will further tell ycu, that. If 
God may have new relations without any real change, then, for ought ycu know, 
he may have new immanent ads without a real change: But the Antecedent is 
unqucftionably true : (God was not a Cieator before be had creatures : nor is he 
our Father before we are his children j nor our King. MafterjfiT'c. before we are 
hisfubjeds, fervants, (ire- except de jure cn\y .) The Conlcquencc they prove 
thus: Relations have as true an Entity, as, for ought you know, thefe which we 
call Immanent Ads in God, may have : Tbcrefoie the Novation of them will 
make ai great a change. Here they fuppofe that A^io and Rc/jna are both acci- 
dents (taken properly) and neither of them mcer Eiitia Ratior.is ( for in fo think- 
ing they eo in the more beaten road ) much lels nothing : Or if ycu will fay, 
that Relatio is but Modtuentu, they will fay lo of aftiontoo: Or however they 
tell youj that it may be fo for ought you know, with that which wc call an Aft 
in God. And here they fuppofe that bis Ads are not his Elknce abfolutely and 
inic felfconfidered i and tbit it fignifies not ail one to fay, God is God, and to 
fay, God willeth the exiftence of this worm: And therefore they will fay, that 
thtfe which we call Ads, may be., if not Relations, yet feme of Scotia his for- 
malities, or fomcthing to us tnown, v.hich have either no more Being then 
Relations, or at leaft not fo much as :o nvike a real change in God. And that 
there jsin hi$fimple,.indiviflble Ei''.- ce, a Trinity of p^rfons, without any im- 
perfedion : fo there maybe in his iiflencc, dsftind forraslities (or fomevvbac 
that wc cannot name cr f^nceiv^ rt ) of a loworiiatuje, then Perfonality, with- 
out any inconvenience: and ss thefe may be fupc'-ad'-'ed to the meer abfolute. 
Eflenccof God (as /gere, IntcUtgire, VcUe, ate .-idJed) without dividing, or 
multiplying it : fo may ihey on the fame grcj.nds be New, or renewed, without 
any Mutation of Go. ? Eilence j but on'y ot il;e fornKiity of intellcdion or Vo- 
lition, which is added to his EHence. 

6. They further think i.h.1- ihenaturecf tianfient ads, doth prove that imma- 
nent ads may be renewed : B'Jt this will be inoic Ipoke to anon, when we come. 
to your dodrinc cf tranfient Ads. They lay, A iranlient ad is not a meer Re- 

E 3 lation 

lition or Paflion or ESzA : But there is in ic chit which msy be called adion ai 
^<nie, as well as ^idi on i. ^iente. Now if sSfio be efcicutis iciio here, and GoJ 
incrcatinj the world dii fvcriugcrc, then cither the world was created from etcr- 
nity, o: cue God did crcarc it from E:ernity, and yet it wai created only in Time, 
and :hc Ciui'ationor Cauling creating Ad was infinitely before th< Edf<;di or 
cllc there was a new ad really performed by God in Time. The firfl none will 
maintain, that I deal with. The fecond, fay they, \\ againll common reafon : 
For G^dsad istheC7ia/i proximo crciturXi and omnis caufs proxtnid reciprocstur 
cum fuo e feci u : i.c.TofiucMfi pr$ximA inaSlu, nccefieejl cfeclum potit: I fie be 
cittfifoulii, yea and recjuireth no:hin^ elfc to the ctfed fo much a$ by preparation, 
or dilpciition, no nor a fubjed matter, then the ad of creation mulfc needs im- 
mediatly produce the creature > ani the Crure and Qrari mull needs be infepara- 
bie: Its anfwcrcd that Gods crearing ad was from eternity, but the effeft, oc 
creaturc,wa$ not till its Time. But it will be replied, That either God did more 
tor the creatures produdion or creation a: the time of itspaffive creation, then 
he did from Eternity, or he did no more: If more, then he did fomcthing dc 
novo: If no more, then cither the creature would have had its Bein^ from Eterni- 
ty, qui4 pofiu cMtsi pon'nur cffeci ttt i or elfe if y^u ask whats thcrcafon that the 
creature was not in Beini^ fooncr or latci-,no caufe can be alTi^ned : and fo God 
fhould not be the cauf*. This holds equally (fay they) whether you make the 
creating ad to be only Gods Vellc, or a fuperaddcd execution of that will, as 
being the efted of power. For either God willed the creatures prefenc exirtence 
from eternity, as much as at the time of its creation, or as at this day j or he did 
nor. If he did not, then he willcthicMOvo; If he did, then the creature would 
have exided, as faon as it was willed. To fay, that God willed from Eternity thac 
the creature fliould be in Time, is true : But is it as much to Will that it jhiU be, 
as to Will its prefenc exiftence ? If it be anfwcred, That there is no T^/f or 
F«wrf with God > I anfwer i. That this was prevented before J when it was (aid, 
that God undcrftandeth Time, and propofuions concerning time, though time 
bconly mans meafurc, and propofitions mans inftruments. z. The men that I 
fpeak to, maintain that all things cocxift not wich God from Eternity (though 
indeed the term \^irom'] as here ufed, contradidcch Eternity :) and they diftin- 
guifh between Gods willing rerumfuturitmcm (^ cxi(lentum prafcntem : and there- 
fore this feemeth to make againll their anfwer. ( But indeed none of all this ar- 
guing is folid, becaufe of the different manner of producing efFcds pcrvoLuautem, 
& per potentUm excquentem volunuti fupenidiuoi.) Perhaps it will be faid, that 
if all this be granted, yet it followeth not that immanent ads may be de wnj9 
without a chtngqin God, becaufe the Creating ad, or any tranfient ad is f» : 
For the former is God himfclf, butthclater is not. To which it may be replied, 
I. We fpeak not now of a produd or cffed, called the Creation, but of thecrca- 
ting ad andthen why iliould not that be God himfelf, as well as an immanenc 
ad ? If you fay it is a Being, then icisGod or diftind from God : If dillind 
from God, it is a fubftance or accident, or fone moiia, or who knows what ? 
Accidents God hith none: Subliancc it cannot be j except it be God. If you 
fay it isany moij^, you know what School contradidion you mult exped : Or 
if you fay it is a Reality or a Formility, thofe that you deal with will tell you, 
thatrhey can as well proye the immanent ads to be formalities, or fuch like, as 
you can the tranfient. For iiheyfay (withorhers) that thele ads are not cal- 
led I aim ancm, Pjfitiycly, as ifcheyhad anyeffcd or terminutin Gjdhimfelf; 
' buc 

but Negatively, becaufc they have no cfftd, *d extrd ; and do nthilpoitert in objelfo, 
Sothat as to the nature of the a6t it (c\i, they lay, it is the fame, or at leaft, the 
later as much cflential to God, as the former ( though not their eftt ft s.) And .1 
have paper converfe with a Divine, if I miftakenot, tuUas Learned as M' I^. 
( toipesk fparingly) who maintains, that thofe which you call immanent aAs 
(w'^Gods Knowing and Willing other things bcfides himfclf) are tranficnr, 
and lo to be called j as having as much an cxtrinfick objcd, as thole that ycu 
and I call Tranficnt j though they make no real change on them : and that thofc 
only are to be called Gods immanent ads, whole objeft is himfclf. j. Moreover 
yoB will acknowledge that Gcds VeUc'is an immanent ad: But how many and 
how great arc they that maintain that Gods Creating aft, was but his /'c/Zcthat 
things fhould be '• 1 need not tell vou of Schoolmen that arc for this: but when 
ycu (doubtlefs) know that D' Tvet^e himfclf sllirms it, in his Vindic you mufi 
either be ofhisminde, or bundle hint unveorthHy by your Diilent, as I did in ano- 
ther cafe. Now if the aft by which God jror.uced the creatures be but his ycUe, 
then it is an aft which you call immanent. Aed you well know how commonly 
it is maintained that 7)cus cfentur prr cjfenttjm : and that there is no aft but his 
cflencc it fclf, requifitc to any eftift, which hcproduceth, as it is the eftcft of 
the firft Caufe. But this is but ad homjum i for thcfe are not their principles 
whofe arguings I now recite. They fuppole that creation and other tranficnt afts, 
are not mecr Volitions, bur afts of power, in execution of Gods will. To which 
purpofe how largely many famous Schoo'men have argued, is obvious to them that 
areconverfant in them. AurcoUu hath fifteen Arguments to tl.is end. Gregor. 
^rwfwc?!^/ hath many Arguments to prove that however Creation or Conferva- 
tion be taken, neither of them is Gcd himfclf. (^afreoltu 1 know and other Tho- 
mifts aniwer thefe Arguments : and much may he replied and is, to thofe an- 
fwers : fotbatin fodarkand unfearchablc a Contrcveifie, ftrons wits may finde 
fomethingto fay, againit each other, longer then the patience of the wifclt of 
tlieir Readers will hold out to know the illuc ot their difpiites. (&/£gidm,Tbom. de 
tArgcnt. Occam, and others plead alfo for a n^ct fliry of an executive aft of power, 
diftirft from the mecr aft of willing, cr that Creation is not God. ^o do ^acob. 
iMartini,Suarc^,Scbibltr, and other later Authors. And if ( as >^^«/7;(W faith ) 
tranfient afts ht formdittrinagentc, as well as immanent, then ihe inception of 
new immanent afts feems to have no other inconveniences, then the inception 
of tranfitnt afts as to the form. But indeed the ThcmiAs fay the fame of both, 
that they arc only Gods cffence, and that God hath no tranfient aft at ail, but 
cnly that his EiVenceor Will or Llndeiitanding mav be fo dencminatcd for the 
rational Relation of the Objeft thereto. AtA ihat-icxc Jqujr.M (i.q ij.d.i.) 
maintaining that theie is in God ^TotctiUaaSfivn ( thcui;h not pijftva ) witliall 
maintains it to be the fame thing, astheafticn, and as hi!> Will and UnderUand- 
ing. ( And yet fcmctime hecslleth Gods afticns traifienv ; but in this be fpeaks 
unconffantly or doubtfully, as S'Kdrf^ nottth IMet.difp.io.%.^.') And the lub- 
ftance of all Capreoltu awfwer to jiuribltu fifteir Arguments lis this fame diftindi- 
on, between Gods aft of Creation u Iclf ( which is bis Will and Eflcnce, im- 
manent and eterrai ) and the Rf/rff/o r4r/cri» beiween-God and the objeft j from 
which Gods will is denominated a nanficnt ift. But yet in this trarfient aft, 
it is only the relation, and not the sft it ftlf ( which r. G.d himlilf) which inay 
be diverfificd or renewed. Now if this ir.etr rclati^ifAiittiishc lumcient erourd 
for our denomination of Gods aft to be [Trarfient] J^nd thefe iianfieni £fts 'o 



b: njw, then it miy fc;-u thi: thcrdirionof the laineiA to fotne ex'.rmfick 
tsTrminicivc ojjscli ( not GoJ' kaowleJ^c to the prclcnt cxillonceof cftings ia 
nuiu tcm}OTk) do:h ^ive ths umw ^rounito cili thal'e aifls new, though no: To 
p.opaly tranlicrj:. For it on: miy be d^noT^inateJ fiom its rcl'ped to its objed, 
why no: the other : Niy why the (ame rc/ifj»M{»OM*f may no: as well denominate 
thole aditranii:nt alio, whicU .vcaovcall imTuncnt, is no: ealle to difcern : 
For both iiaveiofped :o an ex:riii(i:k objcd, if that fulfijc. Niy Joth not that 
ad which IS ca.ci imn.t.icnt, produce or cfl;cl i Icein^ it is only ^o/c«io withouc 
any other exccuiive adion tui: G Ji cft.d^h a'l things that are efteded : ani 
thisFc/Zt: frj.ncrcrniry is (fay they) ciuji ini^it ot cho'c thin^^s that are proJtieci 
i.i tine. Aal therefore tmny lay, thit God hath no Will as to cxtrinlicks, but 
what iscfFLCt.ve : ani li cha: his Will ha:h m ex:rinlick objed proJorly fo called, 
but only prjJufti or ett.ds. That onncvelle Dci ejl [oicncrjum (^ c^c4x coram qujt 
viU, and hit rherefor: he may no: be laid to will any thing but wha: he doth ef- 
fect. SecGibienfie LibertM.i.c.i^.0' 1. 

So that 111 Conclulioii, according to the Doftrine of the moft Learned Tho^~ 
mirts, there is in Gid neithe: immanent noi tran(l:nt ad in M'f^'j I'cnle. ( Ex- 
cept thul'e that are terininatei, as they call it, in himi'elt as the objed.) Not im- 
aianent ; tor they arc not terminaced in the A^ent, as M'K- faith, I'uch arc; 
nay they have reipcd co things ex:rinlick ; nav, lay many, they are prodiidive of 
thefe cxtrinlick things- Nottranlient; for G ids eflence doth not trstifircintb- 
jcHwnexiraneufi, ba: on'y ciufc it withau; any other executive adionj and Jo 
refpcdech it. In the fame lenfe therefore, and on the fame grounds as you .v ill 
maintain the tranlient id to be in time, and not eternal, will rhele men think to 
prove it alio of the immanent. Fo: even the tranlient ads of God (fo called) arc 
Hot in rhecrciiure, bac only relped and effed them. As CJprco/w laith (li. i. 
diB. I. q. I. art. j.) Td'n altio prxiicimentilis (s' qijt c[l motits, ejl fubjccfiv^ in 
pijSo : Diviiu iutem aciit noa ejt motia , nee muutio , licet aufet motum (^ muu- 

7. But they much infift on that before intimated, that if it be no wrong to 
Gads limpticity to have diverfity or multiplicity ol imaianent ad^ alcribed to him, 
then it is not any wrong to his immutability to have fuch ads afcribcd to him dc 
novo: Focthereafon will prove alike. But that it is no wrong to GoJ to have 
diverfity of immanent ads afcribcd to him, is evident by i. The ufe of Scripture. 
z. The ufe of all Divines. ?. And the neceflli^ of the thing. 1. I need not 
tell any man that hath read the Bible, that Scripture diltinguifheth o( Gjds at- 
tributes: that it afcrijeth to him Uiderftanding, Will, Memory, (J'c. that it 
fpeiketh nit ot his Love and Hatred, his Approbation and Difallo.vance, his 
Jufticc and Mercy, as being one, not to bediltiniuilhed. 1. And what Divines 
fpeak othcrwife? evenof them that make the boldell enquii ies into G )ds nature, 
ani pal's of it ttie moll conhisn: concuifions, as if they had fee. i the invifible 
M']:fty; I mean the Schoolmen of ail forts: To how little purpjfe weremany 
a Volume i:i "Sent, for the moft part, if it were enough to apprehend in God 
undivilibir- U.iity ? How eiiily on chefe i;roundi might we anfwer all BrAivOM- 
iiHCi, all Taiffcs fjbiime difputes, about G^ds willing fin, his ordci of iiuention, 
ani 'ii his Decrees, his Tilcdion ani Rpirobation, whether abfoluteor condi- 
tio-al, definite or indefinite, and dc rcru^ poljlbilitatc (^ fuiuntienc ab Jitcrn9, 
with many the like ? Itsealie to fay, that all thefe a:e one and the fane thing: 
and the fame is not before or afcer it felf,cir'c, Yet this is not taken for a fatisfadory 



way of difputing. }. Yea h i: not apparent, that there is a nccefliry of fuch ^i* 
ftinguifliing language ? How many fouls would yeu be likely to convcitj and favc^ 
how many lins:o prevent, by telling your Auditory, that in deed and truth it i» 
all one thing in God to Decree a man to falvation, or to decree him to damnation? 
Jts all one to Will that you (hall fin, and that you fliall not fin : that you (hall die 
this day, and that your Neighbour fhall live fourty years longer: Its the fame 
thing, without any true difference, for God to Love you now you believ-e, and to 
Hate you while you were a worker of Iniquity J to be pleafed and difpleafcd, to 
Approve and diflike J His Love to Pcrcr, w^icoh, and his Hatred to fudas, to 
Efiiu was the fame thing, only the efFcfts are not the fame. I fay, how favoury and 
profitable would this doftrinc be ? 

And are there not the fame Reafons for our afcribing to God, the beginning and 
ending of Immanent A As, as the Diverfity of them? Is not one as confident 
with his Immutability, as the other with his fimplicity ? Doth not Scripture a- 
fcribc to God the Inception and ending of Immanent Afts, as well as the Diver- 
fity of them? And istherc not as great a neceiiity of our ufing that language as 
the other? How many fouls were you like to fave by telling them [God Loved 
you as well before you believed, yea before Chrift died for you, as he doth fince l 
God doth Hate you now as much as he did when you were a worker of iniquity, 
and is as much oflended with you fince you believed as he was when you were a 
childe of wrath ! He had the fame thoughts of you when you were blafpheming, 
murdering and committing adultery, as when you repent and pray. God is now 
decreeing to create the world J he is now decreeing to give the Law by Mofes, to 
fave Nod^ by the Ark, Lot out of Sedom : he is now Decreeing that Chriii fhall 
fuffer for us j he now knows all thefe as future : he is no more Reconciled to the 
world by Chrift, or Pleafed in or by his Sufferings and Merits then he was before: 
God knows now that [Chrift is now on the Grofs] or [Chrift is ^not Rifen] is 
a true Propcfition, becaufe he did once know that it is a true Propofition : and he 
ceafeth not to know it :] would this kinde of dcftrioc feem found and edifying? 
Do you ufe to preach thus ? 

But you'le fay. That Gods Knowledge, Will, Power, Goodncfs, Juftice, In- 
finitencfs, his Willing the End and the Means,the futurition of things, and theic 
prefent exiftence, mens falvation or damnation are all divcrfified oneiy as to ex- 
trinficlidenomimtm, and not really : from the variety of objcAs it is, that one aft 
of God is varioufly denominated, 

Anfw.i. But ScotJM with his followers, SireHm, Bafoli(,Trombetale Rcy, Ge- 
t}mtiui,Muyro, Faventinus, and the like, tell us of more then cxtrinfick denomina- 
tions: And if there be in God a Diverfity of Formalities J it may as well be faid, 
that there is an inception and ending of thele Formalities in him. This doth no 
more derogate from the Immutability of God, then the other from his fim- 

1. Have thefe extrinfick Denominations any true Ground in the things deno- 
minated, or not ? If not, it feems they arc all fall".-, and therefore not to be ufcd. 
If they have, then what is it ? The difference of names Ihould fuppofe an equal 
difference in the Things. Ameer Relative difference, fome arc loth to grant. 
If they fhoiild, as they plead for a diverfity of Relations, others may as well plead 
for an Inception and Ceflatign of Relations : (Could they prove Immanent afts 
to be but Relations.) If they lay they are Modi or Entii rationk, or what ever title 
rafh adventurous wits may impofe on them. Hill others will fay as much for their 

F Beginnig 

Beginning and Ending , as ihty do for their DiverfTtyj and that one implid 
no more a Change in God, then the other denieth his Gmplicity. The dcfcribers 
of Extrinfick Denomination that place it between Ew and j\j^j/, make it to fig- 
nifie the order of a thing to the fubjcd which yet it is not in. liut then it is a meet 
Relation which is Denominated j or if any more, it ftiauld be tx parte objccii only 
ia our cafe. 

3. But fuppofc that it be but ameer extrinfick Dcnominationj and have no 
Real! Ground in the thing denominated ; fee what follows : But this much : That 
Gods Knowledge, and Will, and Power, and Jufticc, and Mercy, his Knowing 
me to be Godly or ungodly, his decreeing FcKr to life, znd^udoi to death j his 
loving JjcoA and hating £/(<«, arc all one; his knowing one thing to be future, 
and another not future, is all one: But yet bccaufe of the Diverfity of objcds ic 
is meet and necdfull, that we Denominate cxninfecally Gods ads to be divers: 
and fe to diftinguilli his Intention of the End, from his Elcftion of the M<;ans ; 
his Elcftion from his Reprobation, his Approbation from his difliksj^c. Even 
p3, thcfe ads in God have in themfelrcs no Beginning or End : God did never 
Begin to Love, to Will this or that , to Know (^c. But yec becaufc of the Begin- 
ning and Ending of objcds, it is meet and needfull to Denominate Gods ads 
cxtrinfecally as Beginning and Ending, as the objeds do, and changing with 
them. For here the cafe is the fame as to Gods Immutability, as in the other to 
hisfimplicity. And if this hold, then thofe men that fhould write Voluminous 
Difputes, about tiae Beginning and Ending of Immanent ads, would do as wai- 
rantably as D'Tw//? and others do in writing fo of their diverfity, priority aivi 
pofteriority in nature. Nay is it not much more Jullifiable then many of their 
Volumes ? For from Eternity there was no rcall diverfity of ob/eds to denomi* 
nate Gods Immanent ads from. For that ejfc ccgnittttn vcl volitum, which they'l* 
fiieto, could be no where, h\ii in tHCVtc(*;'vbluntifc7)ivhu: and if there were no 
Diverfity ;» menteDivina at all, then what ground can be imagined of the extrin- 
fick Denominations ^ For example, TOj/^WwCT* /«(;<« being nothin.:, could net 
in them felves differ from eternity : Yet how great a fabrick doth D' Tw//? build 
upon this Propofition, that [the tranfition of things future i Humcro pojfibtlium 
inttumerumfuturorum, being from Eternity, it mull needs have an eternal Caufe 
which can be no other then Gods Will.] Now if there were no fuch tranfition, but 
iu mc}itedmni,2n.\ if there were no fuch notion from Eternity any where elfe, as is 
^Future and Poflible] and fo it mull be imagined to be a.nEnt rationii Divina,\.hcn 
k plainly follows that tber« was no fuch thing asFutuie,diilind from Poflible: for 
in God is nodiftind Immanent ad85(as knowing PoiTibles, and Knowing things 
futurej) and in the things was no diflindion, for they are nothing. 

It feems therefore that upon your own Grounds it isas Juttifiable and ncceflary, 
to Denominate extrinfecally Gods Immanent ads, as having Beginning and End, 
when the objeds have fo, as it is to Denominate them divers from the diverfity 
of the objcd : and that if we made this our ordinary fpeech in voluminous 
Difputesj you could no more blame us for it, then all the exadell School- Divines 
are to be blamed for the ether. 

Moreover, fomemay think, that youdo teach Irfidels todeftroy the Chriftian 
Faith, or teach a man toprove or di(provc wi)at lie will, becaufe Contradidories 
mayconfifl, e.g. If they would prove that [Chrift is not Rifen] thus: That 
which God knoweth to be true, is true : But God Knowcth this Propofition to be 
true [Chrift is not Rifen] Therefore. The minor they prove thus : God did 



once know this Propofitien to be true ; Therefore he doth Co ftill : for there i« no 
Ending of any Immanent ad of God. It will be anfwcred. That this onely 
fhewsaditlerence intheobjedj that it was once true, which now is not : but 
Gods act is the fame by wliich he knowech thefe mutable objcds. Be it fo : (ycc 
whether it be certain and can be proved ftillj is by them doubted;) but is it fit 
for us to Ipeak of this ad as one only ? It feems then , k is all one, in God to 
know a Propoluion to be True, and to know it to be falfe. For the fore-faid Pro- 
poficion [Chiift isnot Rilcn] was True one day, and Falfe the next j and God 
knew both. You'le fay, It is all one in God to Kbow that to be True which is 
True, and that tobe Falfe which is Falfe : but in both he knows Ferd, ctfi von 
verum. But then you mult tell us further, what it is for God to Know [rraO*-] 
Is it the Congruency of his Knowledge to the Objcd, which we call the Ti;uth 
of it? 1 think you will fay fo : Andiffo, then it is not obvious to (hew how 
there was fuch a Congruence from Eternity, when there was Nothing but God ; 
and fo no other objcd for his knowledge to agree to; For in God they were all 
but one, ehhtv in cjfe cognito, orejfevoUtO; for in him is no reall diverfity : and 
out of him, or inthcmlelves they were not at all ; and therefore if God knew all 
things as many or divers, when they were not at all , and as exiflcnt, when they 
didnotcxift, where is the Congruence of the ad with the objed? But all this ar- 
guing is but light. 

But they further argue thus : Gods Immanent ads, which we are fpcaking of, 
are not Himfclf : and therefore as they may be either divcrlified or multiplied with- 
out his Divilion or Compofition, fo they may begin or end without his Mutation. 
The antecedent they prove by that common Argument: Thefe Immanent ads 
about the Creature, are Free ; God Freely Willeth the exiftence of this worm oc 
pile of grafs : he fo Willed it that he could have not willed it, or nillcd it. But 
his own Being is neceffary, and cannot but be: Therefore, (^c. It feems hard 
to fay, that God did as neceflarily Will the pardoning of your (ins, as he is nc- 
celfarily God : Or that he could no more have Willed ©ne pile of grafs more or 
lelfc on the earth, or one fand moreor Icfleon the Sea-(hore, or one day more or 
lefle to any mans life, then he could ceafe to be God. This is a lliort way of an- 
fwering Scwrovif josqueltion, and of anfweringthc prefumpcuous en^^uiry, Whe- 
ther God could have made any thing better, and a thoufand more ? Itjir.c Cttsnt 
ipfumNumenptoconliringhar ? Is it a good Argument ? Dcuaefij ergonce^e eft 
Crtituris t^e, iiecplures, necpiuciora, ntc prius, rut pofierius, &c ? One of my 
Rabbi's (by whofe name I have acquainted Mr.I(|. with luy ignorance) anfwereth 
that Gois Decrees are Free, Solum per termtTUtionem ai extriineum, feu in quantun 
f'olitio 'Dei, circa ebje^am aliqu«iextrinfccumpri£iiceell. But this is aj much as 
to fay, No Immanent ad is Free ; For Im-panent ads (at leall if Mr.I^ know) 
are not terminated in any thing without : Or if a man ihould fay, that thofe thac 
havcan cxtrinGck objed, are objedively terminated in fomething exainficki 
yet this feems none of the Authours fenfe (as the word fra^ici Ihews :) and if ic 
were (as perhaps it is) his words would run thus : [Gods Decrees are free, oncly 
as they are fuch and fuch Decrees about fuch objedj :] which would but yield tiic 
caufe, thac as fuch Decrees they are not the fame formally with the divine EOencc. 
And were it not for the Connoration of the Objed, it were no Decree, nor to 
bccalledjbut limply Gods ElVence. I am lure Di.Twijfe will be fully and earneit- 
ly enough for thofe that maintain the liberty of the Divine Decrees which we now 
mcmion : and therefore I fuppofc Mr.I^ will be of the fame mindc. 

fa And 


And that there is not fuch dear Evidence in this cafe, as ts embolden men to 
fuch confident Concliifions, or to build fo much on them, as lomc do, let Suare:^ 
pcr^kxtd Dufuic Mcuph.DiJp-iO. Scci.9. teltifie , f^omoio cum dtvin,i libirtitc 
ftet ImmutiibilitM i Where atter the producing of many opinions, and the Argu- 
ments and Anfwers, he concludes, Exhif qujecircahit opimoncs didafunt, (jxis (ut 
cpinor) deiUritum cfiqumti jit hujua opivionii diijiculiwi i fucUtufque cjjc qunnltbet 
ejus pirtem tmpugnare, qium aliquum probe itfendere, aut cxpliure. 'i^Jtprepter non 
verc9r Confitcri nihil meinvenire qued mihi futisfdcut, nifi hoc folum, in hujufmodi rtbua 
id de Deo e(}e crcdendum, quod incffubtlicjiupcrjcctiom magis fit confchtaueum, quodqitc 
4.bomnitmpcrfcciionealicnumJit,Sic.'] And bow unccrtdin aremen, that lome of 
tbofe things may not conlift with i he Divine PertcftionjWhich yet they confidently 
afiiim to be inconfiftent with it? If icbcapoint that is fo fane pait the reach of 
SuATC^ and many other fuch fubcil Difputcrs, I think Mr. f^. fhould not 
pretend tofo full an infight into it, which may railehim to that confidence which 
is here exprelled j much Icflc flvould he think it fo obvious to the unJcrflandin^s 
of hisinferiours. 

How light fo ever Dr.rw//? make of ihem, certainly they are accounted no chil- 
dren among the mod learned of their fide, who do teach, That there may be lo far 
a Beginning and Ceafin^ of Gods Immanent ads, which have a mutable objeft, 
without aay change in God himfclf, aithat they may have anew tranlition to 
theobjeft, and fo God may Will that which before he Willed nor, though yit it 
be all by one limple aft. Of this minde is Penottua, Ljchctta, Fr. a Sunki CUra 
And the faid SiaStj. QUm citeth others as countenancing his Dodrinc. But 
though there are but few for this opinion, yet for the formal diitindioiv of Gods 
Immanent ads (which as is faid, fcems te be asinconliflcnt with his hmplicity, 
as this with his Immutabil ty) there are many and that of the moft Learned : 
Fid. qux habet Siotui in [ent. /.i. 4zy?.8. =^.3. (it d'lji.i.'i^.^. (^7. ^'dili.in. (^ 
psjftm. And Rai.: faith, ihu Scoti fcntentiumabejtudiebu4 tmvcrfu Punenfis SchoU 
femper amplcxitifncrit , necnon (3' Lovar.icnfis atquc Bononievfts Acadctnij j Etinluni- 
verfa ItalU apud omnes vivos docios eft celcbrii c/ fumofa. ItiCtntr ^. And their 
ReaCons are not contemptible, which may be fccn in their feveral Writers : Spe- 
cially in thofe that have wrote whole books of the Formalities. Oi Rudu (a man 
of a clear underltandingandcxprefTion) will afford you many in that on* Coiitr. 
4. whichare worthy confideraiien. And if T h F abcr F avcrtiKia his rcconciWng 
Interpretation of their Diftindion Rationii Rutiocvuta, will prove their fcnfe, 
then many of the Thomifts are alio of tke fame minde. r/d.Favcntin, TraH defor^ 

I do not mean by this Argument to conclude that there w«/i be (or in all cafes 
may be) an Inception or Cellation of thofe Ads which admit of a formal Diitin- 
dion : But only thus, that if a formal Diltindion be confiiient with the Divine 
limplicity, then an Inception and Ccflation of fome fuch formalities (or ads, 
quoad formales diffcrcntia/s) may feem confident with Gods Immutability : (And 
I know no other Argument of moment then left, if that be folvcd.) What thefe 
formalities are, I do not wonder, Jf they 'j,ive but a dark account : Yet that they 
aredifferentobjcdlve conceptions they agree. And as Kadi faith, <:i 'DiftinSliO' 
lum formulem duo requiruntur. Alicrum e(i,qttodutrumquc diftin^ionif cxtrcmum di- 
cax iltquid Fojitivum in re, fcdufa opcratione [ntcUctfui : Altcrum ejt,qi(od utrumque 
extrcmumdicatproprtamformalitatem, fauudum qaam fit in rcrum natura extra fuam 
^Hf/am^ And Scotus himfeif faith of this as applied 10 God i ^^d Forma in crea^ 



turUhahttiliquidmfcrftF.mu, fcilket quod eji Fcma infomJvs aliquiJj fy' Fdrs 
fompcfiii: all quid ai&m hihct quod von cfl mperfeSltc-nis, (cd confcquhur am fecundum 
fuamrdti6vcmej[evt)aUmjwcftrmakm, fcilica, quod ipfa fit quo aliqnid eft tale, c. gs 
fapientiainnchhcft Jccidais, hoc (ft imfcrfiBionk : (cd quod tpfj fit quo diquid eft /i- 
picns, hoc voneft imper/tclmis, fed ejj'evtialisrdtionif fupicvtia. Indivivii autcm nihil 
eft forma, (ccu-ndum tUim dupliccm ratiovcm impcrfccfionis , quia nee Informavs, vee 
pan : c3 tamcu ibi (aptentta in quantum eft quo illud in quo ipfa eft, eft faptctti, (ir hoc r.on 
per aliquam comptfiiionem^Sic. Sent. \ . dift. 8.^9 . 

Some think yet dearer Arguments might be fctcht from the Hypoftatical Uni- 
on, from the Afts of generaiion andTpirationj cr LevCj whereby the Son is be- 
gotten of the Father, anei the holy Ghoft pvocecdtth ficm the Father and the 
Son, and from the diflirdion of Perfonsinthe Trinity. But I will ftcp here 
(as having run further then I intended) Icfl you fhould mif-intcrpvet me, and 
thinkj that I own all thefe Arguments that I touch upon. 1 know v\ hat DTwjf 
againft TcNao/wjhathfaid to ojte or two of them, and what the Schoolmen com- 
monly fay to the fame I mention thcfe only to fliew that a full or clear foluti- 
on of thcl'e doubts is not aifo facile and obvious, as you fetm to ima- 

I muft again intreat you, and every ingenious Reader, tofaflcnno opinion on 
me, but what I own, at leaft none which 1 difdaim. 1 f I muft be of one fide in 
thisControveifie, I will bcof Mr.f(,cnrfij/j fide, and fay, that Gcd hath but one 
aft immanent, and that is Eternal. But my thoughts are, that we know not 
what we talk of when we fpeak thus, and therefore I will not be of any fide in 

I think, I. That God hath no Aft at all in proper fpeech : but both Afting, 
and Undcrftanding, and Willing are by a veiy, very, very low remote Analogy 
akribed to him. 

X. Yet I am ready to think, that as we are fain for our own underftanding, to 
fpejkof God as Afting, Undcrltanding, Willing, Loving, ^c. and alio for ouir 
own underllandingtodiilinguillihis Pcrfcfticns, Properties, Afts, (^c. which 
are but ore, lo may and mufi we as much fpcak of feme of bis Afts, as begin- 
ning and ending (which yet pethaysdo not in themfelves :) Forthc Reafon and 
Neceflity feemsto bethe fame. For bccaufe the word [Knowle^'s^e or Under- 
ftanding] is firft ufed and applied to mans aft of Knowledge, and fTgnifieth firil 
only fuch a Knowledge as isdiveifified by objects 5 jrea and man can have no pro- 
per pcfitive Conception of a Knowledge which is not diveillfied by the diverfity of 
Objcfts (but onely a Negative Conception j) therefore it is that we are forced 
to fpeak of Gods Knowledge (and fo of his Will and other Afts) as divers or di- 
ftinft : as Divines generally do. And en the fame Grounds, as man hath no 
pcfitive Conception of any Knowledge or Will, about mutable cbjcfts, which is 
not varied with thefe cbjcftj, as to the Being, Beginning and Ending, therefore 
we muif as neceflarily denominate Gods afts about fuch objtfts, as Beginning and 
Ending, as we muft denominate them Divers. And fo we may weil fay, God 
willed from Eternity the futurition of the worlds Creation, and Chrifts Dcathj 
O-'C' But now he doth not will their futuriticn, but their preterition : and that he 
Lovethnow (asbelieveis in Chiifl) thofe whom he before Hated as Workcis of 
Iniquity} and that he is fatisficd and wcll-pleafed in his Son, and his Sacrifice, 
who was not fo before. Me thinks Mr. I^. fhculd think this language as fit for the 
mouths and pens of Divines, as the former, and not to be blamed or accufcd as 

F i erroBCcuSj 

erroneous^ b/ciufc improper, tslongajwc mad fpeak impropctly of God, »r 
not at all. And I am lure chat Scripiarcl'pcaki ot GoJ in thii language, afcri- 
bing to him Immincnc adj, ai new or ai ccafing, aai as moved by cxceiiouc cau- 
fci : Therefore this wayot ipeakiug is n^t unfi: or intolerable. 

TheSummeof alltbatl fay ihercfoicis but this, That we cannot conceive of 
Gods Immanent ads, as in themfclves ihey a:e (nor are they truely the fame 
things that we conceive of, when we apply the fcveral denominations to them:) 
and therefore we mu^ conceive of themby Refemblance to the Ads of Man fo 
denominated, ftill acknowledging the Impropriety of the terms, and dilclaiming 
all thole luiperfcdioni which in man they do exprefs. 

But becauleM..!^. hath rpoken lb much CO this point already, its like he will 
take it ill if I takcuono:iccof it. I will therefore a little infill on the confide- 
ration of what he faith on it, to Mr.Gwiw/s, pag.9j,94. (butbriedy, as being 
not te me.) 

§. 6. 

Mr. K. Tp H« is fucb i Rcifon as mojl «/ your Difcipks nceieiyour fivour to ruie i 
X, Logicli LcHure to them, tbit they might be in x CXficny to give their 
^uigcments onit : Tounot hiving been pleafei to do it, I will for encc grutijie them 
withaCijlof mj oli O^^^j '<">^ h9ii» fuppofing my felf igitn in my Deins Chiir, I 
gravely beginthm. Thit Univocum « tbit which is attributed to feverd things tucord- 
ing to ibefime I^me, aui ^iture fignifiei by thit mme ; as Animxl to a Mm dni an 
A[fe, torvhichareoppofed ontbeonehini JE:^a\vociim, rcbich it attribute i according to 
the fame Name, but not(iguifying the fane l^juure, as Canis rvbich is [aid of a Starre^ 
a Beijl, and a Fiji) : cither hath the fime nine Canis, but their natures arc as difcr^ 
CHt if Heaven, EirthandlV^ter. On the other hand Anaio^um, which is attributci 
according totbc fxme t^ime, and iS ftinifying the i^mz H.aiure j but not in tbc lilie man- 
ner. 'l{jw this fame Analogum is of two forts i The terms are promifcuo:tjly lumbled 
together by the Logicknottgcrs, butletthatbe, i. Proportionis ; whentbefane Hamt 
is gtventothtngsoftheL'xke, butnottbeium t^jtarc: as Laughing, &c. z. Accri- 
bu:ionis : where the fame Hame is given to divers tbmgt, according to the fam* Afi- 
turc : but this fame Mature doth not agree to them alike ; but to the one fir ji, to the other 
afterwards, fecundum prius & potf erins ; yea to the later dependantlj oh the firft t as 
SubjUrueand Accident are each of them Ens, a thing, &c. 

§. 6. 

5^ B. fj Old a little, i. The firft part of your task, you have competently per- 
n formed, viX' to acquaint us of the lower O bs of your ancient Dig- 
nity : Our dillance is fo great fio.n the Superioar Planets, tna: we might never 
have heard of your Deans Chair, had you not happily here informed us : But I 
hope yo'J had a more noble Imploimen: in your Dians Chair, then, this poor, 
common,Inferiour work, to tell men of Unijocuma^iuivocum (^Anilogum,i\yi to di- 
i^inyuiih AnilogumTropirtionis (^ Attributionis : But though I had not the happi- 
nefs to be educated at your feet, yet in this your Learned, Elaborate, Polemical 
writing, I may, no doubt, exped the beft of your Judgement i and may conje- 
dare what you were v/ont to readc to yoar P jptls by that which you here fo grave 
Ijf read to lii.^ooiwin. Firft, you will not, ic fecms [jumble chc terms fo pro. 


inifcuoufly astheLogickmorgtrsdo :] But, when thefe words had railed my 
cxpcAationJ of fom-e more exquifite dilhibution then ordinary, or at leaft of more 
apttcrmSj I am put off with the old diftinftion, not only common in the School- 
men, but in the mnltitudes of Logick and Metaphyflck Writeis, which I had 
thought you had difdained ; Not the imalleft Scvgucrdim but hath it j (onely he, 
with many others term it, but Barbarous j whereas I(.cc^crw<in terms it Jpfipid , and 
Burger (dtaut inept :) And 2^Mfgfr/;»5 faith, that Amlogorum nomine (olum ex di- 
suntur qua fccundum profortioncm apud AriftotcUm vocantur, freut r.otun intcrprctcs ex 
cap.\6. pcjl c.i^.maximeverdcxc.6. i. Ethic &c. tifxs tumen Latina Scbolx (^ 
Fbilofopborum obtinu7t,ut cUsm ca qua fccundum attribuUcncm vccavtur avalogorum no- 
mine cetifcaniur. 

But though your Diftinftion be very ordinary, I confcfTe there is more then 
ordinary in your Explication of the members: But it is of fuch a nature, as 
makes me begin to abate the apprehenlions of my infelicity, in that I had never 
the happincfs to be your Auditor, and to have Learned Logick at your feet. You: 
uinalogumtngemro, is that [which is attributed according to the fame name, and 
as fignifying the /awe NdtMre, but not in the like manner.] Your Analogum pro- 
portionif, is [when the fame name is givLn to things of the Lfie, but rjct the ftmt 
nature.'] Analegum in Gcmre, is of ihcfjtnen^tu-x, as well as Name. Analogum 
Proportionif, is nor the fame Mature, but ihc LUiC. And fo the nature of the Gc7iUs 
is not in the i'pccfcr: Nay they are contrary one to the other : and onely the later 
member ( Analogum Attributi07iis) remi'ix\$ an Analogum, sndtich Species receives 
not the definition of the C^enw. If this be the Dodrine which ycu fo [Gravely 
deliver from your Deans Chair, I will fay as you do [I cannot perfwade my fclf 
to leave my old Dodors to follow You. ] I will even turn to poor l^ecl^jrman, 
Burgerjdiciui, Suare^ again j yea to a Kwgerfim, ^acchaw, GorUta, Scrguerdim, 
Alftedm, or any body that's near me of this generation, before I will iwallow 
what I cannot digef^. 

§. 7. 

Mr-KKlOw if Subfiarce and Accident tc Analoga, becavfe of the depend ance of Ac* 
i\ cidents on the SubjcB, tbenrvhat ever U predicated of God and the Cren" 
ture, muft be predicated Ar.aUgicalij, Iccaufc the creature haib it not but by dcpcvdance 
cnGod, butGodivdcpcrJcntIyfr£nithc(^rcature: Andasthe Being cf the Crc&ture, 
16 derived from ^cd in fieri, avd depends on hm in fsfto cfle j fo quefiionlc^ the 
t^nowledgc of the Creature, is but a beam -from the fewitain of light, vebich it in 
Cody and cannot lovgerfubf ft, thenhevoucbfafcthtoprefcrveit by a continued imdii- 
tion, &c. 

§. 7- 
R.B. !• ¥ Would rather fay that Subftance and Accident are AMUgiti, then 
xAmlogai butycumay ufe your Liberty, and call the tAmloga, Ana- 
legeta. i. 1 fhould think that it is not dircftly ard/lridly [Becaufe ot the de- 
pcndance of Accidents on the Subjcd, that Subfiarce and Accident are Analo- 
gitA: but becaufe of thclmpcrfeft Entity which through this dcpcndance the Ac- 
dcjots have in the more pcifefi Entity of the Subj<ft. 3. l;ijnotihat moft Ge- 

BCrtJl tAndignm, [Ens'] as appHable to G3d a/ii the Creaciirc,that we are now 
in qacftion of. Cu: it is thofc infcriour of [Forc-knowlcdgc , Knowledge, 
Will, Eicdion, 67'<''.] »• Your [Bccaufc] is unfound , and I conceive your 
Confcquence is faU'c, v/^. [then whatfocvcr is predicated of Oad and the Crea- 
ture mul^ be predicated Aualogically] Do yen tbink thai nothing may be I'po- 
ken equivocally of God and the Creature ? If you do, you arc a fingular nran> 
J. I hope you do not think that our knowledge depends on God, as Acci* 
dents on the Subjcd : If you do, then God haih many Accidents indeed, were 
that true ; I had rather fay plainly, ihatGod eftedeth our knowledge (by way of 
joatural CaQfaticn in feme reipe^, and by moralCaufation inoth^r refpeds) as 
tba: which had no Being before, then :o talk of Emanation as a Beam from the 
fountain of Light j confidcring what ill Uie many in thsfc times have made of the 
dodrinc of Emanation. 6, I: feems by your former Conclufion [wbatfoever is 
predicated of God and the Creature, muft be p:edica:ed Analogically] and by 
your prefent predication of [The fountain of Light which is in God] that you 
judge [Light] or [the fountain of Light] to be predicated Analogically of 
God too. Which if voudo, and this alio muft be by Analogy of Attribution, 
thenit Teems Heat, Cold, Gravity, Levity, Dcniity, Rarity, Compofition, 
or what ever is in the Creature may be thus artribu.ed to God. 7. As to the 
point it felt in -^uertion, i. I will not meddle with that old Controverfic, Whe- 
ther Es/ be fpokcn of God and the Creature Univocaliy, iEquivocaily or Analo- 
gically. I have feen what Scottu i'airh for his opinion in Scnt.iAill.iz.tt iUbi. (^ 
s.iiji.^.q I. (^ ;. And what Anth.Anireif ^Meuph.q.i. Meurine.:;^/eM;&. Scot. 
I I. J^.8, p.io8,^v. And^bil Fiber. Fdvemin.Th}fScot.Theorem.9').psg.6$^f 
(^i. Riii, and others fay for it : And whziOccbMi in i.Sera. diji. i.q. 8. And 
guil.Rubio, fay for the NominaU opinion : And wbiz Cijeun laith againft the 
Scotifts. (By which Scotiltsthefenfeof Univocation, ^Equivocation, and Ana- 
logy, is a little more fubtiily opened, then M' !(,. doth out of his Deans Chair.) 
BjtthcQueftion thati ipeakto, is onely bow farre Intelligere, VcUc and Jgere, 
may be Attributed to God. z. And for the diftribution of iAmltgi, and the 
fenfeof Analogy, I think, it will be long ere the Chair-men are agreed. !M.(U' 
r;//): out of R.ufc/0 faith, Univocumoppemfoliaquivoce, nonvero AttjUogo, ^ denomi- 
nxtivi : quiiUnivocum jehibet ii aquivxum ftcu: Unum ii Miilu : Unum mum pro- 
friefoliinmultUtpponituf: (ebihet mtem ii Amlognm tsf derominitivum , tam^uitn 
vilruifuperi'Miifui inferior i: ^^iiUmvocumtliuiejl p.irum.iUui eft non purum.- Sou 
pxrum eft am AmUgum, aut Denominitiv-im- HMum fupcrJKS xuum oppor.itur juk in- 
jcrionbta : liique Vnivoium non opponitur tA^ulogo (^ Devomuutn'o ; fed ah 
^Anilogo diiiinguitur unquim Univ9cU'n pur.nn , IS" i 7)enomtnJUivo VnivO' 
cum quiidititivum , feu illud quod eii (^ prJidiatum Vnivocum (^ Univoce prx- 
iiatur O:hersinnume-atee/inj/o^4*with tbeHo'nonywiijditlmft from Sjnonima. 

Gulcnim (who fpeaks largely of it) gives this diltribution, Lcxic-Th:lof.p.ioo. 
I tfiink in fitter terms then MrJ^endal. "^ 

Q^roprii .- ut Bus, bomm, principium,7uuuri, mottcs, Sec' 

Aiuugi I ant y r Attribmonetxntim : ut [inum ii Ardmil i^ weiiU' 

*^ i'lmpropmJ^"''^'"'^- . «.. • i. • • v^ 

' \ Ttinjluifroponionc : Rijus, compantione bomnift (Sf 



But 1 think poor contemptible J^eckermsn and 'Euri(rfiicits have better expi»Ifl« 
edanddiftribured HowcBjrwjiand ^«j/(jg4, then all that ever I had t<he hap to be 
acquainted witt, no: exoepcmg the fubtilkft Scotifts. j. A$ for the application 
hereof to our Queftion, Iftiilaffimj That the thing which the word [Know- 
ledge] is Ipoken of, in Ood, is not only mofe eminently and psrfediy in him 
then the Creature^ but is only in him, and not in the crea:ure at all: And the 
thing which the word Knowledge is fpokcn of, ordoih fignihe in man, is no: at 
aWforinAliter in Gii, bu: there is in him fomerhiag of an Infinite, trant'cendenc 
Excellency above it, which makes it afclcfs j and in God it wou'd be Imperfcdi- 
on : And therefore it may be fai J to be in God eminenter nenfomiJiliter : The word 
[Knowledge] is firft ul'ed to Iignifie the knowledge of man : It is tranfiired to 
prefs to us that Incomprehenfiblepertedion of G:J, which we cannot otherwise 
conceive cf or cxpref*. Yet when eva- we make ufc ot; he term, we cannot by i: 
our felves attain to a conception, p Iriveand true, of any higher thing then fuch 
knowledge as our own, wi;h fome ne^a:iveadii::uns, for removal ct the Imper- 
fections} as that it is Infinite, c>"f fo thac man can have no true pofi:ive Con- 
ception of the Nature ot t'h^t which i^ God we call Knowledge : Only he appre- 
hendeth it to be fomewhat like that which in man is ca. led Knowledge. But Like 
is not the fame. Asg^ef/c?.7»s cut of rijiot.luoiA tJi dvuKzyx non funt cucy.in. 
p.milia Amlogunon [unt cjufJcm gcnerti : non funt euicm gcnerc. It is therefore a 
proper fpeech to lay [Knowlcdije is nor in God] and proper to fay, it is in man : 
But yet it is a nece.'aiy Ipcech to fay [Godknows] bccauic we have no fiuer ex- 
prcflion for thac pj.Kfticnof God, which we lb call. t/Jquin. de Vcrituc »Vjfer. 
x'l* .il^ I. faith, Et qiiii r.iilU Kj.no fignifiiiu per tpfum nomen definit ipfum Vcian, 
mtUum nomcn i nobis impofitum cji propns mmcn qus -, [cd cjl proprie (.ruturx ^ux de- 
fmtur ritioue figmfica^a per nomcn : Et umen ijis nomim quje funt Creitunrum nomitu 
VmttribuuntttT fccundum qued in (^rejturh jlqui fimiliiudo qm nprefentjuur. The 
third Opinion which he there rejecteih is. That Knowledge is attributed to God 
Metaphorically, as Anger is j againil which he oppufcth his fourth, Et ideo ilitir 
dhtndum eft, quod fcientU T>eo ittrihuti figmjicst iltquid quid in Deo c^ ] As if thcie 
might not well conhit ! Evena Metaj^horical expicflTun doth cxpreUe fcmething 
that is in God, though i: exprtfle it bu: Metaphorically. And in '^lu.undecims, 
he hath no better anfwer to the fifth Objediou, which is drawn from l_the great- 
er diltance between G^dandus, then between En.t ^ru/Mm^ now Ekj] then this, 
Ai ^"* Sken?ttm,ixodEnxi^ mnEntiiltquid (ecundum xmlogijLm ceKcmt: quod if- 
fummile^isinsb'Jcei^^iciturEns : ut dicitur in 4. CMeupb. Vnde mc d:ftuutid qux 
cHintcr ereAturjm t^ "Deujn communiutcm xmlqgue Lmpcdinpetcjl. If the Analogy 
bctw/cen GoJs Aifts, Knowledge, Will, and ours, b? no nearer then between E«j 
jCT" van ens, I'u.-e it is not fuch as you imagine, and here esprcfs. And coutn Getiil. 
i:i.c\i. he confclTeth, thjtm ow:/no»x/?ici natfis i/^Ox^iu>irMnJ id tnsdum fiijundt 
im^j^^io in.eniturqux Vcanoncmpctit, qusmiii res figfuu iLjuo ncdt c^^iiacntt 
^CQcoT'Cr.l-it. Now /t/rc,icJre,^J;cVc,a .etcraVs pccpcrV/ fir.ed only to m«ni iir^perfed 
Modeof.Kncw1ig,Wir:ingjA*fi.,vg.anii do a3ord us'no pciiti^c Cer.ceptiin oTany 
oth^T:ro that if wecoulJ dtvife 'qim: f^enja wLjuh did cotuptchendGyds ads_i»-y^^ 
and TBini :)^perfe^i,3iEns docH fubiu a,cc andAccidyBt>Yc: ih#. (juAiVnot bcKnow- 
ledgcorWiU: For thefe a. c the proper names of the (7c»»*/5ipi."r/iii?j«.- As if you 
fhould fay, SubilMtueli A:iide'4s,.\ certain kindc of CoL;i2*t:!Kn;ion at the Crea- 
ture God hathj whofe Natu.-c be:>5g to us u;ikn9vta,tb^ ptcpc; Dj'nviiiiuikivwn 
too^ and therefore Vve arc fain :o cill it bv the prrper nam: of nuns co.nprchenr 

G (Ion, 


fion, i.e. Imclleftion and Science. And all Divines confefs, that as to the or- 
der of knowing, and fo as ro the name wc mul^ fii ft begin with the creature, to 
whom the name is firft appliciblc. So j4quinM contr* Ocntil-l.i.c j J. •^ucxre- 
tus ilifi inDcicognitioncmpfrvcttmui, rcsvtmitntim dc'Dco (^ AliU rtbm diHorum, 
per priiu iji in Vco fetundum fuum modum ; fed ratio nominif per pojlcrtus : unde (^ "*■ 
mivari dicttitr i fuis ctufstif. So Goclaiita Lcxic. Philofofb. dc vAvalog. Duo fujit di- 
[lingucndi i 7iimirumrcs ipfjepcr vomiva Jigmficitt, (^ nomimim tmpcptit. y,d res 
ipfm quod attinct, priutcxdcTDcoprjedtcuvtur, quam de crcaturii. Atq.ie bit propni 
trdocft (y cohvenicritia, quimhibcutcrcdturaai Ticum-, cujus erdtvit ciufa dicuniur 
■uominx Ando'Jce deDco (^ deCrcMurii pndicni. <^od vcro attvict ai uomitmm 
'Ritioncm(^ Impnfitioncmpriui iU uomiKibtcs uppdUu juiriint res trcdU qiiim Vcus. 
'^uircquoddicimia iiulogiceprxdie'rinosiinxdc Dee (s" dc CrcAturii, quiaprius de 
Vco quim dc GrciturU : dc \AvAlogiA rculi fcii (edindntn rem, nQH autem (ccutidum no- 
minis ntioncm intelligcnium cfi. Zincbj' hath :hc fame words, whole they are firft 
I know not. How fi: a fpccch tJ js is, de rhialogiu rexli, I leave to others to judge: 
but all grant that the Name is firft applied to I lie Crcatuic, and ihcncc to God, 
Now all this holds ot meer M.taphorical (xprcfllons. 

To ufe Burgcrfdicius diftiibution, I yield that thefc names applied to God and 
the Creature, aie not Homovymx k Cii(u, (fuch as ^'quinx/s cont GcnJi/.H&z/ap.cxprer- 
leth his meerxquivocaU to be) hm a covfilio. But whether the Rxtio Homojijmi^ 
htinRcbiu, or in vohii , is not colic certainly to determine, 'i^cci^crnun laith, 
^mbigui cxfimilitudine cov.ccptta cfi, cumrcbtutoto gcmre divcrfis, M T)co (^ Crea- 
turif, idemncmcntribuitur ex cognxtioneqiiam mens format. Mimirum intcUccfus »o- 
fier utcffentiiCf opcraticjiefinituscft, itiinJjTiitue Dcirutun i^ attributis concipicndit 
non cjl proportienatiis , atque idcircoinVco mhilconcipit dtnclc, fed oblique tx fimili- 
tudine quidim, (^ imjginc rcifinitx tavquam ohjcBifibi covgruentif. Htuc a nobis Deo 
(^ attributis ejus voces certtt, propria acdinci^c intponi nequrjcrunt, fed ifidircclx tan- 
turn, homovyma, (ycxfimilitudineeiqux7)cui7iobisrepra(eHfaturincrcaturis tanquam 
effe^is, qutercprafcntatiovxlJcimpcrJccfx cjl- Nomc« jchova, i.e cxijlcniif,fibt ip^ 
impofuit Veui, at vos ncid quiJcm dirccJeconapimtcs : reUqnaxutem quje Vco tribuimtts, 
ut mifcriiordtam, ^iijiitixm, 8cc.' cjufmoJi vocthus exprimimm qux dircHe impofitx funt 
virtutibuihomimimfignificandis, tndirccfe dutcm ad Veum pertinent, quatcnui nos tiles 
in 'Deo virtutesfimtlitudine exrum qiix in homtntbtu funt virtutum concipimta. Vnde 
von minus pie quatftfcitcCyriUui , inbii qux dc Deo dicuntiir, Maximx fcientia eft Ig- 
Korantiam confiteri : ei?^ Auguftinus, 'Leoi, inquit, magnut cfl , fed fine quantitatc. 
Bonus, fed fine qualitate .• ut vera i nobis magnum fine qiiantitate, benum fine qualitatc 
dircBe dj' plcnd cetuipii cji impojibile, &c. Et Julius Scali-^cr, IS^uUis, ait, vo- 
cibtu tdm pUhe "Deum fignijicimm , quam its quje Jgurantixm nojiram prx- 

But fuppofc it be granted, that the Kxtio Homo7iymia is not only j« nobis, fed in^ 
rcbui, thequcftion will remain, Whether it be ob inaquxUm generis attributionem, or 
on\y ob fimilitudinem , vclmutuxmrcrumadfeinviccmbxbitudincm? and fo be Tro- 
pical ?• Mr. I^. aflertcth the former ( under the name of Analogy of Attribu- 
tion.) The Scotifts have long dcfcrMled their Dodors Aflertion, that Den lion 
eJiJngenere. t^id.V ah.Viyemin. Phyf. Scot.Theorcm, q6. his Vindication againft 
Greg. Arimi7tcnfis and Xacconius : and many others oftbena have done this at lar^e. 
So doth lViclilcff.\n his Trialog. 

And if this bold, then nothing can be attributed to God and the Creature by 
this Analogy, pit intqudcm geiterU attributioum. Yea Aquinas himfelf oft faith, 



Veuivtuefiingenere (is Sxrnantes nota) «"» i.p.q.j.a.f. ci;' i.d.8.q.4.a.i.5'». 6* 
i.cont/jejit.c.z'). though after in j.ic To««tMq.7.a.j. rf^ir/t. Coruedit Vcum efic 
Centre fubilinti<e reductive : which Scotut refuteth. So Ejliut in i^Sem. d. 'J. §. 
10. dcnkth God 10 hcinuUogC7iere. And 5 JrruMW hath no more to fay for it in 
bis Conciliation (fi^.M ) then this, Ejfeingcnere fiat dupliciter : prtmonodout 
pursfubjeciivacontenttiiniUogcncrc: Et fic mgitttr Deume^cingenere. Secundo mo- 
do, utfnncipiamContincnsiflumGc'ntct : Ethoc modoDcmpcr tpproprutionem eft in 
Gcnerefubjlantia. f^id.Gib.)iic\.\.Sait.dift.^ q.i. But this is not for God to be in 
gcwcrc, but for that CrCiw to be in God. 

Ai Burgerfdtciua ia'nh, Omnium lengiffme i Sjnonymis abfunt htmoitymd A df'** 
duxqi ciufam bemojijfmue bibcnt in nobifrpreprius ad lynonymorum lauirxm ncceduntTropu 
ea,M impnmii Anulogaat omnium proxime qua ambtguafunt eb tnitqudlcm attributtouen. 
That thcfe words are not Ipoken of God and the creature uttivoci all of us agree,and 
the Schoolmen have fully evinced. Alfo that they arc not [^oVcn pure aquivcce.svc 
are alio agrecdjand the faiJ Schoolmen have evinced (as particularly ^quin.fn (urn. 
dcVerit.ubi(up. by many Real'ons : And Zinchiiu de HMuta Pe/ borrows many 
of them.) But which of the otlitr kiudes of homonymy they belong tOj is I'hc 
doubt. Mr.I^. thinks that which of all other is the ncarert to fynonymy : I 
think not fo : but rather to the Tropical or Analogical, Itridly fo called, that 
\s,velproptcr [imilitudinem fimplicem, vcl proportionem (if not fome of them, to 
thofe that have the Ratioiicm homonymix in nobU ) ^icchxus faith (5W«ip/;,/. i.c.6.) 
Ego vert maUcmijU>nAnilogiimrifirre ai prsporiiondiUtif Anxlogium , non !MeU' 
phoricam ilUm {quomodo videre attnbuitur oculo (^ mentt) fed propriam, quomodo prin- 
cipiumdtcitur dccordc, (^funhmcniodomwi. So he difclaims Mr. K.'* Analogy of 
Attribution; If the thing be not utterly uncertain to us, who know fo little of 
Gods nature. Bu: that wc may venture on a conjefture, I Ihould ra:her fc: the 
Creature at a greater diftance fio.ii God then they do ; anJ thiik that thefe At- 
tributes arc all Tropical, fomcwhat Metonymical, but moltly Metaphorical. I 
never law (in Jquinat or any other Schoolman that fpokc for it) any cogent Rea- 
fon to prove, iha I utclhgcre, Vclle, Agere, tAmurc, are attributed to God in any 
Oihtt kindcihcn K(minilci,GMidcre,Od;obdberc, Irafci,8cc. Only a gradual dif- 
ference, I eafily acknowledge, v/^. That /nJcI/f^creiT" Tc/Zc having lefl'e Imperfe- 
Sion, have therefore lelTeimprop.iety. And wJio knows not that thire is a wide 
difference of this fort among Mctaphoi s, lome being very near, and lomc fo farrc 
fetcht, as tobe Ca:achrettical Durindutimh {in i.fcnt dift. ^<\. q. a) HuUwn 
nomen ittribuimus Deo nifi ex Crcxturi* ; uon enim ponitnut noraen niji rel quam tntcUi- 
gimtu } (^ quunonintcUigimus eum, mfiexcrcMuris, (jy Ur.tum quantum conduii- 
musexcreMurif, ideonullum nomen inipommus Deo mft ex creuturii, (ff qtiJ.nt:im ii :/Zi, 
c^itXCondudimusconvenireDcoixcreiturii : conjUtautcm quod non omnii nomim qu.t 
attribuimus'Deodicuntur dccotriHjhtiv;(^mi.tdpb6r!ce,&cc. Solum autetn illu uomi- 
m dicuntur de Deo tranjlitive (^ mcupborici quxfi'^nifiaut fpcciiles qu ddiutes rerum 
creMSrum: velperfcSiioncs fecnudum modun creuturii convcmentcm , ut Leo, Agnus, 
Sentirc,S(.c. •^/a resfignifcatuper bac ntmtm non cjl in Deo, fed altqu^ ejm fimiU' 
tudOfUtfortitudo.mJinfuctudo, (^ cognitio fin guUr turn, qu£ in nobis pertinet ad jc:\[um. 
But I would fain fee it proved, That IvteUtgerc , Fc'.'c, Agere, do not as properly 
{\gn\&c perfect tones fecundum modum Qraturii convcnientcm, as fentire doth ? And 
when wefay/cgcrc"j^«^«jat, Huduation is no more proper to the motion of the 
waters, thtn IntcUigerc, Velle, Agere, are to theperfcftions and adion of man, 
or other rational creatures And whereas th 17 fay that the terms are applied to 

G i God 


God, with a Remoiion of the Impel fcdions which thqr imply in us, I anfwer, 
So they msy fay of ihofe lower terms, wliicb they conftlic to be Miraphorical, on- 
ly allowing a gradual difference of irpropriciy. Nor doth it follovr therefore 
cbat iheic i$ notruih in thcfc cxprcfluns of God, or that they arc no helps to our 
knowledge of him, ov means of dcmonlfraticn. For Metaphors are not as pure 
cquivocals : There's lomc cowmon rcalon in the fimilitiidf, though in the hrft 
and proper fcnfe the name be proper to one. When wc lay, Scgctes flu&uam, wc 
ciprefle not only Motion, \v herein both a^rce, but a njotion of the Corn like that 
of the Water. I think, as I faid before, that it is no more proper to call God 
Scitntcm, Volemm, Agintewtt then to call the Firmament. a Nut-fticll, bccaufc 
both fcem to have a convexity or conciviry, or contain fomeihing clfc within, (3'c. 
Ortocall the Simnc Kf^n/e, or a creeping thing, became it moves, and fo do' 
creeping things : or then i' ii proper to call Knowitdgc, Light, or to put Viic9 
ior Inttkigi (as Ml X- c:ils God the fountain of Light before.) The >cripture 
faithjGci if Light: yet I think this wilt becalily confeifed a Metaphor: and I think 
n \% hut Mcuphvr a prufttrquior, to fay. Dew ItacUtgit, Vult, Agit,Sic. And this I 
judge after long coniiJcration of what >4^JMiii hath faid, l-f-i4-4.i.&'^. i^.i. i. 
iff ikhi : and many othei Schoolmen totheiikc pu-po(e. 

Shall I adde one Argument forthe Nega ive (that i: is no: by Analogy'of At- 
tribution, that Knowlcd^ej Will, Power, (s^'c. are attributed to God and the 
Creature J asEtw is to Subftancc and Accident) Ai hominem fpecially ? That 
Knowledge which is "he fame thing with Will and Power, cannot be the one of 
the AnaJociates wi:h our Knowledge winch is not the fame ; in this kinde of A- 
i\^\ooyj ob ir^x!iuikm generii diftribuxjemm : (fuppoling Knowledge to be the Gt- 
KKA Avalogum.) Bur Gods Knowledge is maintained by thofethar I difpute with, 
to be the fame with liii Will and Power) many fay, they differ but dtrwminitione 
extrinfech) Therefore; (ir'c- For the proof of the wj/or, confidcr ; Elfc on the 
fame grounds [Power] might be thus analogically fpokcn of Gods Knowledge 
and mans Power : For where there is no difference in the Thing, there needs to 
be none in the Name, a^ reqirlue from the Nature of thcThing (but only from 
fomeextrinfick refpeft or ufe ) But Power may not Analogically be fpoken de 
Poseflite hiimanj, at (cicntiu.divivii Ergo, Sec. Common realon and ufe of fpeech 
confirms the WJHOr, It fccms therefore to be evident truth, that as it is from fi- 
militude , or feme Tropica! rcfptd, that Gods Immanent afts , have divers 
names, ra'.hc: then one alone : fo is it from the lame rcafon that they have thefe 
particular names, rather then other ; And confequently that thcfe names are not 
jivJLlogiineiiuilis Attr tbutioniiiiuur A communis i bat Anulegi Proportionk, or Tro- 
pical. Dursndud (infent.i.difi.i q.i.) faith, Alix ejl opinio qiix miht vidctur v€- 
rior, viz. quod dtfiinSlio attributorum, fecundum ritioncmntn potejt ftimt, nijipcrcem- 
pjintionmiialiquamrcalem divcrfititem aciu exijfcntcm m crciturisy vcl poJfibiUm. 
^uod prob.i .ficTuffcrefitidiyuonii, iiifi fiifdlfat^viia, licet fit compkuic xb tntd- 
IcHu, eportct timen quod hjbeat fundimentum in re r fed diferentix mtributorum fccutt' 
dnmrttionem Mnpotefihiberc (ujicicns funUmcntum innatuTA divint tbfolute acccptUf 
vifi comparetur ad reilcm dtverfuatem qua in creuurii rfl, vcl cffepotcji, ergo diffcrer.ttA 
Attrihutorumdiviiiorumfecnn.iumritioncm, nonpoteBvcri fumi nifi per compiritioncm 
gdcreatur/K. Major pdtct: rxtieenim, qunmintelleciid format, nifi fundetur aliqualiter 
in rty ficfa eft iff vnn, & c Vtde reltq . 

I will only adde the wor is of Burgcrfdiciiu Metaphyf I. t. f. 8, § . i. fcquunturcit 
(titribuu) qua craturk coMvmiicm pofie diximus , faltem y^ dvaiSo'^laM : qua 


tdmen dvalogkvDv iniff s TXianrihutU, fed in if [mm (f(Bu pre tpcrat'mihui 51.'*- 
rnida cfi. %_am cum attnluta ivfrha. fun, aquc dtque tpfd Da cfatUA, & 
attribute mommumabilia , vulUm kakut itm crcatmii a.v&Ko-)'iajv , mp tt 
fttii cptmUovtltis area ohjcSij. Crcata (^ fiita. Afp'.y this to Iremanent 


§. 8. 
Mt.lC-p3g.94TF Fore ki^wkigeh ^6i avd the (^TCiture be vot mivocally the famet 
A offurclytkcyarer.ct, then is ibh f ere h^v.ovf ledge attrdutcd to Gei 
tmAtheCrcitttrt , either Eqiiiioedlijr cr yinalcgialy : If Equnccal'y , ibc7i hath tbt 
fore- timrvlcdgc of god and the Crature only the fume Nunc : But that is not fo ; for 
God, I hopr,forc-lincwi Off xruly s^ the Creature, and the Craturc may [omettma truly 
fore- knew. So that here if more then a nominal agreement betrvccn Gods and the C^d' 
tures fcrc-k^Gwlcrgc. It remains therefore that this jore \nowledge be attributed ro 
God and the Creature Analogieally : but ii ibis Analogie either of Proportion or jittribu- 
tion f I f of Proportion, ihcn cither God or the Creature it (aid to forc-l[ncw, but cu 
thcr Metaphorteatly or ^ctoiymteally . If only Metaphoricalij j / pray vehicb of tbcrn h 
but (Mctiphoriciliy (aid tojcre- ^wcw ? Not the Creature, &c. jind furcly much IcfS maj 
god be only !Metaphcrical!y (aid to fore- \r.cr0 the(e, and all oiher things thai fjall come t« 
pafinaUJgcs. If only ^Metor.ymic ally, as (ome things arc [aid to be baltby, bceaufc 
they have thefii^fs of fanity m them, (I am told to life the Boyes inftancc in this ca[e) Is 
ciihcr God or ike Crcattire cnly Metovymically [aid to fore fincve ? Not the Creature, &c. 
Not G<rd, for he ts the Author of our fore- l{i\ovf ledge : and therefore though his efjevcc be 
9iot tbefubje^ of bis fore- {mw ledge, icr his fore linotrlcdge an Accidcrd of bis 'liature, 
yetisbejaid to fore linowrvitbout being beholden to any futh poor Trope for it. It rejls 
therefore that fore f{iuwledgc is attributed to God by more then xbii Analogic of Propor- 
cisn, and ccnfcqucrtly iy thjt of Attribution Ncrt> I demand vchieh if the famoCus 
~ Analogatum > Qods jorc-finoitvlcdge, cr the Creatures i ri^c fi ionic JS gods : there be- 
ing infinitely greater Caufc to fct the Cromt en Godsfore^llKorrlcdge, then en that of the 
Creatures, then thercis to fet it on [ubjiatice rather then acerdent. If fo, Sec, then on- 
ward, flf Analogarum per fc pcfitmn lUr pro tamffiori Analogato, fo true fore- 
fi^nowledge mentioned ly it [elf, tnuft alrr,<ycs be eonfirued of the ere l^iiovclcdge Ipf God .• 
andtbereforefore-ftnowledgeiimolt properly attributable to God. And thus being KOVff 
Willing to refign my place, Hxc fufficiam pro nunc. 

§. 8. 
R. 5. f F I had once dene with you, 1 would take heed of dealing with a Chair- 
•^ man again in halle, for your fake : tor I finde I run upon a great difad- 
vantage. For ihe credit of I'uch mens underftandings is fo great with themfclvcs 
atlealt, that they need no Argument, but their bare affirmation 10 carry the 
Caufe. Your fole Argument [jic dico'] doth put me harder to itj then if you 
had many : For what to fay to thiSj I do not well know. Difpiuc againft it, 1 
cannot; and to fet my Negation againlt your affirmationj will not do, till we 
ftand on even ground. 

I. Aquinofde verit. and many another Schoolman (and 24«c^/ out of them) 
might have helpt you to more cogent Arguments, againll meer equivocal deno- 
mination. When you fpcak of Gods fore- knowing, as [trwly] that word [truly] 

G i 1» 


IS either oppofcd to /«^«d and fdlf(, or to improperly: that in God which the 
term [forc-kaowlcdgc] iio:h denote, isTrw/yia him, and him alone, but that 
which the word £forc-l£nowlcdje] doth properly and primarily fignifie, is not 
in God. 

1. 0\x:Rjihbi% (as you call them46<z/r9 with a fmile) do feem to us punies, to 
make a fuller dilliibation then you ; as 1 have before (hewed : and therefore wc 
take yours to be defedive, and confcquently your reafoning void ; I have told you 
of divers that plcafe me better. 

3 How greedily did I rcade on, and follosv you at the heels, to fee how you 
proved that it is not fpokcn of Go; Meraphorically > and when 1 come to the bu. 
iinefle. What's the pi oof ? Why you fay [lurclymuch lell'e may Gjd be onely 
metaphorically faid to foic-know.] You pailc your word on ic ; A'ld this is the 
knotty Argument that I cannot aniwcr, bccauic I am not of .your Itanding in the 
Univeifity : A little more of the Univerdty would have done me no harm (as you 
fay) when I am to deal with this kinde of Argument. 

4- Our Tutor Burgerfdieim told us, I remember, that inateriitropls non minut 
cjl homou/mijslocM, qusm in Metaphora. And therefore Metaphorical and Mitony- 
mical, are no: a fuflicicnt enumeration. 

J. Do not think ever'the worfe of your felf for ufing the Boyes inftance : for 

(as you hare partly falved your credit by intimating that you are above it, fo) 

Aquinof, Scotus, and moft of the Schoolmen that I have read, befides ZAmhiua, 

■and many another of our great Divines, do make ufe of the fame inllancc ; And 

to play with this bigger fort of Boyes, is no fuch difgrace to you. 

6. Here I meet with a thing that runs in the form of a Reafon : [tor he is the 
Au'.hor of our fore-knowledge] therefore he fore- knowcth no: onely Mctonymi- 
caliy. I confelTe the Conclulion is true > bu: I fee not the reafon of the confe- 
quence. As I remember a Metonymy of the effcd is , when the cfticicnc 
is fignified by the name of the cfti.d, either by a Verb, as pillct pro 
tnetuiti or an Adjcdive, amtrspaUidii ot a SubiUntive, as fccluspro fcdcjio (I 
purpofelychoofe the Boyes examples, as beft bekemingme.) Anal liavc heard 
men often call Mr.Nir/;.^uri, VifcolUminium, and the limple Cobler ; And the 
Author of that Comedy, by the name of /gHcrJwiw. I confeile it is a good Ar- 
gument [Heisthe Author of our fore-knowledge , therefore he hath fore-know- 
\e.i.^ccminenter, or fomewhat that is more excellent then fore-knowledge.) But I 
dare not fay, that G jd hath formally in himlelf whatfoever he is the Author of. 
For he is the Author of Nutrition, Augmentation. Comp'ilition, of Sorrow, 
of Fear, of Hell, of Worms, Toads and Vipers. But it was the former (the 
Metaphorical Denomination, and alfo that of Itrift proportion, which lomc di- 
ll inguifh frem the Metaphorical) which I had hoped you would have difprovcd. 
But I mult take what will be had. 

7. You think you plead for the Glory of the Divine Majcfly, when you tell us 
he need not be beholden to a poor Trope. As if we fhould dilpute, whether the 
Sunnedo creepas reptf/ii do ? and I fay, Yes, Metaphorically; and you will 
ftand up for the honour of the Sun, and fay, we debafe it j and that it doth creep 
without being beholden to a poor Trope for it : Or if the (^^dtion were, Whe- 
ther the Sunnc be a Vegetative,or fendtive creature i* and I lay. Yes, Metonymi- 
cally : for it caufeth Vegetation and fenfe. And you will fay. It is Vegetative 
without being beholden to a Trope. What a Patron is he of the honour of man- 
kinde, that will prove that he is a Worm^ a Beaft, Nothirjg, and his life a fha- 



dow, a dream, a\yeavers ftimtle, without being beholden to a poor Trope ! Yet 
arc tbefeunfpcakably neaver^ then the nameiot man and his afts, to God: for 
inter finitum (ff infijiitum nulla eft proportio. ; , , ; ;:.ij 

8. You conclude that the /_'»ic^Ki v4Wi:/ogJ<«w, is Gods fore- knowledge, your 
proof is [Queltionlefs it is lo ;] Asftiongasthe reft. But, when I look tur« 
ther I finde lomewhat likea Realon : [there being Infinitely greater caule to fee 
the Crown on Gods fore- knowlcdgej^'rr.] My dread of Gods moft facred Ma- 
jefty, forbiddeth me tofct on him lucha Crcwnof Vanity. As if the Sun mtsll 
bcihcjamofiui j^iulogatumivtcr Rcptilia, becaufe the Crown of [Creeping] mult 
be fct on its head 1 What if we Aiould yield to you, that the term [Knowledge, 
Will, Adion,(i'c.] bcin-^ fii ft Metaphorically applied to God, that yet it is 
partly Analogical quoad nitsqualcm Generis attributtonem , the term exprefling 
(though impvoperly as to one) a Nature common to both ? It would not yet fol- 
low, that here the more noble fort, even Divine Knowledge, ^c. were the famo- 
fitcs tAnalogatum : For though it be moft excellent and uncxprcflibly glorious in it 
lelf, yet the term agreeing firft with the lower, even humane Knowledge, there- 
fore that is thefamofiui t/Jnalogatutn , as being the thing molt famoufly and noto- 
rioufly meant by that term. It you ask. Whether the Sunne do gliiVcn (as Glow- 
worms, or rotten wood) ov do Rutilare or Candere f It you fay. Yea } yet I think 
the Sunne here isnot the/4MJo/?»j /^?«/o|;jtH»J, though the light which this word 
intendeth be more eminently in the "iim, then in the other things. 

You conclude, thsc [true fore- knowledge mentionrd by it Telt, muft alwayes be 
undcrftoodotthe fore-knovvledc,c of God.] 1$ that i'o indeed ? 

1. Why thcndo the Schoolmen generally acknowledge, thatthe names are all 
firft applicable to the Crcatuie, though the thing be moft excellently in 

2. Then, it fecms, it isno: a ftri(ftly proper fpcech to fay [Man knows, or 
fore- knows, or Wils, oracleth:] for noneof the Howow/mi, are fpokcn of both, 
in ftrid propriety. But it ycu would undeitake to prove, that God may in as ftrift 
propriety be faid to Know, Will or Ad, asman is, there are many that would 
undertake to prove the terms Univocal : which in moft Divines Judge- 
ment, would be to prove, that man is God ; an opinion, which our new 
world in the Moon (m AngUa lunatica) have very confidently imbraced of late 

In a word, Sir, my thoughts of man, and his Ads, Knowing, Willing, arc 
folow, and my thoughts of the Infinite God, fo high, orataloiTe, when I go 
about to have any pofitive, true apprehenfions of his Nature, that I conceive you 
and I can no more tell what that is in Gcd which we call Knowing, Willing, A- 
ding, then my Horle can tell what Realoning or Dilcourfe is ih me, or there- 
abouts. And yet I be'ieve that the Knowledge of God is eternal Life too, vi^,. 
Now (as to the beginning) to know that there is a Gcd, and that there is fome- 
ivhat in Him which mans Knowledge, Will, Goodncfs, Juftice, (ir'c. have fome 
exceeding, low, diftant rekmblanceof, and which we cannot better apprehend 
or exprefs then under fuch notions, and by fuch terms J it being yet in it lelf of 
more unconceivable excellency. And though I know the Schoolmen are confi- 
dent (without proof) ihaSeire, FcUc,Slc. dotxpreisno Imperfedion, but only 
Modal, and therefore may be applied to God (whixh I conjedure will alfo be your 
Argument) yet I do not believe that Allcrtion. Comparatively to lower or equal 
Creatures, it may be faid, that it is notlmperfedion, which they exprefs. Buc 


abfolutcly or comparatively as to Gai, it is Imperfcdjon : Noton'y feme acci-^ 
dcni oz i\[oiM, batthcv\;ry thing exprcft by thsk terms, is Imperfcd: Ehe the 
Creature ilull have fomcching equal :o God, ani fo be G )d. Ani it it were but 
aMjdal Impcitcdioii > yc: when the tcrni doth Itrid'.yanJ properly cxprcfle that 
Impcrfeifl vWoiw i: felf, as well as the Thing, then thi- cerm cannot bs applied to 
God any nearlicr then Tropically. K'lowlcdgeiWill, Aclio:!, ani all the tei'ms 
fiucJtooian, arc fo itriclly ficted to cxprefs the humane Mode, as well aj that 
which you leparace in your ln:elle<S, and call pcrfed, tha: iicanno: b,* applied to 
one without the oihcr, bu; abufivcly or tropically j No more then [cet-pinj^] is 
applicable to the fwifc motion of the Sun, when the term doth intimately liJnific 
the llownefs and Mode of the motion, with the motion it telf. 

Goi forbid that I ihould doubt, whether that in God be Pjrfed, which wc call 
Kiowlcdge, Will, AdioH : Bjc svhat it is that under thefe names of infiarcly 
remote h:nilitude we do expralSjWhat earthly man can tell? Became I believe Gods 
Xmmanen: aAs to be perfctfl, therefore I believe them not to be the lame thin^ thac 
mm apprchendcth under thefe terms. 

Oh that frail man were more acquainted with his Norhingnels '• then would he 
not dare fo to lift up himfelf incompiiiloii with his Maker ! Then would not 
theChriiUan world for Co many hundred years have been filled with 'Quarrels a- 
bout unfearchable Mylleriesj and the great Divines of the Church, be the great 
Dividers of the Church by voluminous contentions, and cenforious, uncharita- 
ble, zealous emulations about Godsfecrcts : They would not have fattened upon 
utter uncertainties, and things unrcvealed, and then have lliled their fancies [the 
Orthodox Dodrine] and reproached or quarrelled with thofc that weredilienters. 
The world would not have been altogether by the ears about things that they 
know no more then a bcall knows what is he loal of man ; fuch as many of the 
Schoolmens writings are, and moft of thoie points in which the Connovcrlies be- 
tween the Arminians andanti-Arminians, thi Jeluites and Dominicans, are ulti- 
mately refolved ; Yea, and your Academ cal Chairs would have been better im- 
ployed r and then God would not have been fo provoked againll them: Nor 
(hould I have n;eded to fear that your Chair is coming down, while I leadc here 
that you are coming down i nor have cauie to falute you fo fadly at your defcent, as 
fearing a future vacancy of your reiigned place. 

§ 9. 
Mr.K. Pag. TSfejM now/<?cw^it:5i/r.Bix:er /iifl!?, tboui,h not tuttfvfjr this Argu- 
i ment) or any other, yetto detnH fomcx9h.ttfrimtheReput/itiimo/-lht 
Condujion, tbit there cm be no nerv Imminent act in Goi, but j.11 ire Eterual. 

§• 9- 

H. 3. np'Ofeign a wrong e»dto amans ipecches, isuhu'lythc way to fatten 
JL on them a falfe ani alien fcnfe. I therefore who a't> better aeq^^n?- 
cd with my own End and meaning then M-.I^. is (as well as ha knows me, by 
looking through his Profpedive Glafs from Cornrvcll to h^UlcrmiiJfuy) thai! better 
acquaint others what was my meaning in the words, which he fattens on. And 
this is the true and plain Analylis of my words. 

Havingalfirmed Jnltifi-C^tion tobe a traniient ad, and tbSt, therefore the In- 


ccption of it argueth no mutation in God, I was forc't to meet with the opinion 
of D' Tw//?, wiio takes it to be an Immanent Ad, and therefore if it ftiould 
begin de novo, it would argue a change in God. (Not fpcaking of that » fort 

Thefc two Conclufions therefore I took as certain) and neceflarjr to be held of 
every knowing Chrilf ian. 

I. That God doth not change. 

z. That God doth not pardon or juftific mea from Eternity j (no nor 
from the time of Chiifti death') and therefore that he doth in time ]uftifie and 
forgifC men, even when they believe. Thefc two Conclulions being Certain and 
neceffary, 1 take the later as alTauhcd by D.TwiJ?-, who thereby would make them 
feem inconliilent. 

His Argument is, Juttification and Rcmiflion are Immanent Afts, therefore 
from Eternity. To this lanfwer, i. Bydenyingthc Antecedent: For I had 
before ihewed, that they are Ti anhcnt ads, and what Tranfient ads they arc. 
2, Having prcmilcd, that no ads arc Immanent in God Pofitively but oncly Ne- 
gatively (as i'cW/cr fpcaks i) I anfwered. That many doubt svhethcr Imma- 
nent ads are any further Eternal then Tranfient ads (which I will open anon 
when we come to ir :) and therefore that this is not a mattei- of fuch Certainty as 
the Propolition oppol'ed is : and thereforcUncertainties muft be reduced to Cer- 
taintiei, and not Cetraimics to Uncertainties: q. d. 1 am fure God doth not 
pardon and JulHfic from Eternity from plain Texts of Scripture : But you are not 
fure that all Immanent ads are Eternal any more then Transient arc j Therefore 
if thefc two Proportions were as inconliftent as yeu imagine, yet I \vould rather 
hold the former, and let go the later, then hold the latter and let go the former. 
Here I fuppofed it objeded, that it is not to be endured that any fliould argue 
God of mutability : but the forefaid Dodrine doth fo : Therefore, dtc To 
which I anfwered, that there is no change in God : and they that do hold this 
opinion, do yet hold it is conliflent with Gods Immutability : and I gave two or 
three fhort touches of their reafoning : If you ask me, whom I mean, I anlwcr, 
ImcznLychctut, Tennottiu,Fran(ifcui n SMllaClsrs, and in part 5"H4rf^ and Bur' 
gcrfiiciut, inthe words which I (hall anon cite in bis Metaphyficks. And mark 
that I do not fay, that thefc plead for the Inception or Ceflation of Immanent 
ads : but that Immanent ads are new as Tranfient arc j that is, not qiiixi (ub- 
ftantiam tHa, but trJinfifionetn in objecfum extnncum. For here it is fuppofed, that 
it is not thofe Immanent ads, whofeobjed is God himfelf, which is fpokc of, but 
only thofe that arc about the Creature i Note alfo, that I never thought of own- 
ing this opinion ; but had ever owned the opinion of the Eternity o^ all Imma- 
nent ads i and fo farrc as the matter is difcernablcj do hold to it Itill : but I take 
the point in Queftion to be paft our reach > and therefone not of fuch Certainty, 
as to encourage us to rejed a plainly revealed truth, upon fuppolic ion of their in- 

After this I returned to my firft Pofuion, and made it my full, final Anfwei', 
that RemiPaon and Juftificacion are Tranfient ads, an.d not Immanent, and 
that in this I had mcft Divines on my fide, though th',y did not ordina- 
rily explain the Nature of this Tranfient Ad : which thereupon I more fully 

Thus, Reader, I have given the true Analyfis of all thefe words abonc Irama- 
cemads, which MrJ^. makes the occafion of bis quarrel vrith mc; and which 

H he 


he Uycthfuch a heavy charge on. And, I think, if I had faid no more to himi 
but oncly given you this true Analyfis, it had been enough to fatisfie the im- 
partial , and Judicious, and to free my words from that Tandy incoherence 
and rennefncfs, which (not underflanding them) he doth faften onthem in his 
charge j and to vindicate my felf from thofc corrupt intentions and errours which 
be intimates. 

§. lO. 

i^r.K. 'Clrjl, faith be , ABs have not tbercJpcH of tbctAijtmSi to its SuhjeSi , but 
It an effect toits uufe : Therefore new Immanent eAclsvciU not in ferre anal' 
terationinGod: Therefore, 8cc. 

To ihk antecedent, I anfveer, that no tASi U properly an cffeH, or relates at fuch »» 
tbeQaufc: the Aci Urxtlkr the Canfality then the cfeSf, at Mr. Baxter may plcafc tg 
learnfrom hk great 'DoHors in the uMctapbyjiciis, whom I thtnfi enough to name in general^ 
though he ufcth to quote them fo exalt ly, as it were the Gbipter and vcrfe. 

R. B.TF I have learning enou'h to underftand your meaning, you endeavour i» 
X thefe words to prove two Conclufions. The firft and principal (and I 
think, the whole fcope of your writing^ is, that I am Ignorant and unlearned. 
The fecond and fubordinate is, that Immanent Afts are certainly Eternal, or thac 
the change of them will inferre a change in God. The firft you prove by my Pc- 
(iantick citing of Jcfe/i/er and Burgcrfdiciua, the Boyes companions, and that as 
if they were Doftors in th^Metaphyficks , and that fo exadly, (^c. which you 
think it enough to name. To this I anfwer, i. Your Argument labours of two 
difeafcs, i. Obfcurity : which may make fome,that know you not, conjc&ure 
that yourdefign was fcacce honeft, which you fo carry under hand by intimations, 
whtn yet it feems the great Caufe of this your undertaking ; For my part, I think 
you would never have mentioned my name here, but to this end. 2. Of Need- 
lefnefs : If youhad ftooped folow as to confult me in this bufinefs, and opened 
to me yourdefign, I could by three lines have faved you the writing of thefe leaves; 
but that's too late : But yet I may prevent your voluminous labour perhaps for the 
future, if Idoityct. Be it known therefore to all men by thefe prefents that I 
R. B. do confefs ray fclf ignorant and unlearned , efpecially compared with 
fuch as Mr. }^, and his ^eiiiia. HabetU confltentcm ream. What need you 
any more Witncflcs ? I hope now you may fave the main labour of your next 

Yet, let me tell you the reafon of my crime, a little more fully. I take'the com- 
mon good to be thebeft. I have about thirty Ttadates of Metaphyficks by me 
(an ill workman, that needs fo many tools) and I value thefe two or .three Com- 
mon ones which I cited before all the reft : and I think fo do the Schools that ufc 
them moft commonly. Nor do I fee any great reafon hitheto to take Mr.I^. for 
3 more learned, authentick , unqueftionable Dodor in the Metaphyficks, then 
Suarex, Scbibkr or 'Burgerfdidua, as highly as I value him above my felf. Nor 
indeed did I ever before this, hear of his name (to my remembrance j) much 
USk of bis MetapbyGcal writings. Buc as foon as ever Mr.I^'s MetaphyHcks come 



to my hands, if I do not bow to them, ey vejiigiitsnti Tbilofopbi Alorire, th en let 
him call me an unreyeicnt fellow. 

Now to your fecond bufinefs: Where, i. I might better have been undcrftood, 
if you had not left, out the fore- Joing words i [by Immanent, they muft needs 
mean Negatively, not Pofitively.] For by thij they chat fee all might have un- 
dcrftood that, X. It i$ Godj ads that I fpeak of, g. And you do out of your 
own brain, affix the Ergo, as if ic were mine, making that an Argument, which 
I there take as prefuppofed. The reft we will come :o anon. 

§. II. 

Wr.K. ''T^Hui when the Jircvffsnnj my hinds, the hating it not the effe^ i hut 
X. the HeM produced inmj hind by the fire. This hat now if tonfticrible 
threcr/iMncr of vffiyes. I JhiU not h»nour my Papers venh the nxme of Suarez /of 
thi4, butrcferremyRcidertifhebeayoungSehoUfi Minotfitiffiedinit, tohis Saihh 
uni Brcrcwood. 

§. II. 
R. B. V^Et again ! You will make men believe that I am grown to fome Repu- 
X tation of Learning, when you think it neceflary to ufe fo 'many words, 
to prove me a frelhman. Is not one word of your mouth enough to blaft the repu- 
tation of luch a puny <* 

§. li. 
Afr. K.rj/«&«r, i. Asitencrufeth, and in order to the higjbejl degree if heat, aid 
C fo it is called Motion, which is nothing elfe but the Terminus in fieri. Or 
1. A stii received into the fubjeH, and [bit is called Pajfion , heating lt\e beating being 
A/s well talfCH ill a PsJJive fenfe as an altive. Or, j . At it is derived from the Agent, 
And fo it is called aSiion ; but this a&ion again U confiderabk trvi manner of rvaycs ; Ei- 
tberlhyfically or Logically. Thyfically, andfo the^atient is thefubjeci of it : the heat 
whichundergoesthefefeveral denominations, being in my band, as rvjs fuppofed. i. Lo- 
gically, andfothisa^ionisbutanextrinjecaldeHominatioH, and the Agent is the fubjcci 
•f if '• 'How tal^e it how you wiU, ABion ii an adjunSlj as denominating the agent, «a 
way an effect ik an aHion, &c. 

R.B. I. •T'He word [EiFeft] is lometime taken for every thing that hath a 
A Being and a Caule, and foevery Adiwn is an Etfci^, as hiving i 
Being dependant on its Caufe: fometimeitis taken more reftrainedly, for that 
only which is permanent after the Adion, oris Eftlded by ir, and fo AcHon is 
not an EflFcft. x. The ufe of yourdiftribudon or dilHnftions to oui Dufinefs 
feems to me fo fmall, as that I know not well to what end you bring tl: -in torih. 
3. The order of your dilHnguilhing I have no great minde to learn. 1 ihouli ra- 
ther have diftinguifhed Logical and Phylical Adion, in the firft place^ had there 
been any ufe for it. 4, Bat your Logical adion we have noihin3 to fay to : N ?r 
^m^^iikdelubfeSto prxdicationis. j. Yet I have no great dcliie of imitanng 

H z you, 


you, in calling th< Agenij the fubjcd ot tb€ «itrinr<c»l dcnorrination [r/^. A- 
dion.] It isyour Phyfical AAion, which is fo denominated: Though of the 
verbal predication [i^/i] I would willingly fay, thac the Agent is the lubjcft. 
6. But it is your Phylical Aftion which we have now to do with : and that not as 
ii is iuTMjcntt, for fo it is PalTionj and not formally Aftion. Whether SctttiA 
©pinion of a Real difference be true orirtot (which yet may have mote faiA for it 
then Tome fuperficial anfwercrs do take notice of) yet formally its like it will be 
oranted, that they are not the fame : And thereujrc you fliould fpcak of Aftion as 
Adion, Ut dicit cgrcftoncm (^ dcpcndentum ab igeute, and not as it fignificih Paf- 
fion, that is, Reception of Adion, and the effedof it : and fo the Patient is not 
tbe fubjed of Adion ; Nor do I believe it a fit fpeech to fay, that Calefadion is 
in your hand, though CAl«r be. But w« niuft bear you further y to how great pur- 
pose we (hall fee. 

§. M- 
M'K. 1. \10vD tdke it kove you voiU, Aclion U an adjunSf, gf denominating the 
i\ Jgent, -no ivay an EfeU, as an ABion. i. ^r dtth it carry 
thatftileinan/ of thejc learned Sophies, commonly quoted by Mr 3iyiicx vpitb fo much 

R.B, I. oAyyoufoI is it an adjund as denominating the Agent, take it how 
v3 I will ? What if I take it, [as it is received into the Subjeft, and 
called Pa flTion] which is your fecond fenfc ? Why faid yeu that your Logical A- 
dion was an extrinfecal denomination of the Agent, if your Phyfical Adion be 
fo too ? When you fccmed by this to difference them ? 2 . I marvel that my Re- 
verence to the'fe Jopi^aihould be the matter of fo many of your lines, ani you 
Ihould think i: nccellary to rehearfe it fo oft : Sure you are jealous that your Read- 
er will be very unobfcrvant of your weighty obfeivations. But, Sir, is not Reve- 
rence a lign of Lowlinefs ? Why then are you offended at it ? You fliould rather 
applaud me, and fay, If 2^ B. do fo much Reverence a Suare^ , a Schibler, a 
Bargcrfdiciua, if he knew me, how much more would he reverence me ! But, to 
deal more plainly with you, the further 1 go in pcrufal of your learned Labours, 
the more I perceive my Reverence to abate. Let any man e-xcept your fclf judge 
by tbe next paffagc, whether you dcferve more reverence then thefe Rabbles and 
Sophies (as you have honourably be- Titled them.) You boldly and tbtly affirm. 
That Adion [is no wayanEfted, as an adion, nor doth it carry that (tile in any 
of thefe learned Sophius, (yc] Either this A iFenion is True or Falfe. If Trire, 
Mr. I^. hath got lijtle : but I am falfc, if this be true. If it be falfc, either Mr.I^. 
knew it to be lo, or he did not. If hcdid, and yet fpoke itjand rhat fo confidently, 
then hemuit pardon mc for Reverencing thefe childi(h Authors before him. If it 
be lalfe and he knew it not,thcn, i.He is one that will fpeak boldly what he knows 
not, and accordingly to be believed, z. And then it fecms he knows not what he 
fuppofcth his Boycsto know, and he looks at as his A.'B.C. I will finde out a 
Tertium to falve his credit as foon as 1 can. If there be no other, I'lc lay it on a 
defed of memory, conjund with a certain audacity,to tell the world in print» that 
thofe things arc not written which he read when he was a boy, and hath fincc 
forgotten.j Let 



Let us try the truth of his Aflertion. I muft rot tell him of feme Schoolmen 
crany other Philofophical Writers, thatcall [aftion] aneftcft, for then he will 
fay, Thofe are not tbs Sophies in Qiiettion : It mult therefore be the very fame 
men. Let i'ffciWer fpeak firft Afft./.i.c.io.nt.J Puvci.p. ^^. ^od ai aHiovem 
rnrnOTtentcm atttvct j dicitur ea Immancns ah tra tnancvdo, quod falicet m agtine maveat, 
Extfiimo tamen earn non efc inteUigcndim Tofitive,fcd Negative. Nam aBto Imminens 
qui talis eji, eft in j^gette, hoc fcrfu, quit wn rratiftt ad Pauem- Iv ipfo autem agente 
wn eji per modum jidpv^i, fed fimplidrcr ad tffum ccmparatur ut ad Caufam. Uiide 
hac Propofnio, HemointcUigitj vcldi^utdt, 7tonefiut adjunSfidcfubjccfo, fed ut Et- 
ic€t} de C aufi : Etpatct: Nam t/Jaio tranfieTts mlliim haht fubje^um, ne quidcm 
ipfumpaticns, ut vifum efl . Ergo ctiam aSiio Immarens a fortiori Jionpoftuljtfubjc^nm. 
Coufcquevtiafirmd eji, quiaa^jo travficmmagii eiicxfubjcffe, tr" magis poftulst fub- 
jtBum, quam Aciio tmmancm . Scd a^ioTravficns incJJ'c A^ionis, vullitmhabuit fab- 
jtSium,8cc. Ergots covfirmatur, quod A cf tout fie , non dictt wr/z egrcjfum k itrtnte 
aSlivA alicujtu agtntis. EgrcjS^tu autem opponitar Tr>\ ci]c in. Et hr>ic rclinquitur gencra- 
tim loqnevdo de aSiiette ut fie, cam nonpo^iuUrc fubjcHim. Neq-, nrim Gcnut debet hubcre 
NaturamrcpugtiavtcmfuTsjpccicbiu, Sec. 

Yet more, that you may be pail doubt of Mr. I^'s Veracity and Ingenuity, lib. 
i.tap.zi. Tit.i^. Art.K CaterumioxeffcS{ia7nbtguaeft,&c. Frimo Proprie Cr* 
Adaquate figvifieat caufatum (pcaalitgr , vcmpc cum convMnto reJpcHu nd cau- 
fam efficientem, &c. Tcinde efeBum fumitur gcneralita (^ per Synccdoihcm jpccid pro 
gevere, quom^do dicitur <r quipelientcr ad Caufatuvi, qusmodo jam Cicero loquebatuTy 
Sic. "^im pi McrcA i" effcHum (ficut(s' Qaufatnm) aliquando {peeialiter accipiuntur i 
froutpgnifeanteffejianst^pcrmanenTpDftacfionem: In quo diStivguuvtur comra effe~ 
dioncmvel aSiionem, velmotum : atque ita aliqui aiuvt ABiouem von cffe cffcHum: 
fed id quo ptodiicitur efc^us. Hie tamen comrmniia Ef elf urn iff Caufitum fumuntur , 
"Eiciturquc id omnc (^'aufatum quod habet ejSe per dependentiam ab diqua Caufa five fit A- 
{{io, five Res per Alfievem facia. ^tqueitactiamKamusinLtgu.l.i.c.^. Hue, in- 
quit, in dociritia EffeSf:, pertinet morns & res mctu fafta, O'c. P'id.ult. 1 1. Et Art. 
3. Ve e-ffcB^o ^eciditer diSio. Nihil autem occurnt hie cxplicandum prater ipcciajia 
nomina eftcttorum 3 qualia (hm cvkpyeia, h><i[y)\fici sDj7n3]}:h'<r(jut.y r^rpa^n (ff "m't- 
ci. Igitur ciicyna hoc loco mini aliud eji qaam \]f>\a J\£iio, Vdmafclib-i dtOrihtd. 
Jid.c.i'). camdefimt, quid fit cfjicax (ff lubjliutialii vatura mctVA. Vc hoc effc^us 
gcnerc, hoc eji, dctASlione, intelhgciidus eji 7/itc t'<i«oa , Ceflantc caufa ccflat cfte- 
dus: EffcHut inquam qui eji iii'ny:-ia. : Qcffante Patre ccjfit, {non Piliui [cd) Gene- 
ratio 7 ilm (Cjjantc Archttccfo ccjfut (mn eicmia fed) xiifctaio. i>;i^yn^, auton 
opus cjipoji tciievcm maner,s, Sec. 'TTf^c^i^ quandoq-, gencratim fignificut cpcratioucm, fi- 
cut iff Latina vex ABionii, &c. Vid retiq. 

So in his Compevd.Philofde Logic.l.t.§.x.c.'.p.i7. Adeffccium tavquam cxcmplam 
ejus pcttntmetKs, (ff res motufn^i' 

And iMcufh. I I.e. I. Tit.ij.n.^io. he faiih, Rcjp. Ejic amhiguitatcm in voce 
creati eniisiOcjtMW ctum Ens quanhquc Aiiitur idfolum quod per ACfio7iem crcativim 
ivcipit cj?c, quod que eji quafi CrcMonis termitmt : Et jk Crcutto von cQ aliquid erect -m: 
^jiandoqucvcro Creatum Ens dicitur omr.e tUxd quod iufcmkiitcr ijt ah Enle mytaXOb 
fivcid fit per modum Aciioni}, five per mocum mfiiclx . . 

peraHtonem. Et Im modo Crcatio cfi quia Crcstum, C4//ows» Metaphyf.DivJn. 
Simile quid eft in vece EfcBi vcl Ejjic'ks: 'Liiituv pijft.p. 524.1n gcntvc caufa- 
enimqumdoqucefelfumproco quod cjl quafi yi^itonis turn eft operation fic*tf^«of, 
Terminw, qMmododoniu,y.^.(Jieff<l{um.Al:qu6:ido vcl cpus S'-cjep^r/^. 

H ^ vcro 



vJrofumituram'nHniusutiicMurefccidmquiiquUi CrMefi, fije id jit per moiun 
Aciionif jeu motus, fijc per moJun reiper mitum fsHx ', Et ficciii-n ipfx ASiioncs di~ 
cuHtur effcHi, Sec. Atquc itxficiu MJlrx AHmhcs (-int effeHut ipfjt (Mien Mn pofittlitU, 
utper iliu iciiones fiiut, &c. 

So lib.t.up. I o. Tit. J . //rt. J .n. 5 1 , J i. lijim iff ipfi ASiancs iicentar cffc^tu frd- 
cife, (^tnfe,quij.hibcntefcdepeHicnssUuttie,Scc. So ;i. 41,41. 67* n. 49, ^Ojj i. 
Etconfirmiiurpcr k:'\{i ii.l.i .Phyf.T .j.o . Vbiait,euniem AHumcjfe Agentit unquin 
iqu9, (^ pitientis unqu.im tn quo, hoc cfljibtbsbctreJpcHum ejfcHi i hic vera hibet 
relpeSlum, idjunHi. 

Again, /.i «.j.r/X i4.n.4i8. Potentuiid fuum Aciumco<npsrMuruteffe({4n OUmi, 
Vade InteUeclto, v.g. e^et effcSliu pucntijt intcUcciivx, Sec. 

Now Ice Mr.f^'sauJicorscontiJer the nex: tim: he afccnJcch his Chair, how 
farce their great Miller is to be credited, aiii with wha: Cau.ions his moft confi- 
dent Aflertions muft be received. L;:c a man fpeak n.ver Co manv Djiftrinal un- 
truths, we may moieftly and handlomly confute them withou: offjnllve lan^uace: 
but when m;n fpeak fuch palpable untruths in matter of fad, I love not to difpucc 
with them, feeing a man hath no anfwer for them, beLeeming their errour, but a 
plain defiicTiturveritwi, which fcems io unhindlome language that ic "is ufually ill 
taken what ever be the caufa. 

Bat let us hear another of the Sophies, u/^. S\xtifL.Metiph.di{p.i^. SeH.io. n. 

8, o^oi fi nomine Effcclut cornpreh:nixmu noufolum rem pradiHum, fed quicquid i 

virtute agentii miitit, fin couixiiifa a^ioncm ejSe x'jquo mjU efc2.im agentlt, cum fit 

dependcns velpotim ipjxmet dependentu ib illo : Ejfeauten Efe^Am, hot Uto modt, non 

rcpu :nit ciu(dititi : quin potius in omnibus aufis quns hiHenus tn^ivimMy CAufdUtas eft 

cffeciuf cjufa, 6cc. 

It were no hard mirter to produce more Reverend Sophies for M:.}^ who ufe 

the fame language and call Adions EtF(;di J but being about 

Vii. Ailing. PiO- fo fmill a mitter, I think it is not worth the labour. In this 

blem. Theolog. much the Reader may perceive to what a lofs of time he may 

part. I. p. Jj. bcleadin reading fu:h C^ntroverdc^, where men leave the 

Things, and fall upon Pirfons and Words, out of an earncft 

defire to findc out fome way to call C3ntempt upon their Brathren. 

§. i+. 

Mr.K.. \7[7Hiitvfitvf}nttobemjre common in horfe-fyir then Pi.'\kSt[oCiz in 
V V A^cn:c,T»!fich with the I^Hicli ofthk hidi'iej dijlinciion, evtry duU 
^iie could tura at their pkxfure, and hold fomctimcs a^rmxtivdy , fometimes negitivcl/. 
So then thus krre little Ufiid to the prejudice ofthxt truth, thxt there » na nea [mtixnent 
del in God f 

§. 14. 

!^B. WOar horfe-fair, and hackaeydiftindion, and dull Jade, arepilages fo 
I profound that I muft pafs them as unanfwerablc by any that hath not at- 
tained to your Degrees. Bitdoubdeft you knew alfo h')>v com nan it is to main- 
tain the Negative on other grounds, and t© fa/, ihit AH iiCjl A^entls, non in A- 
gente : and this is the language that I have hitherto thought fictelt : and your con- 
trary juigemeni alone will fcarce move jne to cbinge. As foe the fafecy of your 



^ondufion, I muft tell yoH, it is no fuch glorious Atchieyement for you to vindi- 
ateit againft cne that never oppofcd or denied it. 

Mr.K. jyUt 2. Though thisjhould be gr Anted ts Afr.Baxtcr to be true in aHs tranfi" 
XJ ent, yet AnimmAnevt dSl is quefiionUfi an AdjmB , avdnot oncly dcnomi- 
natc the ^ gent y but ivhere imt. Fori ink, Jsl^vovoivg or WiUivg a Subftance or 
Occident ? An Accident qucftionlcffe. If an Accidcvt ; In what SubjcH f Out of 
the Agent, you mil fnde no place where it may fet the folcef its feot. Therefore 
it fi in the Agent, And fo an AdjunH : and if (o, (iirc Immanent aSis in God nufi needs 
infer an alteration. For 

R.B.J Confefsyour firft cn-fet (lofuddenj Co cauflefs againft a feigned Ad- 
X verfary) made me fufpcd ycu to be (ome pignaalfjmum animal (as Dr. 
rwT/? cals his Adverfary) but your profccution puts me cut of doubt, i. Had 
you confined thefe fpeeches of yours only to the Creatures Ads, you had faid buc 
a$ many others have done before you : But it is Gods ads that ycu fpeak of^ as 
you afcertain us in your application [and if fo, fure Immanent ads in God muft 
needs inferre an alteration.] But indeed do you believe that God is compounded 
of Subftanceand Accident ? Yea doth the contentious difpofuion fo potently 
carry you on, that you dare fpeak in fuch confident language, as to fay that it is 
[an accident queftionlefs] which ycu attribute to Gcd ? What could forftiut 
have faid more ? I thought you had concurred in opinion with your Brethren, 
that ufe to call Gods Immanent ads, asdiverfified and as diftind ficm his Ef- 
fence, only Exttinfick Denominations ; But it fcemsyou think otherwife (for a 
little time, while your haft doth hurry you that way pfr»J0</ttm7Wf«r*.) 2. If you 
fay, That you meant onely this much [Immanent ads are Accidents inherent in 
man: Therefore they inferre an alteration in God] You might fo eafily fore- 
know that I would deny your Confcquence, that me thinks fo great a Difputant 
ftiould not fo drily have paffcd over the proof. Idonotftick on the ftrangencfs 
of the Condufion it felt, that [Immanent ads in God muft needs inferre an alte- 
ration j] which is againft your felf and all Divines, who maintain that there are 
Immanent ads in God. For I doubt not but your hafte which the deputing itch 
provoked you to, caufed you to put [Immanent ads] for new Immanent ads.] 
3. But itsftrange, that you could bethink ycu of no anfwtr that might be made 
toyourQueftion [If an Accident, in what ^ubjcd ?] when you know it is 
fo common to deny that Inhefion is neceffary to every Accident ; And 
when you know that in this cafe an cjfe ah, or a dependant Egnffe, is affirm- 
ed fufficicnt by fo many. I cited the words of SihihUr to that fenfe even 
now, where he purpofely cppofeth that which ycu aflerted, lib. i.cap.io. Tit.$. 
"• 54}5 5. I will net trouble you torehearfe th(m, it being a Book fo farrc be- 
low you. Now to your Proof. 



MrK. T'Or, J. Though A cl ion a/s .M ion logiaUy confiicrei, hcbutsn exirtnfecal 
*"" Vcnomindtion, mi foonlj deuomimtc the Agent, not inhere tntt, tn mutb 
of Kctltty as there is in all Tranjient ASltons being tu iheTiuient, even PbyfiuUy, or r4- 
ther TdcuphjficiUy confidered ■, yet thefc Imminent iiitons bsvc ihctr Terms too, fjy the 
fdid Sages, dnd tbofe in the yigent j he thit hah a mindc to look '^. '"•y foo^ fi^de tt in 
Suarez, or few Scapula Schiblcr, inihc preitumcnt C Action. Thus then the fir ft 
bolt hdtb done Utile execution agmjt this truth, thit there cuk be no new Immanent 

§. i6. 

R. B. IS this al! the proof that wc have waited for [Immanent aftions have their 
* terms too?] i. Either you mean it of all Immanent ad»,or but of I'omc, if 
bat of for«e,thenit is a learned Argument :[fome Immanent ad$ have their terms: 
Therefore there can be no new Lpmanent a^ks in God.] But I fuppofc you mean 
it of A!l ; But then by [tcrmj] do you mean [objedj] which fometimc are cal- 
led rerffj/n/ ? Ordoyoumean, the form to which the attion tendeth, and which 
by it is produced or induced ? If the firft, then the Terminus of thefc Divine ads 
which we are fpeaking of, ,i$ oft iVithout, (as we ufc to fayj) as when Gjd know- 
eth, Approvethj VVilleth, Loveth the Creature. And therefore fomc few will 
not call thefe Immanent ads, but onely thofe whofe objed is God himfclf. Bac 
I I'uppofe you mean the later, and then, J . You might ealily forefec, that though 
I had yielded all that you fay of the Creatures ads, yet I would deny it of Gods : 
And blame me not for it, if I be leflc bold then you : and if I dare not imagine 
that there is in God either iSWo««i or Terminus ddquem, or eflfed, or form acquired, 
when he KLnows, VVillcth, Approveth or Loveth the Creacur*. I am in hope that 
youbeliere no fuch thin^ your klf, when the difputir»g itch is a little allayed. But 
howevor, could you poflibly think it lo obvious and calic a point as to need no 
proof ? Why have we never a word here to that end, who need fo many ? I love 
not thefc Happy Difputers that can prove that by filencc, vvhich neither thcm- 
fclves nor any other can prove by Argument. If you will flic to your Analogy, 
and fay [There artTermiHidciionum Immiuentium m m»n : Therefore there are 
foinGod] I (hould tell you that you may as wifely fay [There are Accidents, 
EfFeds and Mutations in man : Therefore there arc fuch in God.] At leaft I 
ihould importune you for the pioof of your confequeocc. 4. Bur for the Terms 
of Immanent AdioHS you fay [Thefaid Sa^cs (ay it] and [he that hatha minde 
to look it, may foon Hndc it in S«4rq;, and his Scapuli SchibUr'^ Truly, Sir, I 
have hitherto hinted your faults in Ironies ; but I think it fit co ask you now (i'cc- 
ing it ii not once oc twice, nor a flip of your pen) how you dare put Inch things 
in print, andfe: foU.;bt by honelt Truth-teliing, and leave fuch things on re- 
cord againlt your fcl.f ? You that do»ita«/j/i;rc£ferrc usto ifbibler as ou: ScipuU, 
fure know his Dodiine : oratleali, if you know it not,; yoa ihould not take on 
you to know it, and fay, we may foon finde that in him, which he fo largely and 
purpofelydifputes againft. Kefai:h indeed, that fome Immanent ads have terms, 
as Syllogizing : but that cannot be your meaning : for you well know it will Ao 
nothing to inferre your Concluiion; But doch Aoc i'tfe/Wfr (/.t.c.io. Tir.j.art.j. 



punSf.1,1.) lari^ely dilpute it, that many Immanent a(3;s ha/s no terms, no not 
Viiion or Inrelledion I andanfwer the Objedicns againft him? and conclude 
that ABis utjk lion d kit reJpeHumaiterminumf AndiftBtelledionbaveno Term, 
then Decree, and the reft that we were mentioning in the beginning, can havs 
none in agejite. j. Nay what a great part of the great Philosophers and School- 
Divines do deny, that Immanent afts are true afts ? Scotns takes them to be qua- 
lities, aad not in the predicament of Adion. Soncinus, Ferrxricnjis (and laith 
'ccbibUr Thomijijt frequenter itj ioccnt) deny them to be true iAs. And if fo, then 
Cure they have not the terminos of true afts. 

And I before told you at the beginning of your Difcourfe,that we do not all agree 
with you in your Defcription of an Immanent aft, ifyou mean that it isfuchasis 
not only ncgativelyjbut Poiiiively terminated in the Agent, as your words import : 
You may Ice 5"c/;/i>/fr denying it (when you fliall condefcend to look it in him) in 
Met.L^.s.iQ^Tit.l.n.^i•(^Tit.^.Art.l.n.6^.Bm let this be how it will in man, I do 
very confidently deny that there is any fuch ad in Gad, cither of Knowledge or 
Will, as is either in the predicament of Adion, or hath any Terminus in himfdf, 
further then as himfelf is the objed of any ad. And therefore you ihould firft 
prove, that fuch Ads are in God at all, before you difpute whether they may be ia 
him ie novO' 

f5. 17. 

^f.K./'^OnjidcrwcwJyatfollwj: [Whether aU fuch Imminent dSls are inj more 
K^ etcrtuiltbentrinfientaSit, if much que ji tone d^ piith Mr. Baxter. By vfhom 
Iprsy ? A clear diferenu bctvpcen tbem as between heaven and earth i tranfeiit a Sis as I 
toldjOH but now, being in the Patient, Immanent in the jigent. 

§. '7. 
R. B. I. /^ Happy, too happy wit 1 that hath not onely with Mofcs feen the 
V-/ back parts of God, but hath taken To full a Survey of his Na- 
ture, that it can difcern as clear a difference betwsen his feveral ads, as between 
heaven and earth I I dare not attempt the like furvey ; but I may receive inllru- 
ftrudion from you that have ftirvcy'd it. And what is the difference ? Why 
[tranlient ads are in the Patient, and Immanent in the Agent.] What's the 
proof ? Why it is this [I told you fo but even now.] This may be a Demonftra- 
tion to thofe that are capable of it : but recipiturad modum rccipicntis : with me you 
have loft your Authority, fo farre, that I need another kinde of proof. I will 
rather call it Paft'ion then Adion when it h in Paticnte. Forma dat nomen : and 
Piflion and Adion are not the fame formaliter, whatfoever they may be materially. 
Ufe the names promifcuoully, if there be nodifterence in the things. 

You know the lubtil Sc(J«/fi' fay. That Adion and Paflion are not the fame, 
and that Adion is in the Agent. And I have yet icen no rcafon to prefcrre you 
before Scomj. But I rather lay, that Tranlicnt Ads are <i&<i|;e«te, but neither in 
agcntenccpatiente y as having a Caufe but no Subjed, as 1 have before cxprefled. 
Andyoumay finde inmy SfJpM/j, Met. I. zc. 10. Tit. i.n.<;i. That Omne accidctis 
cjt in aliofenfu Hegxtivo, 8cc. ali3/s loquendo dcgcaerxli cffcntia aoctientis, non ejl ca ta 
Inbxrenio, ft rigorofc loquamur , fed in eo quod id qiod accidens ejl ajicit fubjt-intii'n 
extra cljentialiter, ^vc emu ejfentiam, atit rationern ejus exiJicndQ* Proinde ctji aBto 

1 rigorofe 


rigorofe Icpendo nan inhareai, tjmjnfatU hibet de rjtmedccidentif,quia fubfixmidm af- 
fifit (^ dentmitut extra e[fentiJ.liter. Vnde pond rtjp. ad aj?ump. profjUog. admittcn- 
do quod tAciio Tny.ficns non fit in ^aticnte , loquendo dc iHiene ut fie, iff fab 
cJSe AHionU. ^i^oi igitur A^to tratificns dititar ejfe inpAticnte, id non cjt Intel' 
ligendum formdhcr, fedmstcriilitcr : vcmpeiUi rctqux cji ABiocfiin Tatictue : non 
t4mr: fib form Ji t/^Hiom, fed fub jormilt pjJfionU : Eiidcm tmm res qut ABio cji, 
eflctumPiJfio. Now I hope you arc more accurate in your fpccchcs then to ufc 
to dcuominatc from the mat'.er, rather then the form : and therefore I hope here- 
after you will forbear faying, that Aciio cji in Paticnte, how common foevcr it may 
be. At Icafl remember that you humbled your fclf but even now, to ufe a Hack- 
ney diftindion, with whith etery dull Jade could maintain rhc Negative at their 
pleafuic. And what if I adventured to ufe one Argument, Aclio eji cJictcntU cah- 
lilitof ; Atefficic}itis CaufalitOiS nonc(ltn Patientc :' Ergo, tAcfiovon eft in Pitientc. 
The n^/ori prove by Intallible Authority, vt\. Mr.I^'s, pag.i j6. Forthew/Hor, 
If the Caufality of the Agent were in the Patient, then we might fitly call it F<i- 
tientU CaufditAS. (For the name fhould be fitted to the thing) Jiut that were 
ablurdj Therefore, tT'c. Further, That which is in the Patient it a CuufatHm, 
or t&cCt o(:he Agcm per AHioJiem velCaufulititcm. But Caufality or A<ftion it 
not a Caufatum or efFcft of the Agent per iBioncm vel cMfalitatcm : Therefore that 
which is in the Patient is not Adion or Caufality. The major needs no proof; 
and its meant of every received form. The minor hiih a full demonflration, vi^. 
Mr.I^'s Authority J whodenieth Adion to be an eft'ed. And thofe that be not 
moved with his authority, may obfervf that I here take the word [efftd] in the 
more refirained fenfc as it cxcludeth Caufality or Adion J and therefore that I fay 
[it is not an Effcd per lASionem'] and that is proved fully, in that otherwifc, there 
muft be another Aftion to efFcft this Adion, and fotv infinitum. But I did not 
think to hsve faid any thing on this. All that Mr.I(|. canexpcdwe Ihould grant 
him is, thiz A fiii qunTaJfio ejl in Paticnte : but ftili .<4c?;o travficaj qua AH:o non 
tft inPtaiente, no more then is an Immanent adion. Or if it were, yet the Au- 
tiioriiy of fo many learned gain-faycrs, makes the difterencc feera fcarce fo clear as 
that between heaven and earth. 

Moreover, that which in God we call a Tranfient Aft, is by the Schoolmen in 
grcatefl ciedit, affirmed to be Gods Eflencc only connoting the creaturt-Rf/d/jo to 
V. : fo that befides the creature it fclf (which though Scotai cats Creation, yet is 
lure the efled and not the ad) and beftdes the Relation (which can be no proper 
ad) there remains nothing but Gods eflencc, to be the fubilancc of the Ad which 
we call both Immanent and Tranlient. (^apreolus faith, Nulla Vivivx operatic aut 
aSiio qua formaliier agiiiut opcntur, eft tranfifvj mpaJSum. fie quodin paft'o formaliter 
reitpiatur, cum cjui agere fit c\ua VellciS' Intelligere, qua futit aclioves Immnentes. Scd 
cwccdi poteft quod dimna aSiio dicitur quavdoquetranficns propter refj^ecium rationU ad 
nakm effcHuminCreatura, ut Creatio, Confcrvutie,8cc.L.i-dift.i. q. i- ar/.j. And 
thcThomifts (ist'nh Suare^, !Met.diJp. zq.§.^.) fay. That Non folum Qreatio, 
verum ncque uUa. aHij rcJpcBu illiuA potcjt ejfc Ti^inficns. Where then is Mr.I^s clear 
djffeience ai between heaven and earth ? 

And though I am loth to put my finger into the fire, by meJling with Mr. B^. 
any. further then he invites mc, yet perhaps he may expcd 1 iliould lomewhac. take 
notice what he faith of this point toMr.GooiiwiTi, pag.i 50,1 54. 

1. Wiien he faith, [There are fo many Immutations .in Gods Efi'ence] if 
uaiifienr operations be the fame with his Efl'ence, (ffc, I deny the confequence ; 



becaufe the Terminta or efteft is not the fame with his Eflence, though the aft be. 
TlieEffeft only isMany J the Aft but one. z. To hisfolutionofthe firftQue- 
ftion, where he laith, Itisamylterypaffing all underftanding, that God fliould 
incline the heart to believe and not ad anew, ci/f.] I fay, I believe him for the 
niyfterioufnefs. But as all multiplicity comes from Unity, Co do all temporals 
from that aft which is Eternal. To all Mr. I^'s Inftances the Schoolmeu fay, Ic 
isihecftcft only that is New : In giving the fpirir, faith, raifmg Chrilt,e»;'i;.God 
had no new aft: Yet Goddidit by TeWe , which is his eternal aft and eflence. 
To his anfwcr to the fecond Qucition, I R-eply, M.I^'s Qucftions arc iniipid ani 
fallacious. [Did he Plant faith by making Plants ? Did hemakc me to diiicr by 
making the world ?] For though it was by the fame aft, yet that aft hath divers 
denominations from itsrcfpeft to divers objefts. To [make the world] conno- 
teth a particular objeft, v/^. the world ; and therefore the aft which caufeth you 
to believe,cannot be called [Creating the world] not becaufe the aft is not the 
fame, but becaufe it refpcftcth not the fame objeft. The third Queition belongs 
not to me. To the fourth 1 fay as before : the aft is Gods relle: his l^clle is bis 
Edencc: Therefore Eternal. His Queftions [Whether the world were drowned 
by the fame Aft by which it was made ? &€.'] are anfwered as before : It was by 
the fame Aft, w^. Fellc Divinum i but to be denominated vavionfly according to 
the Variety of objefts which it doth refpeft and connote. Even as i: is the fame 
Aft which is Immanent and Eternal, which in Time is denominated Tranlienc 
from its refpeft to the effsft. 

ButF4g.i$4. I finde hiai citing Mr,^. as faying [Learned men Generally 
acknowledge, that (the aft) is really and formally one and the fame thing with 
his Elfence.] And Mr. l^, faith contrary, that [No man ever aflerted Tranficnc 
afts to be the fame with the Agent] and that [all Tranfient afts be the lame 
with the term, fay all men that meddle with Metaphylicks] and he appeals to any 
Reader that hath but tafted the firlt principles oi Logick. Truly thefc two Di- 
vines arc very contrary : and have bewrayed both of them that which they might 
have concealed with much more credit to their Reading. Yet M'-. G. may inter- 
pret [Generally] with fuch limitations as may bring him off in part : bm Mr.f(,'s 
prefumption and boldnels is intolerable. When a man of fo fraall Radiiig as I 
am, know fo well, that the Metaphyfical Doftors do fome fpeak one way, and 
fome another : as I undertake by quotations now to manifeft when I rtiall under- 
ftand it worth any time and labour. I remember Mr I^*s words in his third Epi. 
ftle of the fufficiency of [a pair of Sheers and a met-yard.] But it is not fofarre 
fufficicnt without more Reading, as to encourage a tender confcienc'c man, to 
avcrre untruths fo confidently, that iHo mav ever aj?ertcd. Sec."] And where he 
faith [TheQueftion is not of the afts of his ^/W, but of his Porv:r, &c.]Kaow- 
cth he not that Dr.r»/y?and the highly honaured Thomifts do make God to work 
per cjfeiitiam, and fay, that his Power is but his Will, called Power in refpeft to 
thecticft which it doth produce ? rJ.A]uin. i.^. i 5.4rM.4". Truly me thinks 
that Mr.I^. doth even to tiie meanly learned expofc himfelf to great difgrace, to 
fay fo boldly, that [all men that meddle with Metaphylicks fay, that all Tranfi- 
ent afts be the fame with the term.] Did he never at leall reade Jco/jfi Co oft af- 
ferting and arguing for the contrary ? Nor any one of bis followers, nor one of 
all the other parties that deny this ? If he had not, yet he fliould have blu(h-d fo 
peremptorily to affirm what he did not know, At leali he lliould have known 
that ^c/?i6/er hath this ConcUiIion, which he largely argues for li" sAHiopes qua 

I i tendwit 


tcndunt ad terminum vcH futa realttcr idem cum termm'] and faith, (^'rf/f/A?7;ow« 4 
Calore f^tcie dtfiiegui. And he there tcls you of Vcuetu*, ^urtoUu, iuirc^ (^ Col- 
IcgCoiiimbric. that lay as he : At leall he that To derides me for citing thd'e puerile 
Authors, fbculd not have dared to Tay All men [that meddle with Mctaphyf.] 
lay as he in this, when both common School-books, and the two molt famous 
Sc6tsof Schoolmen, Scotifts and Thomifts are againft him (as Siurc^ will tell 
him, difpA^ f(r.yn-i- oi Cajct. HifpAlenf.FUndr.CJ' conmuaiter Scotifi Si.c.'] And 
for the taller anl'wcring of Mr.I^'s Queltions before mentioned, 1 defirethe learn- 
ed Reader among others to perulc the forefaid Anfwer of Caprcoltu to Aurcolwi 1 y. 
arguments in l.i.fcia.dijl.i.q.i. a.j. But I mult intrcat you itill to remember thac 
my own opinion is, That adion is not properly afcribvd to God at ail} nay farre 
more Improperly then men will eafily believe : Suarc\ biaiicii iMetiph. dt^.^^. §. 
j.n. 1 1 . maintaineth Gods Immanent &&s,InttlUgcre tff Vt'^t are properly not ads, 
nor to be To called. But of this before. 

Reade airoOiiiC«/- ^cLikr;./, I. w/).!^. §. ij. (hewing that the ad whereby 
God made all things of nothing is Eternal ; andc.6. />. Jij. And Cardin. Co»- 
tirenm de prxdejiinsiionc, ptg. {operum) 606 faith, btmpha ist Vitica AHione, 
quacumtpfiusfublUntUeiidemeji (fttAmeufubjlaHtumiipptllarc Ucet) unties cffc£lm 
prcducit : iu nulla ctUm tempore aut temper ii altqua pirte, iciioncm ejm coNttneri^Scc.^ 
f^id.Aquin.contr.Geut.l i.i.f.gSjj^jjj. 17,18,19, 

And that the Adion is not the fame with thcTermitttu, fee the Arguments of 
Luiovic.aVoli dcConcurfu^art.i. Cip.z, %.6. Jquin. is cited by Capreoiu iai. 
fcnt.dif.i.q.z.d.i. as faying thus, depot.Teiq.i.a.17.^ i^-"- Dci AcitoeU tttcrm 
cum fit ejtu (ubftantu s dicitur autem incipere agcre rathue novi effeaus, qui abaierni 
a^ione confequitur dijpofitionem voluntatii qui traeiltgitur quifi aStidnit princifium in oy- 
dine Ad cffeclum.'] 

1. Bu: the other part of the affigned difference goes down with me no better, 
but much worfe, i. In that be knows, I think, that it is not fuch a commonly 
received opinion [that Immanent adions arc in the Agent] in a Politive Icnfe, 
and not meerly negative, as that he fhould think i: needed no more proof then 
his mentioning. I gave him the oppoiitien of one Sophie, as lie cai$ him, even 
now. 2> And if it were fo in man, I again tell him, thac I will not take bis bare 
word, no nor hisoath, thac it is lo in God. 

But Mr.I^. muft needs know who they be that make queftion of this. What if 
it were but fome private faiBiliars of mine ? Muft Mr.Bj;. needs know their names' 
But I had thought he had been well actjuainted with the dodiine of Lyibetta, 
"TcnnntM and Sxndi CUrl in this Point , Who aflirm, That though the ad in it 
iclf be God himfclfj and fo eternal, yet tlie traniitionof it to fcverai objeds, and 
fo the denomination may be new } and fo that God may to day predcilinatc him 
that before was not predeftinatcd, or Love him that before was not Loved, and 
this without any change in God, Indeed thcfc are the men that I mean. I thought 
with thcfe men of the higher form you had deigned to be familiar: but bccaufe 
you fpeak of tlie matter fo ftrangely, I will come down again to our own form, 
and rehearfc a few words of "Burgerfdicim familiarly known to thofe at your foot- 
fiool. Metaph.l.i. %.i6. E{lcnimtn2)coconcipic}tdMumeaa£iita, qui nihil aliud efi 
quam e^cntia divinx. Hie xSliurcfpiccre pott ji divcrfdob^cSlA creuta, feu, quod eo dent 
redtt, Veicspcriflum aHumtenderepotejiindfjcrfuobjeaa, vcletum non tendcrc: (s* 
turn in ilia tendit,revcra. ea vult ,- Vtxi in objeHa create : Num feractipfum Deus non potefi 
-ittnamart. 2)ecrctdcrgoPiidHoiuv9lvnxti aHum fciUfSt , O'iUtMafiui tendmiam 

fine ipplhaticve dd dkctfd djc^a crcaid. tABtu jpfe liber vcn eft , »«» mi* 
gU quam Dei vel Immcrfita/s , vel %/£urvit!K: fed hbem eft iUim actui appliatio 
ad oljecta .- qua umcn quta Kibil Dec addit cvtU, fcdfolum dencmihatiovem quAvdtw tx- 
tcriiam, fumptamacomoutiencohjecticreatf, tavquam termini fui, vequc eornp^^tioncm 
tfficerepotcft, iiequemutationcm. ^uod a.dco vtrun eft , utexiftimem, fi Vetu deertta. 
relciTidercpojJ'et, illud imperfectionira aUaturam Dee, ven propter rmttationcm Deircto- 
rum, fed propter eaufam mutations, qua aut imprudcntij femper eft aut impctentia. 

^Mijrf^ hath fuch alike pafl'age, which Fr. a Savcta Clara reciting, anlVers this 
Objcdion about Imprudence or Impctency, as T(fnan:e7ifis before him ; Frollcm. 
quart, pi^g.ji. (ed hac ratio ejus eft debilii, iitreete rotavit Pofnanicrfis : Nam tm- 
prudenttavcl incev[iantiav!ttumvoneft, fiquiiprepoftji duolta htnis, primo eUgit mi- 
tm bcmm f^ poftea majut ; iiifi forte ex pajponc vel tmcrc diffleultatis, vel aha niordini- 
taaffcctione id prtvcviat i ut putet dc berw calibattis (^ eoujugii. Deia autcm nullo mo- 
do tbUgatur, nee fifficmluA labor at, fcdexmeralibcralitatc hoc ncn illud eligit: Ergo 
potefidigcrcfincvotaineonftantix. Hac iUe. Vndc Au^^u&. Si Konespradeftinatust 
fatutpradejlinerii. EtAmbrofius (rnf.i.Luc.) NovitVomtntumutarcfcntentiam, 
fi tu nevcrii emendate delictum. Subtilijfmas ctiam Brad wardinus dtat\ banc fentcntiam 
fttum aliquando pulfajfe animum, &c. 

Thus I have given you fome anfwer to your incredulous Qucftion [By whom I 
pray?] But another kinde of anfwer might be given, conceining another fort of 
men, who deny the Aft it felf to be Gods Eflcnce, but fomevvhat that hath no more 
Being then aRelatiouj or a FoimalityjOr Em rationU ratiocinata, or at leaft then a 
modm Entis ; and confequently that as this may be without any composition in God 
(which they prove by the cofifcflion of our own Dcftors) fo may it begin and 
end without Mutation in God. But Tie not oficnd Mr.I^'sears with the names 
of thefc men. 

§. >8. 

Mr.K.^Urelj tratifient ^ Sis there could be none before the Creation, there being no 
^ term of futbAtts, ii6(ub]eBjor them, uvl(f there veere either fomcrvhat 
that was net made, or fomewhat mad* leftre there wa^ a (,'rcution : but u for Immanent 
Acts, 06 l\ncipeirgandJViUingin God, they rt^cre before the foundation of the rvorld tons 
laid. It ii a ury crude parage thus to fay lltiimuibquefiiotitdicvhetber'aH fmh Im- 
nanent Acts arc avy more eternal then trarficnt ^cts ;] For if the meaning he that any 
travfient /!(t be eternal, that if a myftery beyond allihathitb beenheard : then fomevebat 
wta made film eter7uiy .- If the neavtrg he, that no Immanent Act it eterval, that's af- 
ter the (amc rate. The fir ft made the Creature eternal: the fecond denies Gcd to be 
eternal : Did he not lincvp frim Eternity , yea fore- fimre all that hath beenfir.ce the Crea- 
tion, ii cr fhi.ll betotbe dtholution cfthevccrli, he were tat perfect, and therefore mt 
Gcd fern eternity, ^o then neither can u be t^rn ed, that there w^s any tranfent act 
eternal, nor an it Ic denied hut that (erne immanent acts are eternal ; and iffome,iben all, 
cr els a change in Cjod muft of nciejfuy be granted. So that ij the meantng be lltsqtttftie- 
tiediihethcr ((mcimnanent Aits bevomorecternaithen trarfient Acts'] that is, feme 
ittma7,ent Acts he not eternal, tbe Arguntcnt returns tcitbthc eld charge, that an altera^ 
lion muft be yielded in Cod,inimancm Acts being not to be reckoned with any colour among 
ejects, tut ad)urcts, and nognur.d ofptttttng ary fuch new immar,ettt Act tn God in time, 
Kkiib I demon ftrate further tbtis- 
, I 3 §.j^, R.B. 


§. iS. 

R.B.'rHe meaning of my words is no: hidj but according to the proper literal 
•■• fenfc, and I had foTierefped co the two forts of men bctorc-mcntion- 
cd, but chiefly to one. And what I fay in Reply to your wo:ds, you mull be fo 
juft as to take to be accodin^ to their grounds, and no: mine own : For it is 
but the unfearchablencfs of theT: rhinos thi: I aai all this while main- 

Andfirft to your Argumentation againft the Ecerniiy of trandcnt aft?, it may 
b: replied, that inrraniien: aft> you mJlt diftinguilTi between the Ad it felf, 
which is called tranllent, and the Pallion or Reception of that aft in the fubjcft 
ortheproduft, orcffeftof that aft. The denomination of Tnnfient is given to 
thitaft inthe larerrefpeft asi: do:h connote the Pioduft, Effcft, PafTion and 
Subjeft : yea is properly taken to from them, as tha: i: fignific:h nothing effential 
to the Aft it felf as an Aft '. So that all tha: fame Aft which is in Time denomi- 
nated Tranfien:, becaufc in time it did produce its efteft, was really from eter- 
nity it felf, though the eff.-ft were not > and fo differs not quad rMionem formileni 
acius, from an Immanent aft. Proved, i. The Aft by which God created the 
world, was his fimplc l^c'.le: But Gods fimple Tctfe was from Eternity ; Therefore 
^c. The OTijor is indeed denied by fuch Panics as Sehibler, and many more of 
hisminde; but it needs no proof with Mr.I^. for it is the opinion (lam fure the 
faying) of D^Tw//?; And indeed it comes all to one, as to our budnefs, ifyou 
go on the others grounds. The m.f;or, M'.I^. maintains. 2. Deiu operntHr per 
eJ^entUmimmeiute : (eiejScHtiiiivinieJlaterni: Ergo,8cc. The »i4;or is fpo* 
ken exclufively as to all a«ft$ which are not Gods Elfence j and is fo coinmoa with 
many Schoolmen, that I will fpare the proof (for I perceiveits eafier taking ic 
for granted then proving it ) The wiinsr none denieth that confeffcth God. So 
tha: it is granted Mr. J^. tha: thefe afti were not to be called Traniient from E- 
ternity, becaufc they were not received , or rathe: did not produce the effeft 
but in time : But yet the aft which in Time received the denomination of 
Tranfient, was it felf Eternal : God Willed from Eternity that the Creature 
(hould Ba in time,and produced it in that tioae by tha: Will which was Eternal. So 
much on that fide. 

Now to your Argumentation for the Eternity of Immanent afts, you would 
receive two fevcral kiades of Anfwer from the feveral men that I before told 
you of. 

One fort of them think that the Thing it fclfwhichwecall an Aft, is nothing 
but Gods Eflence, and fo Eternal : but that the tranlition of this Aft to feveral 
objefts (as 5"4w3j CUra cals it) or the Application of it to thefe objefts (as 
IBufgeffdicius fpcaks) and fo the connotation of, and refpcft to thefe objefts,is not 
Eternal, where the objeft is not Eternal : and withali they think that the denomi- 
nation fpccifical of the feveral Afti, yea and the diverfification of them, is taken 
from thefe temporal tranfitioni, or applications and refpefts to the objefts j and 
therefore that they muft be ufed as temporal denominations, and it is fitteil to fay, 
God Knew,Lovedj(i7'(;. Peter as exifting, not from Eternity, but when he did cx- 
ili : Yea they think the very name of an Aft, is moft fit to be ufed in this later 
fcnfe s rather then applied to the pure Eflence of God ; however fome call him in 
another knic. i fimplc Aft. 


The other fort of men do thliik, that the v«ry Ai^it fclf is (cn\cM(dus w fcr- 
malitydiftirft from Gods Eflence, and rcay begin without his Mutation, as it 
may be his without his Coirpcfition, as I have before faid. Now both thefe forts 
will Reply, that your Charge of [making God net Eternal] and cf [making al- 
to ation in God] which you oft repeat, are but your bare word without anyp.cof, 
and therefore not by them to be regarded. That God fore- knew all things that 
fliould ccme to pafs they eafily grant Ycu : but if he knew not that to be exiftcnr, 
which is but future, or that to be future which is wholly paii, they fayj :.his makes 
not God to be impcrfeft, or not eternal. 

But 1 marvel that you ftill call Gods Immanent Ads[Adjonds in God]which 
before you alio called Accidents j net fearing heieby to be cuilty of makin<' 
a Compounded God, while ycu maintain him Eternal ; Or rot difcern- 
ing that you give advantage to your Adverfary to maintain, that thofe Ac- 
cidents or Adjuncts which may be in Grd wi:hcut Ccmpcfiticn , may 
as well Beginnc or End noiwithlianding his Immutability, if their Ob- 
](.& be fuch as deth Beeinne or End. Now to your New Dcmcn- 

§. 19- 
MrK. If there be a ground cf puttivg a 'liciv immanent tA^ in Gtd', Ergo, ThU 
* ground muji be cither m God or the Creature. Jf a Ground in God rohicb 
VPat vot before, then an alteration tn him biycnd reply .• a ground in the Creature there ean 
be nonet e put a new immanent /iH jr. God i fcrthatanimmanent A If hath nothing to do 
mth any thing wsthcut the j^gevt, it tevg herein eontradiflipguiJJed from tratfient AeiSt 
ji>jMrdi;/?fw/./4c?Jteiminantur inpallo, immanent tASis\v\3'^tmc. I eonfrj? fome- 
rchat vptihout the Agent, it many tmes, yea eerr.mcnly the objeci ofimmanait ASls ; hut 
if ever either the SubjeS or Term, 1 mUfuhlidily turn my £*o^j, a Mr. Baxter e efircs 
bii maybe, rehen he goes cnc note beyond Pr.l wifs. I am confdevt he reeds not fear 
eomingfohigh : I am fure he fals infinitely fhort in this A rgMmivt, at wtU appear mort 
fully by xvhat kcfubjoyns. 

§ I5>. 
R. B. npHisisthe Dcmonftration. 1 fliall underfland that word, in yctir 
X. mouth, better hereafter. Your horned Argument will be thus ?.n- 
fwered. The woid [Ground] is ambiguous. If you take it largely for any luf- 
ficicnt Rcaicn of the attribution, then there is Ground both in the Creature and 
in God : But if you take it more flriftly for fome one fort of Rcafon, then it may 
be in one and not in the other. The ground may be in the Creature as the Objtft, 
and in God as the efficient : ard in one as the relate, and the other as the correlate. 
But ycu lay [if in Gcd, then an alteration in himj beyond replv ;] that's a pret- 
ty way to prevent a Reply : But your contident AiVtrticns fliall hereafter be annu- 
mtratcd with the weakeft of year Arguments^ though called Demorftraticns. 

I. Some will take it for a fufficient Reply to deny your Confeiqucncc, and think 
you had dealt fairlier to have proved it. For they will think that there may be in 
God an Eternal Ground of a New immanent Aft, as well as there is of a New 
Tranfitntad: The newrefs of the Aft, will net prove the rewncfsof the Ground. 
Andiherefoieyoucalily luppcfcthatitniuft be[agrowid in God which wa-. not 



before] ifths a£t b2 fuch as was na: before Ba: this you (hould have forcfcen 
would be denied. And if you lay, ;lu: the newncis or change in the cfteft 
doth argue fomcchin^ changed or new in the cauici they will deny it i and 
tell you thaL then every tranfien: ad would argue lomcchin^ new in 

2, Thofc (ofwhom I fpoke before) that maintain tkat immanent ads as ad» 
neednolubjcdt, willthink they reply i"ufH:icntly by telling you, that the novity 
ofiaamanentads, having aground in Gad, will only prove that aUqnii Oei vUa 
Z)Cfl is altered, but not that .iU{uiitHDco is altered: became that adion fpeaks 
but a dependant egrcfs, and not an inhelian. The like they will fay as to any 
form introduced in the fubjcdby immmcn: ad>j who deny to many and moll 
immanent ads, atcrmj>i;Mj and particularly to intelledion. And if you think 
that there can be no adion without fome cftcd within or without, I refer you for 
an anfwcr to my i^fipw/^is you conceit him. 

g. Howevermanyofu! will hardly be brought to belcere that Gods imminent 
ads have in proper fenfo a «r»ii««4: though mans may. 

4. Some will think th;y Reply fuiH;iently, by telling you that by [alteration 
In God] you mean, either [an alteration of his elTence] and then they deny 
your confcqucnce : or [an alteration of fome modia, or relation, or formality j] 
and fuch they will gran:; and fay, as oft before, that it is no more againft G ids 
immutability, then the cxiftenceof that moixa, relation, or formality is againll 

f . If when God created th« world, he had a * nc«t 

* yiU confcnt n9t the ReU- relation ( of C.-eatour ) which he had not before, 

tionkonly ex pa.tecrci- and this without change, th:n he miy have a new 

tatxatUnitmutuxH' immanent ad without chingc , for ought you 


6, For Gods ads are not fo well known to fuch M)les and Bats as you and I 
are, that we fliould be able fo peremptory to conclude that the novity of them muft 
needs argue himleif to be mutable : we know not fo well how much Being, oc of 
what kinde, thofe adi have. 

' So much for Reply to that which is paft Reply. Now to the next horn of your 

You fay [A ground in the creature there can be none to put a new immanent 
ad in God.] And why? Becaufe [an immanent ad hath nothing to do with 
any thing without the Agent.] i.How? nothing 1 neither as an occafion, nor 
anobjed? do not youconfefs within a few lines that fomething without maybe 
itsobjed J' It is ordinarily laid, and by fome of your friends, that the Attributes 
and Immanent ads of God are diverfifisd ooly by excrintick denomination j as 
an immoveable rock in the fea thi: is walht fomitime with one wave and fome- 
limc with another, without its own change ; ( It feems thay take the pafllan 
©r reception of thefe motions of the waves, to be no change.) Sododivcr- 
iity of objeds, fay they, diverlifie G ids ads and attributes quoxi denomhutionen 
cxtrinfecxm. If that be fo, then objed* fpecifie thofc ad> quoiiieuomittitionern ex- 
trinfeum, which in themfelves are but one ; andthen the faid obji-di miy as well 
caufe anovity as adiverlity of imninent ad? quoii deni<ninittoncm cxtrinjewn : 
And then there is no more impropriety in faying, God dothie Movi Will or Nill ; 
then in laying, that it is not all one, for G id to Will my lalvation, andtoNiU 
it : fee what you have b:ought your caufe to. z. There are men in the world 


tliat conceive of God, as we do of the fun, thac is ftill fhining, but not ftillflu- 
ning on tbisorthat creaiure : it may begin or ccafc to fhine on this place or that, 
without any change in it felf or its adual (hining ; ibJ fothey think it is with 
God as to fome of his adSjWhich have the creature for their objcds : And for your 
objedion, That thisisa tranfient aft of the tun, I ftiall reply co it anoB, where 
you mention it. 

But you are a^ain harping on your old ftring ; vi^. [ That immanent ads are 
terminated in the Agent.] And I again tell you, that Gods ads and mans are 
not lo near kin, as that you may conclude of the termination of his ads from the 
termination of ouis : yea I tell you, that I will not belcevc you thac Gods willing 
or knowing the creature hath any termtnui in himfelf ( further then as you may fay 
the creature is in himfelf i) that is no terminus ftridly afcribed to adions diftind 
from a meet objedive termination. A word of proof, i. Where there is neither 
MorKfl or mutation there is no termintut But in Gsd ading immanently there is 
neither »JOtjMve/w«W/c; Therefore, (ir'c. I think I need not confirm either pare. 
X. Where there is no etFed or form acquired or introduced, there is no terminta 
( in the fenfe in queftion :) But in God there is no effed or form acquired or in- 
troduced (by fuch immanent ads) Therefore, (ij'c. The w.i;or is plain from the 
common definition of a terminus. The minor is pait «jueftion. 
■ But here you confefs that the objeHs •/ immanent a^s may be extrinficl^ (Yet I 
could tell you, that Viguerius Ittftitut. and others conclude, that yoluntif Divinx 
nonbibet objcSium extrinfecum :) bin if fubjeH or term you will burn your Booki, &c. 
But hold your hand a little. Before I dare be guilty of thac, I would fain know 
what Books they are. But you fpcak cauteloufly : for you tell us not who fhall be 
judge in this bufinefs : and if 1 fliould fhcw you never fo many that are againft 
you, you may keep your word by faying they all miltake, and by being the Judge 
your felf. But, alas Sir, what caufe have you thus to threaten your Books? Who 
can riddle the occafionof it ? I tell you, that as good Philofophcrs ( for ought I 
yet finde by you) as you, do think thac facb ads have no fubjed nor term : and 
you fay, that if any thing cxcrinfick be the fubjed or term you will burn your 
Books', whichif youdo, let all bear witnefsthat I was no oceaGon of ic : If they 
have no fubjed or term at all, then they can have none without. Sure if you 
were not very quarrelfome you would not in fuch high words feign him to 
be your adrcrfary, that faith more againft the oppofcd Point, then your 

As for that out-leap wherewith you recreate your felf, of my coming fo high 
as Dr. rwi/?, in the ienfe I ipoke I yet defire it not j in the fenfe you fpeak 
(luforily) I exped it not : nor do I know any man fo fimple as to compare me 
with him, or that needed this learned Digreflion. Yet I confefs I thought my 
felf fomewhat neerer both Dr. Tw//? and your felf then you fuppofc me to be : For 
though I was ready to obey yourconciufire command, of adoring the footftcpx 
of fuch, yet I thought not that I had come infinitely jhort, as you here inform mc, 
I do. I thought only God hai infinitely excellsd thj meanelt creature. Nay then, 
if you will be needs our Gods, MuminJ Academiea, lam afiaii you will ihortly 
belower thenmen J and Iclf I (hall hear chat news which I equally fear and ab- 
hortc, thac you and fuch like will ere long be calt out of that Academical fara- 
dife. Butlet thac go ; I fuppofe [infinicely] was buc a high word, by a high 
fpirit, qufiabdte, from a high place. I have itood my felf ero now on a moun- 
tain, and every thing in the valley feemcd fmall to me. 

K Buc 


But I forgot to ull you on€ thing : that ( though 1 fuppofe I know what kinde 
of termination you mean, yet) you (hould have fpokcn more cautcloufly, and 
<iiftin£ui(hed, and told your Reader more plainly what you deny > and iiot have 
refolvcd to burn your Booksj if we prove things without the A^cnt re be a term in 
general. ¥or you know that we diftinguifti ot Objedsinio Motive and Tcrmi- 
native i and ordinarily fay that the creatures are terminativc obicds of Gods 
Will, though not moving objefts. CMeuriffc faith {:Maaph}(. Scct.U.i. ^i -. 
pao. 1 17.) Ob]cHum fetmiariua mn potcfl movere intcUcSium diviuun td cognitionem 
[hi, litct pojfit ilium termimre, ut docent Thcologt. And Schibler U.i.c. j tit 1 5 .n ^ 07. 
tlon qua^ putcmM cjfe iliquid quod Acluei qiufi volumatcm divinim, ( quod o^aum altu 
feletejfcobjiHorum, in ordine adbdhituaet p*tentiit,) fed quix apprcbtndimxi V6lun- 
tAtcmDivtvam Tcrminiri Ad diqutd quod biiHcTUU bibct rstjoncm tb]eSli. ESIenimai 
rmonrm tbjccft faiis, fi icrmivci dclum dtquem. And PunH> 1. «. J 10. the affcrtion 
i%J)ci vo!utttis tcmumtur etiam ai res creutM. But enough of that. Now lets fee the 
proof «f our infinite liiftancc. 

§. io. 

Mr. K- r A ^ ^'' ^^'^ " ^""^ '^''^ '^^ "^'■^'^ ^"^^ ^"^ '^'ft •' '^'^^ ^"^* '^ ^^^ ^ z^*- 
/ * iitfied,jufi,&.c. G»ds f»reknovpledge it not a {novfivg tbst fucb a tbin^ it 

vfbiebimct, bMtthitfuchathing mil be vphicb is not: yet doth thU mi\e no change in 

god, nomtrettentbefuH ischixgedby the variety of creaturts tf^mb it doth enligbten 

And rvartn j or the gli([e by the vmety of fices rtbich it reprefenteth, or the eye by the 

viriayofcolourfvobub it btholdeth: (For, whitfcever fonc fty , I do not think tha 

tvery vAriittoa of the object miiies a rcall change in the eye, or thit the btholiing of ten 

difitnH colours at one view iotb make ten dtftinS a£fs of the fight, or alicrttions en it t 

tApb.p. 1 7 } , 1 74.] I cAnnot tell what to maie of this rope, but fatid tt it,tnd nothing elfe, 

at fhnU (irAtt appear; and how ilia tnASi.h tbii jitubour W4r, tbtu to defcend in arenani 

mth T wifle, Pemble, And I dArefty aU tbcfobcr 'Divines that ever wen worthy to^eA^ 

to A Scbiol Point- 

§. to. 

R, B.Q^jinguinolent men do dream of Egbting and killing : It feems you have ac- 
i3cuffomed your minde fo to contending, that through the crrour of your 
pbantafie, all words feem chidings, and all anions feem fightings to you : And 
fo you dreamed not only that I was in ArenA, but ». that Dv.Twijfe and Mr. T. 
were there with me- 3. Yea and all Divines worthy to fpeak to a School Point. 
4. And that we were there coping for mafterics : and in the end of your dteam 
you rife up as Judge and give them the better, and proclaim me an ill much. But 
1. he that reades my Book will finde that I argue not as from my felf, but only 
fhew how other mens argumentations do manifelt fuch a difficulty in the Point, 
that we fhould not lay too grfeat a ffrefs on it j as I have rticwed you before in the 
explicationof my own words. Nay I do not o«ce deny the Point (that imma- 
nent afts are eternal ) but only fay. It is much queftioned ( by others) whether 
they are any more eternal then iranfient afts : and annex a touch of feme mens 
arguings for it : concluding only in a parcmhefis, that the Point is, as I think, 
bey«nd our reach. So much to the Erfl fidion. 1. And H I contended not with 
any then not with Dr. TwiJS and Mr. P. on this Point : it being plai» that it is 

on another Point that I deal with them. Thats for the fccond fiAion. j. The 
third is mounted with great confidence > you [dare fay:] What dare you fay ^ 
Why that! [thus dofcend in Aremm with all the fober Divines that ever were 
worthy to fpeak to a School Point.] You are a dating man^ that dare fay thii. 
But I have tafted fomuch of your temper before, that 1 perceive your veracity is 
oft leaft where your audaciiy is ^rcateft : I thought I had contended with no man 
in thofewordsj and yau dare fay^ I contend with all men, worthy to fpeak to a 
School Point. What if it had been true that I had been here contending, and 
that againft a Point which all t'hefc hold ? doth it indeed follow that I Ao in Are- 
n/tn dcfcenderc with them all J' and fcek to match them ? And what reafon have 
vre that know yon not, to taue you for Judge of all the Divines in the world, 
who fliall be accounted fober, and who not j and who is worthy t© fpeak to a 
School Point, and who act ? Or why Ihould I think you more worthy chen the 
Learned men that I have before named , Ljfcbetus , Pcnnottus , Bur^erfdid- 

§. 21. 

Mr. K-TTO finow that the world i»tb now exift when once it did not, and that fitcb t 
* miin 710W is fanSfifed which before he was n»t, mafics no change in God, but 
cnlyfiews a change iv the objcH: but t» linew now that the world doth cxift which 
before God did not two», or to lypow now that fuch a mm ii fxnHified, who before 
was not, which before God did tt$t finow, nafics a change in God, as wcU as the 

§. »i. 

R.B.l 7C 7H0 would look for fuch anlwers from you, that had heard you judge 
Y V of School Divines with fuch Authority ? The firft pait of youc 
Anfwer is not againft any thing that I laid : The fecond is a meet begging of 
the Queftion. Some think that quoad fubjiantiam aSim Gods knowledge is the 
fame whatever the objed be ; but yet becaufe [Knowing this or that] connoceth 
the objeft with the ad, therefore the eternal elfence of God fimply in it felf con- 
(idered is not to be called [Knowledge] much lefs [the knowledge of jhis or that 
creature J] and that without the object it neither is Knowledge, nor ought to be 
fo called i and fo as from the object we diftinguifti Gods Knowing and Willing, ' 
fo muft we the fevcral ads of his knowledge j and though the ad quoad fubflantiam, 
which we call [Knowledge] in God be but one, yet the ratio formalif which muU 
oivc the denomination, being in the refped of that one adtoitsobjeds, it is moft 
ht to fay that Gods knowledge of Peters falvation and ^udtf damnation, is not 
the fame knowledge, though it be the fame fubftantial ad: the like is laid of his 
Will : And as this muft be faid without wrong to his (implicity, fo the like mull 
be faid of his beginning or ccafing to Know, without wrong to his immutability : 
and that 3S it;is not all one for God to know the Futurity and the preCent exiftence 
of a thing, fo we muft lay, that he began to know the prcfent cxiuence when the 
thing began toexift, and that God did not know before the creation, that this 
propofition was true, Pctrui exijlit: and that he ceafethto know the Futuri ion 
of a thing that ceafeth to be future j and that God doth not now know,rhat Chvift 
will be born and dye and ri£e : and that therefore immanent ads in God are noc 

K 1 to 


to be faid to be all eternal » bur only thofc that have an eternal objcft i becaufe 
the ad is to be denominated from its refpcd to the objcd ; and therefore it being 
Godi Knowing and Willing which we call immanent ads here, where it is un- 
meet to fay tha: ad of Knowledge or Will i$ cternall, then it is unmeet to fay, 
Gods immanent ads are eternal : but when you will exprefs Gods immu:ability, 
it is fitter to fay [ God is unchangeable, or Gods eflenceor nature is cternall,! 
then to fay, his knowledge, will, or immanent ads (in thii fenfe) are fo : becaule 
when we connote not the objed, we are to call it Gads Effcnce, and not Gods 
Knowledge, Will, or fuch ads : fothat here is no real change in God himfelf, 
but only a rcfpedive,or modal, or formal (as the .Ueiifl/ fpeakj or fach as we can- 
not now apprehend, atWding new objedivc conceptions > all the change being in 
the creature. 

Now how doth Mr. I^. prove that this dodrine mtift [ make a change in God 
as wellas the objcd ?] why he learnedly affirmethit. He that can finde a word 
more, let him make his belt of it. But in this cafe, all the proof licth on the af- 
fimer j which we might well have exptded from him. 

§. X2. 

Mr.K- A N<i therefore tU fober Divines ufe to be Wiry in their exprcjfions in thU i^inde t 
^ sclinowlcdgivg no difference btiveeen Gods linowleigc And. forciinoveledge, 
hut thii, thit his fore^novplcdge is in order to the cbjeH only, and mt of any act of 
gods: fo thit it is not oppofed to ^oii-fcience, but it pgnifeth only a futurity of 
the objeH , as wa fl)evfed at Urge in the third Chapter. CjU h^noTos thit. that 
is to dayvchich xcm vox ye^erday-, butQod as pcrfcHly l^new it ycflerday aatodsy, 
And lincvf at once, all the virioiu fuccejjiotu in time j or did he ethcrrrife, a chiuge 
cannot pojfibly be avoided, notwithjiindtvg aU, !Mafter Baxter aUeadgcth to the con" 

§. 11. 
K.X. i.TFyourfirft fcntence be true, I muft lament the paucity of fober DI- 
X vines } for fure I am,that of thofe which have written on thefe Points, 
too few have been wary in their exprefllons : and no wonder when they are no 
more wary in their conceptions j and when men dare maintain themfelves to have 
that capacity which they have not, and to know certainly that which they do nor, 
and might eafily know they do not : When even fuch learned men as you will not 
be perfwaded that thefe tilings are above your reach, but do with fuch haughty con- 
tention oppofe one poor fentence in a Parenthefis (which is all my fentence) 
whercin-1 fay, it is beyond our reach. 

a. You lift up your felf too high, in taking on you to judge all thofe Divines to 
be unfober, that are not in this of your opinion. 

3. If the word [prefcience] fignifie only a futurity of the objed, thcnthefeare 
equipollent exprcflions iDeuthoc prtefcif^ and i Hoc cji futurum :"] but that is 
not true. 

4. The fame humane frailty and diftance from God, which makes it neceflary 
to ui to afcribe Ading, Knowing and Willing to God, and to conceive of him 
under thefe notions, doth equally necefTitate us to conceive of bis Knowledge and 
^illjis 4iftindj and not altogether tbc fame : clfe vre /hould afaibc a meer name^ 

- ' without 


without any conccption'of the thing named : For we cannot conceive of any fuch 
Knowledge as is the fame with VVilling, nor of any fuch Willing which is the 
fame with Nilling ; and yet we beleeve the fimplicity of God. And the fame ne- 
ccffiry that compelleth us to conceive cf Gods Knowing, Willing and Nilling, 
as divers, ab cbjeSIorum diverfitatc, doth compcU us to conceive of his Know- 
ledge of things as Future, and his Knowledge of things cxiflent, as divers : 
yet flill we deny a Mutation of God himfeUi only we conceive as the Sco- 
tiftsj that there ia adiverfityof the objeftive conceptions, and that our various 
denominations have jundatnentufH in re: but what it is, let him tell that 

5. A^ainft all this that which you oppofe is but your naked aflcrtion, which 
I regardlcfs then perhaps you expedcd. I affirm the uncertainty, and you the 
certainty} and therefore it is you that fhould prove that certainty which you af- 
firm to have ; For no man hath a certainty without fome evidence or other to 
force aO'ent} and therefore that evidence (hould be produced, if you are indeed 
a man of as Angelicall intclleduals as you feem to conceit your I'elf, 

6. God did yeRerday know that the fun is not rifcn to day, i. e- that to day is 
not come : You will fay, he did at the fame time yellerday know that to day is 
come and the fun is rifcn ? fome will thiok to make this true, you muft verifie 
contradidories, and fay, [It is] and [It is not] at once, may both be abfolute- 
lytrue (and then farewell our firft Metaphyficail certainty in compofition.) Or 
elfc you muft aikrt the coexiflence of all things with Gcd in eternity j which 
how loath you will be to admit, I conjcdure partly from the tendency of 
your tenets , and partly from your adhefion to Dr. Twijfe, and others of his 

7. For your third Chapter I have faid as much to it already as I findc 
either need ot lift , being loath you Ihould c«ft on mc Maiter Goodwins 

§. zj. 

Mr. K- A ^^ '" '^^ fi^(^ illuftration the cafe » ftrangclj/ different ; yet I confe^, if it 
Is did hold, it rvould prove thepoivt^ fortiori: Thus the fun, fiithhct en- 
lightens and warms variety of creatures, yet is not changed : therefore nor need 
Cod be faid to be changed, though he know today a variation in the creature: 
I yield dU the couclufion: but all that U nothirg to the purpefc ; for the queftien U not 
whether to kn^if a variation in the creature prove a change in G od i but whether a varia- 
tion of the aBs of his kitovcledge, acccrdirig to the variation in the creatures do not prove tt 
change in him? now the putting cf a ntw immanent alf, as ancwfinowivg, ii a putting 
0f variation upon him. 

^B. '•\7i7Erc my advice of any weight with you, I fhould perfwadeycu 
V V never to esped any illuftration of Gods'immanent adsby the 
creature, without a great difterence in the cafe : and therefore that you would no 
more take fuch difierence as fo^r<i«gc. a. Yeur conccffion that it willf rove the 
foim a fortitri, if it held, is as much as Icculd dcCre or exped. 3. A man 
would tbinkj iba; the argumem youberelay down as mlne^ were mine indeed^ 

whofindcs fo Learned a Divine faying fo, that rttould abhorre falfliood : when 
you put the words in a diftinft charader, with a [fairh he,^ as if they had been 
myerprcfs terms : but 1 dclirc rhc Reader not ro judge of ad your Writing* by 
iuchpafla^esasthis : He may fpcak true at onetime, thatyec takes liberty to 
fpeak falfly at another. You did take the eaficft courfe imaginable, to fain a con- 
clufion which you could grant, and then to grant it and fay it is nothing to the 
bufinefs. 4. I will not confent to your dating the queflion in new terms of your 
own, tn themidit of adifpute. Donot feign mc to difpurc any qucftion which 
you make many years after my Writing, and which Pi not ^obe found in my Wri- 
ting in terms. J. The word iPiCf] may fignifie J.thg Divine eflcnce J and 
fo he that feigns a new aft feigns a new God : i. Or that mode, formality, reC- 
peft (or whatever clfc it is to be called,) of God, ariGng from the nature oi- Hate 
ofcxtrinfick objeftij which 'Burgerfiicm cals, the Application to the Objeft 
The queftion is only of this now, which fome think may mod: fitly be called, Gods* 
afts. Your naked repeated affirmation that a variation is put on Gad, when you 
prove it notj I take no more for a Dcmonftration. 

§. i4. 

Mr.I(.QEfo»i//, l^jen we are JpeikJng of immanevt aUs, rvbit hive we to do with 
^tbe funs eyiligbtemng or wirming f I hud thought thofc bad been trmfieni aBs^ 
and fo not f roper in thU ufe ! Tet 

§. i4. 

R. B.PlEmember younot the crude queftion that we were on? [Whether fuch 
iVimmanent afts are any moreeternall then tranficntafts ?] Thc(^efti- 
onifts mean it quoid formalmi nxturjm aciiUi for they take the dominations of 
timmanent] and [tranfient] to be but from the eftcft or termi/ioi; And that you 
may fee what they imagined, when they mention the fmiilicuJeof the fun, let 
n:>e intreat you to fuppole for difputation fake (^per pojfibilevel Jmpojfibile) that 
God had made at firft no creature but the fun: 1 Would fain know whcvhcrthat 
funm (hining and cafting out its rayes and emanation, did aft immanently or 
tranfiencly ? I conceive not tranfiently: becaufe there were no fubjcftj cxifting 
into which its aft fhouldpafs, or which fhaulci as its excrinfick termmiii receive 
from it any new form. It feems then it muft be immanencly : but that is but 
infenful^cgitivo, becaufe it is not tranfient : fuppofe next that the reft of the 
creatures were afterwards made, and placed as they are under the influence of this 
fun, and fo were the receptive fubjefts of its aftion: Is it not the fame fort of 
Aftion, without any change in it feif, which before was immanent, and now is 
become tranfient ? 

But I need fay no more to this J for you arc plcafed to confefs. 

fat.l^.^^Etthirdljf, Vidit boll, I yield it were Argamentum amajori ad minus : 

1 Iftbefuttbenotchittged netwitbjiinding all its warmth and Uibteiiing, then 

neither were God. But fare the funis changed, indcbaugeth perpetually, tuid could not 

iM'u a Univerfill caufe upon tbegreAt variety of creatures in the worlds did it not rejoice 



like a Gyivt to run Hs (ovrfe j diiit ffandftiTl but one year together At one feint , yet or 
but w^/^t vfzthitt one Hemi^here for a year, Whit fiould wc do for thdt vJritty of fetfons 
roe need * tAU Summtr would be lU bad at all iVmer. In oppofi:ion to thit change of 
the Sun, if the Father of Lights (aid to be vPi:hcHtJludor» of turmng. He hath nofucb 
Solftices or Tropicks > no mottons,but a fcrpetiial permanency. There is a great differ- 
ence betvPeen Imuianent aBs and travfient : ihatfuppofingthe Su7i to fUni (iiU at i'i jo- 
fhua's time, and to aH rvithout motion ; here were no alteration to be ach^mwlcdged in the 
fuvy votimthflandivg all the variety of ohjccis, yea and variety of opcntwvs vptn thofe 
ohjeBsy all vpbtib might proceed from the fame ^ a as to the Sun, the difference bang 
meerly in the Patient: Asforivfiivce, the fame live- coal doth at oikc by its hdtt melt 
thexfiax, avdhardenthecLy i here are different trai^tnt aSls, but no change or aiffcr- 
enceataUintbefire i but only in the difpojition of the matter on which tt woriit. But m 
InmancfU aBi the Cafe ii contrary i for they being in the fub]cli, the vxrutton of them 
i>ia\{Cs an alteration in that, and n«t the objeSi : a/i the fame man unthshg'.d may be the ob' 
jeH fometimcs of mens Love, femctimcs oftheirhMred : the variety of tbtfe acts maizes 
a difference in the eAgent, dothKetalwayesfuppofeanyintheObjcHi and fo here, Gods 
t^nwing now that thiiit, Godjnotlinownig ycjlerday , that tt it now , makesachangc in. 
God, but indeed God cannot be f aid uoxv to liitew that fiich a thing i, but to iintw that 
now fuch a thing is Iwhicb wof not before'] andthk he did linow, what ever is now even 
fretn all eternity, his prcfcicnce betvg a i{nowlcdge in prxi'enti t« htm, though not Je p: :e- 
lentij Oi to the objeB $ againfi whcfe being in eternity Wiorcjhall bejaid hereafter againft 
iMf Goodwin, but now I attend M' Baxter, whoprocceds. 

-I §. 15. 

R.B. I. V70u fcem rather to anfwer in jcft then in carneftj when you tell us of 
I the Suns local motion, when otir Qiuition was. Whether [the 
Sun be changed by the variety of Creatures which it doth enlighten and warm] 
that is, Whether it felf receive any change from the tcrminiu or cbjtfts of its ads? 
Do you intend the information of your Reader, or the diicoveiy of Truth,when 
yoM Ibuffle inluch an alien Anlwer ? x. All that its good for, that I know of, is 
to acquaint us, that you have feme full Demcrftrationagainli CopertiuuS} which 
hath given you a Certainty that he erres i And it cncfhould hear it, peihaps it 
would prove like your Ordinary Dtmonflrations : for that which is hinttd in 
your words, fecmsof kintothem. 3. Youyie!da]l that I fay concerning the 
Sun, acknowledging that it is not changed by the variety of Objeds : And in the 
firft words you lay [Did it held, I yield it Yitre Argumcninm i majcri ad tnintts.'] 
Lay both thefc together, and jutige whether ycu yield ivot the whole Caufc which 
ycu oppofed. 4. You flill harp onthc old firing, affiiming. Immanent Afts 
tobe inthe Subjeft, and that their variation alters it, when as good Philolophcrs 
fay they have no Subjeft, and that Vifion, IntelltAion, (g'c. have no Tfrw/w.- 
Yeur naked affirmaticnsfo eft repeated, lathci weary then convince. 5. How- 
ever you cannot from mans Immanent Ads, argue to Gcds, unlcfs they were 
more like. 6. I am unfatisfied whether a Trarlicnt A& (though not ^waTran- 
ficnt) makenot as much alteration on the Agent as an Immanent ? Wheilier a 
Tranfient i& be not the fame with the Immanejotj containme in it all that it 
contains, with the fuperaddition cf its Reception in, and t&c& upon a Paflive 
Subjed ? Asia the fore- mentioned inftance ; IftheSun had been crcatc<^ firft 
alonC) icsadion whereby it nevy lighteth and heatctb, wculd have keen imma- 
nent i 


wnt ; and yet when the faniJaAion (lull afccrwarJibicomctranficnt by the ad- 
dition of other crci:urc$ tobcits Objjfts, who will imagine that it is ever the 
lefs in the SubJL-d (as you fay) or that the alteration ot it would make ever the 
lefs change of the Asicnt ? I confefs, I conceive no: yet why there ftiould in this 
point of changing the Agent be any diffL-rcnce between Immanent ad? and Tran- 
hen: : though! ealily conceive that one only doth change the objeft. 7. Your 
friend M'^cinc/, pa^.i^i. ufcth thelimilitude of [a Rock in a. River ftandinj 
immovable, notwithftandingthe fucceflion in the waters that glide by it j] which 
I think is asdefcdivc afmilitude, as thefe here ui'ed ; yet its plain, that you 
cannot truly fay, This Rock toucherh the water that is an hundred miles from it. 
Suppol'etheSun wereancye, and could fee all the world at once, and that p«ri 
AciivhMe fincreccpuonc jpcdcrum Ab objeHU : Suppofe one man be born, or one 
flower fpring up this day, which was not in being or vilible ycilerday ; This Sun 
would fee that to day which it did no: lee ycli:rday without any mutation in it felf: 
Andyet/ft/;^isan Immanen: aft. Now I would know, whether it be fit to fay. 
This Sun fees that as in 6e/«5 which is not in being ; Or, Whether it be not fit- 
tefttofay [It begins today to fee that Creature which begun this day to exift] 
though by fo beginning it be not changed ? Its true, God /ore -^>ow/ all thing* 
that Ihallbe: banhit is no: zo finow tbit tbey bc,b[itzhitthej/f)iU be. 8. M' ^eixj 
ibid, faith [Yet this is no hinderance but that there may be and is a change in the 
extrinlecal Denominations of Gods knowledge from the variation of the objefts 
hereof, g<;'c.] fo ethers common' y : And may I not hence conclude, i. That 
then I may denominate G^ds knowledge of tha prefenc exiftcnce of things, as 
Beginning with its objed ; and his knowledge of the cxiflence or futurity of 
things, as Ending wi:h its objeftj that is, when the thing ceafcth to be future 
ortoexill? i. And may I not conclude, that this Denomination is fitteft, ind 
fo tliofe that thus fpeak , do fpeak more fitly then they that fpeak otherwifc ? 
3« And that there is fome/«ni<i»ie«ttt»i is re for Inch a denomination: or elfc ic 
were an unfit denomination, feeing names and words fhould be fitted to the things 
fignified as necr asmay be ? 9, Do not you imply as much your felf, when you 
fay his Prefcicnce is a Knowledge in prafentl to him, though not ic prxfcnti i You 
confefs then that God doth not know £i<!pr^/c«t/, the things that now are not : buc 
when they exift he knowcth them ieprf/e»« i I confefs the doftrinc of the co- 
exiflenceof all things with God in Eternity, would falve many of theic things: 
but that you here difclaim. 10. Where yoafay, that [Indeed God cannot be 
faid Now to know that fuch a thing is, but to know that now fuch a thing is 
(which was not before, as in the Errit. you adde)] it is a faying which I undcr- 
iiandnot, andconjedureit if ftill maimedof fomc necelFary limb which rtiould 
make it fpeak your fenfe : For I hope you do not believe what ever you fay. Thai 
Indeed God cannot be faid Now to know that thofe things are, which arc indeed : 
If he know it not Now, when will he know it ? 

1) ^A. §. x6. 

Afr. K. A S the glafs by the variety of faces which it reprefents, hictfi, as the 
^^ gU^ without tiny chxnge in itreprcfenttvirioutf ices, now one, now ano- 
ther j fidothgoifinow Vinous objeSit, nove one, novf aitBther, yet without cbinge. 
The Antecedent is munifefilyfdfe i for thit cicb of thefe feuerdfices afi a new fpecics 
en thcgUfs, and thofe fever aI fpecies trnfic fevenl chtngts. F?r thii purpofc Afr.Baxte r 



might bttvermembreiwbAthtfgrtittLogick Mi Metipbyficli Mijiert fay, cdticeming 
Ens inccntionalcj thititi(Oppofeit$Tei\ciinim3izcn3.lc: Thei^cch%in the ghf it 
jniceiEnsintentionalcj in oppofitian to Miicrialc, it is not fo in oppojitioH to Rsale : 
But their putting sni non-putting, or the pre fence and nbfence of the fpecics, wa^a a 
real change, thoHghnotamnteriiloneinthegU^; fared a one as that it my be jeen, 
though net a material one that the chtUe that catcheth at if ever lilie to tal^e hold of it; 
Plainly thus, That it a Real Accident which if in the SubjeH really, and fo if that fpccies, 
fortvefeettinthcglafsi that k a Material Accident wbich is (o inthe fubjcH as to de- 
-penionit alone for its fupport, without influence of the cedent; heat or cold have [u.h 
dependanceonthefubjcH, as that that alone can maintain them ; as the heat mil (iic^ a 
while in the water, though tal^en off ft-om the fire , and cold in my hand, though tiiien 
CM of the water : Buttbefe Intentional Accidents though really inthefubieU, yet arefo 
little fupported by it, as that if the cedent do not coHtitme its influence, they tm>ncdiately 
ferifl)aa light in the air, thefe i'pecics, whether tn my glafs or my cyt i who hath fo much 
Logick and Metaphy fields tojpill upon all occafions a/s 3fr. Bixcerj would have betrayed, I 
Witt not fay ignorance, but incogitancy info trivial a punSiillio? Onwardf, the cafe if the 
fame for the Ipecies in the eye and the glaft, and a change is made by the prcfencc or ab(ence 
of the fpecie$. 

§. i6. 
R.B. p\ IJp utatore nimium foelici, nihil infcelicius ; (^ nimium fapientc]quis minus fa • 
L/ piensf If I ipill a* much Logick upon all occalions, as you do words, 
fure I am a voluminous Logician, and make up in number what I want in weight. 
You wanted an opportunity to maUiply words, for ought I know to no purpofe, 
unlefstoacquaint the unobfervant world with your well-furnifhed Intelleft, that 
they may be alTured, that you have all thofe things at your fingers end, as trivial 
pundillio's, which I am fo ignorant of} and thefe few words of mine have occa- 
iioned the opening of your pack, and iheexpanlion of your wares. 

But, I. You arefainto ufetheold arcihcc of putting my words but as the 
ground of your paraphrafe, and then dealing with that paraphrafe of your own. 
This is not fo innocent a$ common a trick. I fpeak of a change lof the glaf'\ 
and you put \_achangeinit:~\ Hadnotyouncwlyrifen up ai the finil decider, I 
(hould have faid, it is yet fub^udice, whether the Inrentional or Spiritual Being, 
inqueftion, be indeed R« or not f And fo whether it make any Real change in 
the glafs. Iconfefsyoueafily difpatch the bufmcfsj which makes me think of 
^or/<e»4 words, Exercit.Thilof.y. §.i. pio8. ^^ii ^ecies [int vijibiles in:}uircndum 
efi: TamcnimearumnaturainteUeSiuieflignota, quam e-e fenftbus notx. Teripateti- 
ciftamenCT'lnc, ^cut (s' alibi facilifexpeditio. ^^alitates aiunt effe Jpirituales, <& 
corporis ejfc obieStivum, quodhabetinfpeculovelftmiticorperi. Ts^bis hoc non eil JX' 
tit : qui qu^rimta porrd , quid qualitas fpiritalis , aut quomodo corpus objcSfive pof- 
fit effie in fpeculo ? 'Ham hx videntur (ontraiiHidnem quxniam implicare , cer- 
por is dari qnalitatem fpiritalem,^ rem extra fpeculum exijlentcm e{fe infpccub, &:. 

r. But fee what unreverent thoughts fuch Ignorancs as I, are apt to have of 
learned men ! I am confidently perfwadcd, that you, wha are ^o fully acqnaintcd- 
with Gods Nature and Immanent A<fls, as to be at a certainty wheie I am ac a 
iofsjfor all that do not know what that i$ that you fee with your eyes j nor whether 
i: be in the glafs ornot I And therefore the Lefturethac yoa have read me of Ens 
intentionalc hath been loft labour as to me I 

L 3. And 


3 . And you kad done but your part if you h«d oU'erved tbtt I fpeak n^t ' of the 
meer Reception of the agents aftion, but of :he Repr^fent^ipn to us of the /))««« j 
which rtieuld not be confounded. , 

4. Are you fure that it is from the objc^, that the glafs receives that viIkum^ 
on that you imagine ? 1 f it be, Rocks and ilones arc more adivc cicaturei th<» 
foaiedull fouls will eafily believe j when at the fame time the fame Rock or moun* 
tain may perform looooo aftions upon fomany eyes or glalles. Yea if in the 
midftof the Adionof this ftone or Rock, youdobut ^ive your gUfs % knock, 
and b.eak it into a hundred pieces, h will multiply the a^iou oft^e Rockem buo- 
drcd fold i and thai without touching or coming 4iearthe Agent I li icoiQtpc<Kty 
ipoit to fee the aftivity of thefe nimble Rockvand Mountains ? i am oneof tboie 
Hercticks.that think thefe works of God mull be the matter of ©ur admirationjbuc 
cannot be compicLended by us here : and that it is no good conftquenc^j that bet 
caufe you and your fellows nakedly affirm the contraiy (vea notwithftanding att 
your proofs) therefore Dci Cartes, S' K-Vi&hi f'^hite, Hsbbesi befidwaU. the ekl 
AdverfarieSj are certainly in crrour. I (hall acknowledge uv»i*c aftion of the 
Light, or air on the glafs, then of the gbjcft, which i(xmibm ^ne qt^sHWu. But 
withall I fufpeftj ihat the fame Light or air doth perform the fame aCTion .iu the 
glafs when you iland not before it, or whentheobjed is abfent ; and yet no jpe- 
eics is then fecn j no nor vifible. And 1 think that there is the fame aftion on eve- 
ry g!afs-window, yea on every wall, or ftoiK, or other body, as is on your fpeculutHi 
and yet you fee nothing on them as you do on ic. And Ho^bes fai;th« Xhac it is in 
the eye and not in the glafs, which you think you fe€ in th€ goal's (h« reproaching 
of our Doftrine of vifible^aw, I pretermit;) and if fo, then there is not (o 
much alteration in the glafs, as you ijtraginp. And indeed, you fay little to prove 
it. If your Argument from fight would prove any thing, it would prove that the 
face is a foot or a yard (ormoreif you draw back) bchiiwJc the glafs, and not in 
the glafs : And yet if you go behinde you (hall fee nothing : Will you believe 
your eyes that things change into fuch various colours, and fhapes, and quantities 
as fomc glaffes by fmall mutations of poflure do reprefent them ? Will you believe 
your eyes that a ilrait liafF is crooked in the water ? I can tell you by my obferva- 
tion when I was a Boy, that if you will kill a Fi(h in a River with a Gun, you 
Hiuflallowmuch to the fallacy of your »JC^/«»j. If then either it be the adioa 
of the light or air, or fomething elfe, and not the objefi:, then it is nothing to 
me, who fpcke only againft a change by variation of objeAs : Or if the forefaid 
aft ion being fuppofed to be the fame on the glafs, when fcveral objefts, or no ob- 
jeds are before it, that which is fuperadded from the objeft is nibil reakt this is 
nothing againft me : Orif the/'peczei'.which fcemsa foot behinde the glafs be nop 
in the glafs, but in the eye or fome where elfe, and fo the glafs be more truly an 
Agent by Refleftion, then a Recipient of thai [pedes which I fee, ftill this is no- 
thing againft what I faid. So that laying aiide ail that Reception of the aftioi\ 
of light, or any thing elfe , which the glafsreceives when there is no objeft pre- 
fent, and laying afide all that which is Received into the eye and air, and not in 
the glafs, and whereof the glafs is but a ^<i«/i)5a< qus nen; then call the reft an 
Ens intentionale or fpirituAley or what you will i but prove it to be qitii reale altering 
the glafs, and do not nakedly affirm it. 

You iay,that my great Logick and Metaphyfick Matters fay,That Ensintctithi^ 
ttakM oppofed to Reale i^ OAaXtmle : and yet you fay that the fpecies in the glafs 
is apt oppofed lo Ens realc.h island it is not,feem reconcilable to youthen without 


«^jftifl<5Hon. Indeed as Real is oppofedtoCfefgned] I doubt not it is Real, but as 
itis oppqfed to Modes and Relations, and Tuch like, that fdmc place between Ent 
and liJbU, ft muft better be known what it iSjthen the name of Ens intentiomle or 
fyirituult will a<;q,uaint ns, before we can conclude for certain that it is Real. 

As for your Material Acciderrt, it will require more ado to prove, that there 
IS any fuch thing in the world, as an Accident depending on the Subjcd alone 
for fupport , eipccially a <^uality, as you jnftance in : Sure you intend not 
the withdrawing of the influence of every efficient, but of fome lower or inftru- 
mental: I think,at lcaft,Gods efficiency is neceflary to be conrinued,for the Con- 
tinuation of the being of every Accident, and ordinarily fome lower efficiency too. 

As for the Logick and Metaphyficks which on all occafions I fpill, I take the 
charge as unfit to be anfwered, as not coming from your head or lieart, but from 
your Naturals, your fplecn and gal. 

My Ignorance in comparifon of you, lamfo eafiljr brought to acknowledge, 
that I Wonder you (houid think fo many words neceffary to evince it : (yet you 
flioujd have done it in intelligible language, and not abrupt expreflions, defeftive 
of fenfe, almoft fuch as H?croffi dcfcribetb in his lib. i. cont.^ovin. initio.) Buc 
how did you prove my Ignorance or Into|itancy ot Ent intentiomle i Deep fi- 
lencel Bccaufe I did not mention k, or die who knows why ? By that reafon I 
am ignorant that M' K. is an honeft man, becaule I do not mention it > But by 
what is faid, you may fee its poflible to have heard talk of Ens tntentionde, and yec 
to think this Hmilitude tolerable. 

And what if you obtain all thdt you contend for ? vf^. That the fimilitude is 
faufty ! Alar, Iflialteaiily grant it of any fimilitude whereby we illuttrate th^ 
Nature or Adsof God. Suppofe-then that this glafs did make the fame Re- 
prcfentations fne reccptiche fpeeierun : Or becaufe thcfe inanimates are more 
remote, ufc the fitnilirude of the Oeulta Vniverfaiiff which I mentioned 
cvenndw. I am troubled that you force me to weary the poor Reader 
with fo many words on fo poor and unprofitable abufincfs : But there s no remedy. 

■ ,- -^ ■ .... . . •\ ;§^. zr^' ' ■.■■■■■■-■' 

^r.K. Vt 0» whereas :!Wf .Baxter Adiesj Tbit whstfoever fome fay, he iotb not thin\, 
IN tbit the beholding often dtjhnU colours xt one vierv, doth mii{e ten difiinSi 
aSs of the fight, or Alterations on it j / do not thinf^thxt ever ntionsl man (aid they do, 
fir it were jlrange there Jhouli be but one view, and yet ten diftinH aSls of fight j but 
tbequejiionis, iVbetbcr^e change of one of ibefeob]ecfs dotb not change the fpccies itt 
tbfeye, itndfo occajion another vicvf or fglxd Of rather it is beyond all quefiion that they 
4«.' and yet.wbaher they dotr nonecdiiot bi^quefiioncd Ktti^cr i thepointwat liesbeforc 
w, ii, iVbether dijinici ornew aHs do 7iot Caufe an alteration? Which U that that we 
bAve jufi Caufe to a^rm veith cottfidevct^ can have n ; place in CJod j and consequently na 
new immanent tAH ; fo then there being nothing produced by :Mr. Baxter rvhicfj may fug- 
gejl a (u^ition tbattbcre may mw Immanent AHs be admitted in Gid, or any bit fuch JiS 
are Eternal^ Gome we to the ■ ■ ■< 


K.2. V^Ou are minded toplay with the ambiguity of the word [View] which 
X I cake for all that Reception in the eye, oc aftivity of it which it per- 

L » formcth 


formeth in one iRftant } and Co for that natural Aft whereby I fix my eye on one 
place at ence, feeing as many things as at once I am capablcof feeing: You take 
it, it fceros for your intentional Aftion, or alfo the aft which the vilive pewer 
performcthjai in reception of that alone. 1 think the fenfe 1 ufe it in, is more 
common. And I fay again, that it is none of our queliion, what light, air,er'c. 
do on the eye: for they do no more when 1 behold one Rock, then when 1 be- 
hold the lands on the fbore : But the Qucftion is, What the objefts do over and 
above on the eye ? And whether it 1 lee many millions of millions of fands ac 
one inflant, there be fo many Real Aftions ot my eye at that inftanr ? And whe* 
tber every diftinft fand that is added or taken away, there be one Aft added or ta- 
ken away, and fo a real alteration in my eye ? The reft which you adde ii over 
and over anfwercd before, and therelore being afliamed that I have ,faid fo much 
on founpr(.fi;ablea point (thrush conlirained) I iurccale : Onely adding this 
brief rehear fal of what is faid betoie. 

1. Remember that we fpeak not of thofe Immanent afts whofe objeft is 
Eternal: but of thofe that have a tcmpotary cbjtft, as the aftual exiftence of 
things, (iT'c. 

a. The fe kinde of Immanent Afts may be called Tranfient after a fort, in that 
they do quoad Tcrrmnitionem objcclivdm, pafs to an exttinfick objeft. 

3. t/igcre, in the fenfe now taken, when applied to Ged, fignificth fomething 
more then meerly E/?e. 

4. The whole Generlcal Effence of Aft ionjis found injthej^frtrj of Aftion. 
^. JrttcUigere , VcUc. Jmarc, relate to fome Objefts : f^i IvtcUigity aliquti 

JnuUigit : qui Amat, diquid JmM. Thcfe terms therefore do alwayes (wbefi af- 
firmed as being in God) connote their Objefts. 

6. Thci e is a nectflity therefore that the afts be varioufly denominated from 
the diverfuy of objefts. It is no way fit to fay, ThatGod doth Nill Good, or 
Will fin, or that his VeUe Cf 'l^pUe is all one : Or that his Jntelligerc (sr Fclk is 
all one. For, as it is laid, the Aft connotes the Objeft : and therefore wc arc 
net fo much as to afcribe the aft to God when there is not an objeft for it j or 
as to an alienc Objeft. Elfc we might fay , 73ei TntcUigere (^ luetic funt 
idem : 'Dcics IntcUigh Peccata: Erg9 7)cu« Vultpeccata: And that God Nil- 
leth Good jbccaufe he WillethGood,feeing in God Fellt indfl^jUt are all one. 

7. Thisnectffity of various extrinfecal denominations is ordinarily confeffcd 
by the mok rigid Divines. 1 fhall cite one more anon. 

8. This Denomination hath /««i<aw«i<ttwi» re, or elfe it were delufory and 
abufive j thefe being the fittcft names that moff agree to the Things (of which 
ktMeuriJ?.Mitaph.Scoti,li.z.c.i, Qonclnf.i. t;' Ducand./.i. iiyj.19. ^.$.§.i;j,i4i. 
Cr Aquin.ifc Vcrhatc, Matcr.y.q.i, i,&.c.) Notions and Names are true or ialfe, 
as they agree or difagree to the things. 

9. On the fame ground as God may thus be faid 10 Undcrftand, Will, Nil!, 
Love, (^c. and thele may be faid to be not the fame, he may alfo be faid to have 
divers aftsof Intelleftion, Willing, Nilling, and thefe not to be rhe fame: e.g. 
That it is not all one to eleft F«cr, and to cleft ^cib». 

• o. Whatfoever this diverfity of names impiieth, as its foundation in God, 
(whether a bare Relative diverfity, or alfo a Modal, or what ever the like) it is 
certain that it im^'lieth no Compofuion in hira, but it isoneljwhat is confiftent 
with his fimplicity. 

It- SoBie of the objefts of Gods Knowledge and Love, arc not from Eiernity. 
" The 

The Exlftencc is more then the mccr E/c Volitun, or Will that they fliall cxlft : 
And it is not all one to know the 1 bing it fclf initfelf^ and to know it in its 
Caufe. Though God therefore did from Eternity intuitively know the Ej?c fo- 
litnn, and know the Creature in himfelf its Caufe^ and know its futurity, and To 
fore- knbw all things : yet it follows not that he intuitively knew the Creature in 
it felf, as exiiting, (Unleffe we afferi the co-exiflenceof all things in Eternity 
with God. 

12, There is therefore the fame reafon to Denominate Gods Intelledion, 
LovejCT'c- as beginning and Ending with its Objcfts, as there is to denominate 
them as divers from the diverfity of objeds. And therefore this is a fit and nc- 
ceflai y way of fpeech. It is not fit to fay, God is now Creating the world quoii 
tMionHftrmaliutcm, though you evcr-lcok the tftcft : it is not fit to fay. That 
God now knows that the world will be Created ( unlcfTe you refpeft feme 
new Cieation) or ihn »Abrabatn, SMtfa, T>avid, fhall Die, or that Chrifl Ihall 
rile again, ^c, 

13. This Denomination of Gods ads as beginning and ending, hath as much 
foundation in the thing, and is as true as the Denomination of his ads as vari- 
ous. And this may as well cqnfill with Gods Immutability, as the other wiih his 
Sin piicity. The reafon is eridtmly the fame. 

Now for the one, hear what otheis fay. SchihUr C^ct li.c 3. Til. 6. n- 147, 
248. ^ajito eft de jiciidevtibtu qux i n Vto put. Mac etim folum poJSunt ctrnpofi- 
tievm in Vco factrc, &c. Pndcjpectalitcr rclivquitur j quod in 7Jt'o non fit compefi- 
ste (X lubjeHo (^ atcidcttte, p maxime ei cenvaiiat Agere, tdli aHitve qua pradicdmcn- 
talU difipojfit. mm aHiovts-non comparantur &d agcvs, per modum effendi in, fei 
felutn per modum ejicndi ab alto.ut infra, &c. j4tque tta. aSltoncs tantum apprcbcndmtur 
ut egrcdicvtcs Ah tQentiA rci. >!^od auttm cgrcditur ab cjjcntia rci, htc, to ipjo, non po- 
tt fi cum cffentia fiiere cowpopticiicm, qua (xtrcmornrh umtvim rcquirit. And n. 97 > 
Ham yiHttMs'Di'utnx trivf(uin(s,von funt fub tdivi in Vto, fed folum a Deo proce- 
dunt y utidenuUam civipoptjontm cum Veofacium, &c. <^uAnquam idetiam {verum^ 
cfi deaBiovibuslmmanevttbtis: Hacevimven dicnmur Jmmavevtes pofiiive , quafi in 
agenterigideUquendo(ttb}ccie?itur, j(d Nsgativi(elum,quia in extcrtiam mitcriam ncn 
travfiunt. Vndeadratiomma^ioniffimplicitertS'immanevtiits' tranfeuntis, nen re- 
quiritureffe in, fed folum e^e ab ; Idecquc veutrum factt cum agcnte Compefitioiiem.. 
Etjic ammavofira, fiiticipiatirJelligcrcautreile, vcntamencompchitur, tumcxfuoef- 
(e tsf JntellcBiovt (^ FoUtiovc qui tales fuvt : fed in utroque (latu aque ifi Anima pm" 
pUx,. 2?jx;,qiia tales funt, ^ia ad intiUcHiOMm petefl tonfequi altqua compcptio, p fit 

l^eeiicrmantvSjjiim.Tkcolcgl.i.c.i. maintaincth, that the Pcrfons in the Tri- 
nity , difler iicm the Divine Eiierce, as Muitu arc, and from each ether as Me- 
dtii A Modo, and that E%s and Modw make no Ccmpcfttion. Much mere may it be 
lo faid of Relaticnsto things external. 

jiltivgiui'FrtbUm.lhtolog'Piir.i.ptig.fS, diftirguiftieth Gcdsaflions, i.Sutit 
aBiu i7ittifip(i(^ Inrmarcntcs qunAv tranjcuTit iv eh}e8umext€rvtim tr tutlun prtrfwi 
reffcdum 6ut ^(T.v ad 71 'ilu.. TtlesfinttaHiuptrfcrMesqvosSihoLfiici ncticnales 
voctnt, gignerc, fpiiare,6ic. Horuniabl$lutaffi7iCCtJJitai abfquepoteKtiaadoppcptumt 
drjvitatcrni. 2. ^hiit i:({iutxtriipiiquiK0Tifuiit}Rt>eOi fed a Deoj pve qui a 
Z'ce(«rtcfltdivc, iv Creaturh tutim fubjeHivi : vclut trtare, guletttare, redimcre,. 
Crc. J)(tu evim (xtririfaici lolum ab iis dtnmivatur. 3. Sunt tABtbi Ivtriv feci qui' 
iimin2)(0f jedCoihitantcsrefpcSfum ac ^env ad extra, ut fare, vtUt. Stit ivim 

Vemnonfohimfe, [cdctiMtemniatquicquideJifcibiU, fijentptffibile, five ut futurum, 
yult eudtn nsn foLm (c, fed eujm Alu extra fe, &c. Hvjufmodi aHw (uRt Ztccrcti, r^• 
Utivinimirumadexcrs, (^ prater voLunisum^.cir ft iutunt rcrum extenurujn. Con*- 
pc{uieaMcmhincmAktnfertHr,&.c. Matkilfo, ihac he name* the hrti fort onely 
Immanent at^s. 

And for the fitnclTc and neccITuy of the D«neminations, hear what Eftiu$ con* 
{c{\cih in Sent.l. I Jin. 19. §. j. T)c hic igitur fcieutiu TDct (viz. ni cimncubilm) 
qua/mUO' ipfi fine dubio jit tnfe invuriibilif, varie tartuu loqmnos 9portct, prout vaii- 
antuf propofujoncs iecuuJum tempore. Ctm emm nulUm prcptfitiontm fcirc quit dii 
catur, bocfcteudimodo, mfi ^eram, aJcmqiu propefiiid propter mutitionem rerum u 
temporum, mode vera fu, modofiifsi coHfequenserti, Deun nuke fare propofitman 
AliquamquampoftcavefciAt, crcontru. ^td per fn^idtvsterr^orum differentiae fdcile 
cjidccUnrc. Nam propofnionemvcr^m ie prxierm, ut,Chri^tu nxttu eft, ime bit 
vulUAunosnonfcieihii, fedGhriftojmofcirecKptfi cjudemiamennunqium fare dcfinet, 
ficutnecuUamdiimquxfitprxtcritttcmporii, quispropofitio de frxtcrito vcrx, fcmper 
crttvcrj^ ^odintcUigcdeprAUrM in genera Nim ft tcrtwn tempaa defignct, ut 
Heiri lutm eft Chriftus.fcire am ies'^t, ej' defuturtfimpUchcr, ut, Poft bidiuim pt^ciu 
pet. RurfumpropofuiouCmde futuro veram, utOmnt.s rcfurgemu, jciva quidcm ib 
atcrnOy nee fieri potc ft ut tulcm aliquando incipiufcire, quupropofiuo dc future versfewf 
per fuit vera, It jucndofimiliter dc futiiro in gcnere. Sed earn aliquando fcirc definct i 
vmpe poft refurrcSioucmfaHam, qitta tuvt vera cjj'c dcftnet tpfa propofifio. Vemque pro- 
pojitionem deprtfcmivcram, fcitttntifpcrdumcaveraminet, -jclutiftam, Eukfia mi" 
litat. oAc tilem incipit iliquando fcire, i^ aliquand« fcire iejinit $ nifi forte veiitoii prc^ 
pojttionii fit perpetua. Sec. Torre omniihacloqtteudivirietas 7i8n inde ndfcitur, qk64 
cireiVeifcieutiamacddAtikquaHutatio, [edquia mututttur res fubitS^. Vriie hc-k 
ceje eft t^ ipfj/i miuari proptfittonet, Sec Mantfeftiun eft autcm rebus mutath noii 
muffario fcientam mutari, iiccreatam qutdem, nip quid aliud concur rat, vclut Com* 
pofitio out divifio, aut certuuio major per cxperientiam rei prafcvtit accepta. 
^a in Deo locum uou habcnt. Sicut ergo fckntia Medici invaritta pemtanet 
duraddcmbominiob variMt ytu affeSlionent, modo bac phirmacii, mtdo alia diwrfj 
frcefcribii, &CC.1 

.'14. Lalily, I againdefirc the Reader to remember, that if I fccm in all tl>{» 
to fp^ak fcepticallyj it is no wonder, when all that i intend ii but to convince 
thfife Telf- conceited Learned men, that thefe things are indeed beyond theic 
reach, and chat they know not what they chink they know : it baing my own opi- 
nion. That A«^ion, Litelledion- and Will, are but Metaphorically afcribeJ tti 
Cod, and that we cannot know what that is in propriety!, which- phefe espreflS* 
ans.do fhadow out in Gpd. ' TboJf'biie iiaith* iKfli/»..S4flriZr./z.iX*^.i. pagU'i^, 
IJ7. '^^^^edicitmuahftrabendoawftMtcmceptibm, efie Titum mim fmpltcitateri 
prnplicifftmam, quanequefitDcut, ncqaeeusy neqMalind fornkdiPOf qu9\d- mt cbgitit^ie 
pofftmi^ ; fed noftra/i cogitatienes earn mxd equate rcprsfentare j non quaft acoipteutes ah- 
quod unumexpUiribui qua ibiaHufmt, felaccipienio ptrticiptiiones qnafdani infhivres 
coquodipfeeft, 0' dfjjfmiliores quint (alivavelpediculus oft refpcHu bofniHis. Wbc* 
Ither this hold Qrnoc of the actions, ftcMGr'\£«i, I. doubr not but it holds'. of 
Intelledion and VoUtiaa: .ar at iea(l thaoiAJcniea Are uoocPBairt'Whatrhefe are irf 
Qod. Andtbe^ftfangjecottfidsnccofmenin.t'his;, thattheyknoW chatWbich lie^ 
man knows indeed,, hath made chem urtceveremly vent their concei't^y -andfill the 
Church with perplex.ing,ajDnrrovccfies about things that none can determine. As' 
M' 'Sur^eJS fiuib of jMlli£c. Lsd. i: ^Oal/ you muft take no:ice char we are 


inmecrdarkncfs, and not able to comprehend how God is faid to i&. or work, 
Ct'c Therefore it is a fure truth, De Deo ctiam vera dicerc pemulofum efi, (^ tunc 
digaiVeumafiimimws, cumiva(iimabtkm dtcimta ; then do we rightly cfteem of 
him, when wc Judge him above our thoughts or efteem.} i^atih. Paris fpeaking 
of ths Dominicans teacbingj which caufcd that great diflcntion and confuhon in 
the Univerfny of Parjf, writes thus (ad annum Vom. ii^i. as he is cited by .the 
Prefaccr loGuilid. dc SanBo Amore) Incipiclfant dijputarc (3' diffcrcre fubtiltm 6f 
celjitu quam deiutt aut cxpedivft : ^uivanverentcstdjigcremontes a ghria I>ei eppri- 
vtexdiniubAnturfecreti Dei tnve(iigabiliatcmfre perfcTtitari, (^^I'diiia Vti qux fkvt 
abyjfiis mult J, vimis prafumptuose indagare. Vco cnim plui ptacetJirnretfiJeiftmpliihaf't. 
qutm mmii tranftcvdns in Thcolegia fubtihtitf-'] DvTvdji l^rndit.grat.l.z. Crtm. 5 . 
§.i ^. Sedquidfictfihtc bumana ratio non fcrat ? An mbtl crc' 
dendummbis ifKumbitmfi quod quotnodo fiat, humjm rattOTte ex- SeeM'I^.'s own 
pltcarepojfit f MyfleriumfKcforjitanadoraruium pottut quam fcrw conftflion, how 
undum,8ccr £1/1.2. Cnm.j. §.zo. pag. {mki) 4of. Etum little wecancon- 
itontriihcjco fittri, licet mnquamduhitanm dcfancli'Dtindtura, ceive or c'xpre[s 
tavquam dc ovmi fcdtrU rtitH alicnijfima, hoc tsmen diu m( fHijcTt- of God, in the 
fufHtcHui[fc {forte ctiam bodie non faucosfuij en jos tenet) quxntm end of his Epift. 
fciUcetfit ilia vera ratio, qui modm ofcrationU Vivina quo fat ut fe Dedicat. 
in omni aSiione tanquam Caufa cjjicaciffima immifceat, extra tamen 
enuiem vitit ceyitigioncm, citra jujiam culpte fujpicionenn Et an hedie per omnia fatit 
cxpIicatHmhabeamm,Veusnovit,8cc. Srgmfieatetiam Calvinus, multis hunt itodunt 
vifuiu t(fe tnexphcabilcm, &c. Hoc modo titins corfulcndum ce7ifuitnojira pietaii,fi fa. 
Uunur hebttudinem fenjus mftri njfienum hoc non capcre-l And why ftiould not the 
fame Confeflion extend to the preient cale alfo ? Though we do not ule to ■con- 
fefs our Ignorance till we are utterly at a lofs (and then we fay as Cajctan when he 
was ftall'd, It doth net quictarc intcUtHum) yet we have oft as great caufe to con- 
fefs it where we are confident fometim«.s J as perhaps Anba that blames Cajetart 
for his Confeffion of Ignorance, might knew as little as Alv$re\ that commends 
it for a mofl holy and pious fpeecb. 

I had thought to have faid no moie to this point, but find- * Ihjtew Afr.Ru- 
ing a moft Learned, * Orthodox, Judicious Divint Robert ihcrioTdbaibfome 
Btronius {Cimcro fecundus, vel C^mcvcni fecundus) to ipeak jarringxfith him; 
fo fully in this point, in his excelUnt Treatifc dcTeccato Mor- and I do notundef 
talt^ Veniali, I have adventured to tranfcribe the whole Cha- tj^e to jujlifie ail 
pter, it being not long, both that the Reader may fee the Rea» that any matt hath 
lonsof tbt like paifages in my fore-going Replies more clearly, fnid, when IcaU 
and thai Mr.I(,. may be yet better fatisfied that I am not fo fin- them OrthodtXibut 
gular in thefe things, as he fccms to think me. / confc^ I thinly 

that for folidity in 
the controverted points that they meddle vith, Davenant, Camero and Baronius are the 
glory ofBi itainj at having happily hit on thut mean, vehich many others have mift oj, rvhtcb 
1 would not have underjUod at d:Jpuraging ahj others : for even in this, they hdve mavy 
excellent (Companions, and others hate tbeir excellencies, that were 7iot in this fo happy os 
tbry . 0«r2{cwtwnf</B.U{her;P.PrtftcrjZ). Field, and mavy another famous light in 
England, kave not only dcferved the honour of eminent Learning and ^iety, but even in 
tbii judicious Vifcovery of the truth, between the cxtxeams which others have run into, they 
have helped to reduce theiiolcntto CModtratJon, and tojhi'ff men A fttrtrvetty to overcome 
the advcffary , then their iifaivantagtmt (xtre^s. 



Dify. Pirte i» Ccd.6, Deum PoiTc co» amircquos prius odit, & odiflc eoi 

quosprius aoiaric, a'lfq; ulU vel pbyGca, vel morali voluncacii Tuz 

mutaiione , obiccr Dcdaracur. 

'C'X ioSlr'maprteedenti ftnienetraJiia de ju^ificatoram aJ certuntempitt exclU' 
•^j/oneabeofavoris 'Divinigralu, qui print diligtbantur, neqaajus n fequitur De- 
um, out volant af en "Dei infe uutabiUm ejfe, fiveloquiMur de laatabilitate phyfisa, 
fve de muiabilirate morali. 

Tiim quoJaJ diviuuat amren'cxtcutioHU Attinet ^Tieum non amare ja/lificatot 
peccatimorialk rtitaittvolutos antireextcationis, nihil aUaie(iy qm » eumnon con- 
ferrein iUiS eabom Jpiritualia, feu media falatU, qatprim in tos conferehat nuUa 
igiturefibicmutatio quoad ad luimmingntet, quiin ip/b T>eoexifiunt, fed tantuia 
quoad a^Mtranfeuntes, qui r**'*t extra T)eum (^ inboiHinibmrecipiuntur, & pro- 
iridciU raufatU nontnutaiur'Dcut, fed iUiin qutbmbi a&nt, (3' eorun tjfida ttt'u 
piuatur. 7):cet aliquU : "D.'ua noafolum Hon confert ilia beteficiaia eos, [ed etiim 
durante CO fiatunonvuU ea conferrc : prim aatea voluit ca (onfcrre . (ff prelude 
tnuiatuefl. Re/p. Votuit prim ilia bencficia tommanicare iu exifteniibmin alio 
(latu Seiiu exiflerttibm inhoc fiatu impietatUf &* impjenitentit^ neq, jam vulr, 
Heq^unquaft vo'uit, itHOa!^ ^ternon«luu b£C bemficia coatmunieare. Quamvu'gi- 
tar durante hoc fiatu be>tevolentia7}ei quafiligata d* iapeditafit i ut fupramonui^ 
line taminnonfequitur earn In fe mutatam iffe .- fedtantora mutattmejfe ejus ob, 
je£fu«i, quia via objelttim ejusy boc efiy homines ek£li, prius crant eapaces iflotum 
bene jiciorum nunc vera eorum capaces nonfunt. 

J, Major (3* g'ravior difficult at e(i de a-aorecomplacenti*, (st olio diJplicentU 
eioppo/ito. Cun enim hi aifju fint immanentes, boc ejt, tn ipfo T)eo exi/ientes, ik 
mutatii videtur ipfe Dent infe mutari. Rejponderi folet primo, non mutarihot 
a^M realiter^ (g* a parte rei { quia uter^ bic acf*t in Deo fuit ab ttterno, &* in 
teterawn in eo durabir, cum rejpedu ad diver fos ijltM bominit flatm, quorum alter 
alteri in tempore fuccejftt, Ita refpo^det Fjnfeca tom.i.Mitapb.iib.j.cap*^ qus/i.^, 
feif.7» ^aoilfi (inquit) qui* objiciat eundem poffe prius odit haberia'Deo, fifitiu' 
jufius, pofiea vera diligi, ltfitjuftts,(j;' vice verfa, Jim ulli divine voluntatis mu- 
tatiene, ergo nihil repugnare quo minus Jivim voluntas nulla mtdo mutata tranfeat 
amlitione in voUtionemretejufdem. ex diSfit patet folutio. Deus eitiia non tuodem 
odiohabet, acdHigit pro eodem tempore^ fed prodiverfis. Adde, quod et ft in eoden 
bonine ju/fitiafacceditpeccato, autpeccatum\uftiti£, tamen odio, quo Dius iUum 
profequitur ut peccatore/n, nonfaccedit amor, quo ittjin idigit atju/iwa, aut contra ; 
[eduterq^ ajfiifut divinus tteinus efl rejpiciens diver fos bominis fiatus, quorum alter 
alteri {uccedit in tempore. 

4. SecanJo rejpondeo t qutnv'u concedereouts ej/e aliquam mutationem (^ fuccef- 
ponem inailibus immanentibus amor it (3* odii divini ftrmaliter conftderatit, quale- 
nuiperrationemdifiinguunturabejfcntia divina <(^ inter fe, bocefi, quamvii dice- 
remus a£I urn amor U complaceutiis erga ele£fumin hoo cafunon ampliusefeinDeo, 
eiqifuceederea^UTiodtidiJplicentii, non t amen inde fequeretar effe mutationem ali" 
quanrealeini»ipfo Dio. tl am ait us Dei libsri nihil fuper ad iunt voluntati aut 
t^entititvinsy prxtcr rejpe3;infea relationen rationit, aut extrinfecam aliquam 
coiMotatioiem, que tanenadrealem eorum entitatem not pertinent : namtotaeorum 
MtitM realis efi ipfa D:i ejflntia, Miibi/^ intrinfeei includunt prater eam. ^amvk 



i^har'Detu Jefineret amars est qttosprtus amaiat, non mutaretat mut~atione realh 
quia nihil teaie amitte,ret. f^ inciferet eos amare quos prias 6dtt,non mutixemryquiA 
nihil realeei ateederetj mutatio autem reafit ntn ft, fwoUqutt additioneaut aklni 
tinne reali. 

5 . Non mcefit efi ut hie probera aifus iUof nttSam realem entitatem ( five ea vo> 
tetarperfe6lio, five extenfio a&us divini ad ohjtifa) fuperaddere ej/hntix Sviax* 
Nan Eva«geUci omnes hoc unanimiter tenent : (& quod ad Pontificiot attinet, 
quamvu C-ij tanus in t*" partem Tbamg qttxfl, i9> art, % (3* i Fanfsca/tfm- j« 
Idetaph.lib 7,cap ^, qutejl. %. fe£l,^%t3» SxUs i3,ix^ qa^ft. 6. art. i^traif^ ^IP'i* 
ft^ 8. doceant aCfus liberos TJei^ feu decreta ejas,fuperadJere e^entU divintrea^ 
iem quandam entitatem, quis ab ttemopoiuit non ejfe in 7)e0y qttis^ revera in eo noa 
fuijffet, ^ ab ttterao aliter deerevijfeti O" hot adus non habuiffet^ major tamen (^ 

meliot eorumparsincontrariaefi [ententia vi^^ Suarez. ro/w. s* Mltaph. di^.io, 
f((f.g (^ VAiqiicz. in i"*^ parte a Tbomt. di^utiSo.cap-itO**. Valent. fo«.i» 
dtlput. I . qu£fi . ig.pan£f.4. AnubaX in primam partem Thom^i di^ut ^4.cap.i. (^ 
fe fequentibas, Bccanus in fumma. Parte 1. Tra&, i. c4f.ii. qtiiep.4. Tngofusfn 
fumina Tbsol<^i(a Bonaveoturx ^u«y?. i^. art,t,di$bi» coneluf, i, FrancifcuS 
Cainel variarum dijpat tom.t.in difp deprttfcientia'Dcidub.i p.^7,Scc. Horumfcn- 
tentia procuUabio e/t verior il/aalterat qaiafiin'Deo efi realkaliquaentitoii que 
ab xternopotuit in eo non ejfey atg adeo potuit non omnino ejfe, feu ejfc merum niiil, 
necejfario feqttiittr aliquidej'ain 'Deo quod non eft 'Diui. 

6, T>i(et aliquii : fi mutatu aSlibuT liberit T>eus reaitter mn mtttattir, poterlt 
/alvafua immutahiHtate^ mutate decreta fua de rebus futurii, O* proinde poterit 
incipere veSe quodaunquam antea volait, vel definere ve/le quod pritu veluit, NaM 
talk mutatio deaetotum divinorum fit fine aliqua adtUtione, cut ablatione reali i 
JSie^JT>uplicem ej^e mutationenii vix. Fhyficam (Sf HoraUm» Phyfica,feu realU ma* 
tatio fit per additionemt out ablationem alicujui entitatit realU. Moralu mutatio eft 
propofiU (s* voluntatU, out etiam cognitionU (S" fcientite mutatio j ut fi quid quod 
antea pat abat -ueruMydeinde falfunt jaiicet ; O* quod antea facere deereverat poftea 
nolit, quod fane magnam imperfeifionetaineoquific mutatur arguit, VideW ii'(\Me* 
^ium in I '^partem Tbom« fuper qvuft 9, art.^. Cum izitur Deus dicitur abfoluti 
immtuabilU id non minui inteUigitur de ntorali quam de Phy^ca immutahilitate, ntm. 
mutatio propofiti (st confilii qut morali* "vocatttrj arguit inc9nftantiam, impru* 
dentiam, ta* cognitionit imperje£lio»emi qut nonminus fuunf* & abfoluti T>ti per- 
fitiio'ti repugnant^ quam Piyfica,feurealU imitatiOt at bene obftrvat Suart-z. tom.t, 
Metapb dilpB^o. feSl.Q.num.^S. 

7 Ex hi* patet Deunt, cam odio difplicenttt pro/eqaitur eleSum, quern prius 
amabat amore complacentiie ,non mutari s quaaviifortaffc nunc minimSfit in eoaifuS 
complacent tte, confideratus at relpeifum rationit ad tale objeffum divine e^entit 
fuferaddit ; Prima enim ablato tali a(tu, 'Deus phyfiic (3* realiter non mutatur^ 
qwa nihil eidecedit preter meru^ ref^eifum rationit ut irrefi'agabilibui argumentU 
dzmonftrant Suarcx- (f l^afjuei, loiiicitatii. Seeundo, nequemutatur moraliter, 
quia non matat propofitum, fed contra, permanet in fuo propofito, aut potiui itt 
naturali fua inslinatione , qua ah etcrno fait, nunc eft, <st feraper erit, propenfus 
ad amatdam virtutem , (s* ad deteftanda vitia, feu petcata. Ptrmanet etiam 
in [uo propofito perducendi cos quos elegit & ju/iificavitad <eternamghriam, nam 
foHdumfiat Dei fundamentumj habens figiUum hoe, Novit Timinus eos qni funtfui, 
1 Tim.i, ijj.. 


Mark here thit the reafon which BamiUu, Burgcrfiicim and others girc againft 
Gods change of his Decrees, vj^. be (hould be morally mutable, holds not of the 
imntnent afts which preroppotc their obj efts, and whofc objtfts arc really mu- 
table : as Bartnim here manifelteth. It is certain that things are fometimc future, 
fomedmc prcfcn: or exil^em, and fometime paft ; and that they are lo is of God, 
but without moral mutation: therefore his Knowing them lo, and his Willing 
and Approving them fo, is without moral mutation too. So the fame man is 
good or bely to day that was bad and unholy yeftcrday : theieforc God may Icve 
him today with cemplacency and approbation, whom he difliked before j and 
may know him to be as be is, which before he did not, becaufc he was not as he is. 
1. Note the reafon why God cannot change his Decrees: Both becaufe they do 
effcd or produce their ownobjeds (as commonly called ) viz. Kmim pituriti' 
nan, when as Oods Approbation, his Knowledge ^r^ew/S^w, hi j Complacency, 
O'c. do prcfuppofe their objcds. i. And it would be acontradidionfor the 
fame event, to be future and not future, e. g. mans falvation : therefore if God 
abfolutcly Decree that Trtcrrtiail be faved, arid after Decree the contrary, thefirft 
Decree muft be changed caufleily, and for want of power not be executed } and 
alfo as it is verbum memitt it n^^ft ^ ^*^« • which cannot be. 

I Had thought to have faid nothing of panicular Scriptures that (peak of Gods 
afts which W4 call Immanent as Beginning or Ending , bccaule they arc fo 
commonly known : But left any fliould think I flight Scripture Argument, which 
I principally eftetm, or left they take it for granted that there is none fuch, becaufe 
•one are produced, I will adde fome texts in conErmation of the minor of this fol- 
k>wlng Argument. 

If God himfclf in his Word do ordinarily fpeak of his own Ads, which we 
call Immanent, as Beginning or finding, then is it not unfit for us to do fo to» 
^God knows beft how to exprcfs his own Ads.) 

But God himfelf in bis Word doth ordinarily fpeak of his own Aft$,whicb 
we call Immanent, as Beginning or Ending : 

'Lxik.i.si.^efMitncreafeiinfawurmtbGodaHdmaM.'] Gods [favouring] Chrift 
is an Immanent ad : and yet Chrift increafcd in Gods favour ; Incrcafelignificth 
mutation, by an inceprion of further degrees. 

Rom. 9. If, I mil caU them my '^cojfle whicbvferenotmy people, snd her Bclevei 
Ttbich vat not beloved.'] Love is an Immanent ad. 

Job. i 6. 2 7, The Father himfelf loveth yoM,beedufe je hive loved me and bekeved,8cc.'2 
Therefore it was when they beleeved and loved Cbrift,thattbe Father in this fen^ 
began to love them. 

Joh.14.z1, 23. HeibatlovabmeJhaUbclovedofmy Father,tndImHlovibim,8ic» 
tAnd my Father rviU lovehim,and vee mil eome unto him,8cc.'] 

Pro.8.17, I love them that love wic, &c.] Therefore with this fame love, they 
were not before beloved, though with another fort of love they were. 

Joh.io.i 7. Tbertfere dotbthe Father love me, becaufe I lay dowamylife,Scc. 

Uof. 1 1 . 1 . iVbeii Jfratl tftfi a cbildc then I Inici bim. 



Deut.7.»2j»J. ifjehearkfnt^c. the Ltritfy God tiflUkupunti thee ^eetitenim* 
Sic. AndbevfiUlave^u,8cc. 

H of. 9 . 1 5 . Ivfill love them »fl more : All their Trincts Are reualtert. 
Pfal.f.j. TbouhatcftaUthevforfiers of iniquity. 1 Such arc theEUd before con- 

Gen.4 -7. If thou do roeUJhitt thou not be Accepted, &c ? 

So all thofc texts tha; fpeak of Gods being reconciled, which prepcrly fignifics 
an Immanent a&. 

Aft. 1 o. J f • H« thst feared God ittd worketh righuoufnefi U Accepted of him. 
Mat. { . 1 7* This is my Beloved Son in xohoni I am well pieced. 
H tb. 1 5 . 1 6. ir^itb fuch facrifice God if mil pUsfed. 
Heb. 1 1 . J . He hsd this tejiimony that he pleafed God. 
I King. 3 . 1 o. And the Beech plcifei the Lord tbtt Solomon allied^ &C. 
Heb.ii.6. JVithoutfiiwiThimpolfiblctopleafeGod. 
I T heir.4. 1 . How ye ought to wsli And pleafe God. 
1 Cor.7. J z. He tbit is unmarried circtb. Sec. how he may pkafe ^e LwL 
Rom.8.8. They thit Are intheftejh unnot pleafe God. 
Prov. 15.8. Thepnyer of the upright is his delight. 
iSam.if.i^. IJ be thin fay, I have no delight in thee, Scc» 
Jcr 9. 14. F or in theft thirds do I delight faitb the Lord. 
Zeph. 5.17. HewiU rejoyce over thee with joy, he will refi in his love ; he iMjoy over 

Deut.iS 61. Anditfballcometopa^e, as the Lord rejoyced over fou t9dojougoii$ 
&c. fo the Lord will rejoyee over you to dejfroy you,Scc. 

Dcut.jo.9. Eorthe LordwiU again rejoyee over thee for good- 
Pfal. 1 04. J 1 . The Lord jhall rejoyce in bis worlit. 

ira.6i. s. As the bridegroom Rejoyceth over thi bride, ft fball tbj GodRejifCC 

I Tim.t.iJ. Study to Jbew thy felf approved untoGod. 
Deut.j1.19. WhettbeLordfawa, he abhorred them. 
Gen.i.4,»03»5,J»- Godfaw the light thai it wis good. 

Ifa. 5 9. 1 5, 1 6 And the Lordfaw it, and it difpleafcd him that there was no judge* 
mtnt : And he faw that there was no man, and wottdred,8cc. 
Gen. 19 J » • ff^en the Lord faw that Leah was hated, be. &c. 
3ej:.t6.x,}. Diminijh not a word. If fo be they wiU bearlien and turn every mSH 
from bis evil way, that I may repent me oftheevil,wbich I purpofe to do unto them,becaufe 
of the evil of their doings. 

Jcr. J 6. J. It may be the houfe of ^udah will bear tU the evil which I purpofe to d§ 
uiao them, that they may return every nau from bis evil way, that I may for* 
give. &c. 

Gtn.6. 6. It repented the Lord that he had maie man."] So the 7''' verre. 
Exod. i%. 14. zAni the Lord repotted of the evil which he thought to do unto his 

« Sam.if.jj. The Lord Repented he had made Saul fC'«5 ] ^o the elcvenih 

X Sam.x4. 16. TbeLord Repentcdhim ofthecvil, and fai^tothe A»gel,8cc. 
Pfal. 106.46. He remembredfortbembis Covenant, and Ripeattd according to the 
multitude of bis mercies. 
Jer.x6.19. Attdtbe Lord Repented him $ftbce'jil,Scc. 

U 2. Ano» 


Amos 7. 3. the Lord Repmei fer this: . It fi)M m be fsitb the Ltrl'] Ss 
vcrfe 6. 

Jonah 4.1. J ^wrw thit thou art a gracicut Goi^ and ntercifuUt Jlow to tnger and of 
great iitndne^, and Repcntcft thee of the evil. 

Jon. J. I o. Jl%d Cjcd favf their worfis that they turned from their evil way, and God 
"Repented of the evil that he had f aid be veould do unto them, and did it not. 

Joal i.13. He h gracious, Sic. JJcw to avger,and Rcpenteth bim oftheevil. 

Jer. I y . 6. lam weary with Repentirg. 

Hof.i 1.8. Myheartii turned within me: my rcpcvtings are fiindled together. 

Pral.30. 5. Forhif /nger endureth but for'amoment. 

Pfal. 10 J .8,9. ThcLt>rd k mcrcifuU and gracious, flow to Angcr,^c. Meithcr will 
be keep his Anger for ever- 

I fa. 6 J . 1 o. Therefore be was Turned to be their enemy, &. c. 

Pial.8 5.3. Thou haft ta{cv away all thy wratb^ thou haft turned thy [elf from the per ce- 
Tufl'e of thy auger. 

a Chron. I i. 1 X' And whenhe humbled himfelfthe wrath of the Lord turned from hm 
that he would not deftroy him . 

Jolh.7. 16. So the Lord turned from the fierecnej? ofhk wrath. 

So * Chr0n.29.1o. & 30,8,9. ScPlaLio^ij. Jer.18. 20. and fo frequently. 

Alfo very many places that mention the kindling or arifiRgof Gods wrath. 

Pral.78,38,. Muny a time turned he his anger away and did not ftirre up allhk 

ProY.24.18. Left the Lord feeit,.andit difj^leafe him, and turn away hit wrath 
fiomhim. There arc three feveral immanent ads mentioned together. 

Soall thofc Texts where Remembring and Forgetting are fpokenof God, 

So many more Texts that mention Gods being difplcaled, ^«.j8.io. N«w« 
41.1. 1 Cbron.ii.7, Pf.6o.i.Zccb. 1.1. i^. 

So many Texts that fpcak of Gods feeing, isCJen i8.ii^&c. 

Pfal. 3 4.17. The righteous cry and the Lord heareth and deltyereth, &c. 

Pfal. 69. J J . For the Lord heareth the poor and dejpifeth not his prifovers. 

With many more places that fpeak of Gods Hearing and Hearkcniag. 

So many Tcxts.tha^ mention his Regarding, and his Confidering, and Pdn- 

And many that mention his Abhorring, and his defpifing. 

And many Texts that fpeak of Gods Pity and Gompaffion to the mifcrable. 

And many that fpeak of his Favour as beginning or ending, and mans finding 
favour in his eyes. 

And many that fpeak of his Grace when it fignifiech favour, and is expreffcd as 
beginning or changing. With many more to the fame purpofc. 

judg. 10.13.16. Te have forfa^en me and ferved other Cjods ; ff^erefore I wiU de- 
liver you no more. Verf. 16. They put away the (Irange Gods ajtd ferved the Lord. and. 
his foul wa/5 grieved for the mifery of lfrael,Scc.'\ And he did deliver them by ^ephtalj. 
Yet here God feemeth to revoke a peremptory fcntence. 

' If any fhall fay, that all the fe later are but figurative fpccches applied to God 
from the manner of men : I as cafily grant it as any man : But vvithall remember 
tbefc two things. 1 • Tfasti fuppofe it is as true of Gods Knowing and Willing, 
his Elefting, Decreeing, Par^oCing, ^c. only diftcring in the decree of impro- 
priety : Till the contrary be better proved tbcn I have feen it, I think this will bt 



my opinion, t. It is onely the fitnefle or unfitnefic of thefe wayes of fpccch 
concerning Godj that I am r.ow enquiring into j and not of the propriety. 1( 
it be the Scripture<^wayfo ordinarily to I'peak of Gods Immanent afts as New, as 
Beginning or Ceaiing, then is it not unlawfull cr unfit for us fo to fpeakj in imi- 
tation of the holy Ghoft : ftil! acknowledging the unavoidable Impropriety of 
our expreflionsj and the Incompreheniiblenels of that in God, which by fucb ex- 
prcffions is hinted out unto us. 

I renumber what Z-affciw laith jTiEpf/iJoh.Cratoni, in the third Vol. of his 
Works, pag. (miht) ij5. '^odais, ^recibuitHCveriDcumai/^fcoTnvciSmetcfit 
quant fi toUamm i 6'cripturfs , qua impietatej (£;' quot pagnantiA von e Scripturis col- 

The Second Toint. 

of god t$ fuflifc men. 

Mr.K' Second'j'X^Hittkre Ufmcwbat lilie to yujlificMion in the Eumd Decrees 

§. 28. 
7{,B, TF this alfo be intended againft me, then. Whether this Learned man 
•'' did not want ^/ork, when he undertook this, I leave the indifferent Rea- 
der to judge. The former Qucftion which he propounded to dilputc, he knew 
and confefled that I denied not; (Yet he hath forced me to fpcnd many words on 
it, and to fay more then I thought to have done.) This which he makes his fe- 
cond Labour, he will not fay that 1 was ever his adverfaiy in j or that ever I de- 
bated the Propofition,much lefs denied it : And yet all this feems intended againft 
me, and by nameanon he biingsme in. If this man had not fcmewhat Ah 60- 
wzne more forcible then any thing in the matter difputed, which iniligatcd his 
pugnacious foul to this confiid, then mulH confefs my felf quite miftakcn in the 
Motives of his undertaking. The former part of his Difpute hath convinced 
me of this. I remember we had fiich fparks among us when I was a School- hoy, 
that were wont (for maintaining the reputation of their valour) to appoint light- 
ing matches, and to the field they muft go, before ever they thought what ftiould 
be the matter of quairel, and when they came to the place, thty muit be dared 
by a third , to fpit in anothcrs face to make the quarrel j and he that refu- 
fed was the Coward, and he that fpit firli,and ftiuck fii it,had the firft glory,though 
fcvTietime not the laft. 

What I fliould do with all thefe following words of Mr. I^'s that concern me 

not, I do not well know. I hope none will txped that I ftiould engage my felf 

againft him to prove, that [there is nothing like to Juftification in the Eternal 

Decrees of Godtojuftifie] nor ihatl ihouki anfwer to all that he brings to prove 

^ M 3 • it I 


It I Yctbectufel take hlsDIfcourfeto be Tcry feeble, and to ftnill purpofe, I 
fhilltikc a brief notice of k in :hi way, whether ic were intended ajainll mc Di- 
rt&\fi or but Collataally. 

§. 19. 
Mr.K. A ^^ ^ nilie itgooi, not from tbk, tbst by resfojt of thk Decree, God k 
l\ fiidtohiv:fullificir9hjmhepreie(iirntei,Ko:n.9. For tnieei he if 
fuitobrjeglorifiei thcnilfo; though glorifying of mmj of them benottiU the eni of 
the vtorli, yei thtt fuUglmfying of nons of them he till then, ani the Decree t» glorifie tit 
whom be wiUglorifie at the eni of the WitU, xox bef«re the beginning of the vtorli : atU 
yet this cxpreftonJl)cws the Certiintj of tbcirf.i,lificnion ini Ghrifymg, who are pre - 
deftiwitcd i the Prccer tenfe being ufei only to exprejS the Cerumy of tbe future. Bite 
tbk I vPiU not infijl on j but run another courfe, and thit kthkt "fuftifintion k by tbc 
Confentof allmcn (ImcviTrotejiants) tRemifJitnofourfins, and cAccepting of u 
at T^Jghteo'M : Nowthk keitbortmeeritnmancttt, or ameer trxniient i/€.?, or both. 
Hinovenominwillfayttu ameer tranfitntrA^ : there being no tranjteut A^ of Goi 
rvhicb doth not fuppofc an Imminent one; for that be aHs nothing upon tht Creature, but 
rvbathefirSpurpofcdiahimfclftoaSi: fo then an Imminent a^ there m'4Jl be confcjit 
if there be a tranficnt one ; and x trxnjicntone IJhiUaclinorifledge at well at an tmmi' 
nent, and vobatit k vfiU enjuire by and by : Bitftrfl Icontsndthit imminent 'AH there 
can be no other then the Decree of Qod topijSibk traujient AH, and tbit thk 'Decree of 
God topi^ the tranficnt AB of ^ujiifying, carries in it at much as coucemt Gois Kc- 
mifftonof fins, and Acceptance of la s/i Righteous -, and therefore hiAmtch in it liiie 
tofujlificiiion; a^dmay befiiledfovfithoutBUfphemy, as ydr.Goodwinkpleafei la 
brand it in hk Rhetorical. And that thk Oecree to fu[Hfie us, carries as muck as con- 
cernsRemiffiinof fins, and ieceptingof m at righteotu, I prove thm: If it do not, thea 
the Remijion of fins, and Accepting of $u at Righteout.ire othpr imminent AHs. But 
tbit cannot be, for tben,either in t&e Vnierjiandlng or iVdl : but neither cin be fuJ vtitb 
fobrtety, for fare God cannot be (aid to Decree to l^nove any thing, or to decree to fVill any 
thing: not to linsw any thing : for tboughhclinowthingsinhfs Decree, yet ioth he not 
decree to l^now, bk l^nowledge being neceffiry , hk "Decree arbitrary: ant if be did 
decrcetolinopf any thing, w: mu!l conclude he mt^ht have not linowt it i for decrees are 
onlyoftbingirv'yichmtybeornotb?: Therefore vfhitfoevzr it be, it k no fuch difitnSt 
imminent Act in Cjods Vnderflviiing i anithiughtv: ufetofay, Navra minis Julti- 
fieJin Godsfi^hr, yetdoih notihk put aiy ma> 4:1 of i^titPU-igc in Goi, but ftgni" 
fics only 1 TcHimony giv:n by God, rvhereby he mimics m f{noi» thit xfe are j-AJiified be- 
fore God, or inhk fight i audi am fure that Mr binztv, vfboiiotethSfiircz, Schib- 
Icr and K'.ckcrmrrx at every boHt, cannot be ignorant that tbe r»)rd of fighr, though it 
be for the form AHiv:,kfor tbefubfiivccof it rather ?ifije,anith:refore it not attribu- 
table to God j/s it k to tat but in him it ft unifies a milling of at to fee, and we are faii 
tibcfidifiii inhk ft ^ht, ro'jenbemi^ies it asit rv:reejiientto our fight thit nrc are 
^u(iified : asrohin Qod kdiiio l{noix> rv'jit rvis in Hjzekiihs hart, tbe menting k,hc 
male linovon to Hezckiih vohitivjt in hk heirt. 

i. To Decree to iVi'.l God csnin be Cud ; for thit k as much as to If til to Will, rvhicb 
vfjit nejcr heard of. the o^jscl of the fViU being it bed but tbe impcrate 4 H, not hk ovf 1 
elictte AH > for xvhit ne:i oflVdling to i9iU a thing, if'jen one iVdling ' k enough f And 
bethitvfilstovfill, wUs no more then he doth alreaiy ,*r»'jich k to xeill, one of tbefe 
AHs Muji Meeit be fupcrflu9m > Mi there km grtuni topM arty fuebin Goi,jeaormin. 

I at' 


1 atktuwltJgfannmitifmecafesnnjbefaidttff^illte U mre willittg, A^^hn tU 
flejh ititcrpoftib and dram him fff fm villnig fully, tr at Uaftfrom txttming hk will r 
but thii is rathtr u vfiUafcedtm fim a difturbame cfthffcrfitive apptiitt, then torvill 
the (xercije of the ratiovalvpill', new (uih anmurnbramc o}thtmlUfgcd, thcrccmbe 
mte, and confequaitlj tiogreuvd whcrcoh to raife fu(h an afftrtion as thit, that he rmy be 
laid to WiU, or decree to Wtlirvbkb it equivolent, jittd thtu it appears in general, that 

there it n»mv>immatiem^HinGodre\uircd,}eapeJJible,tothe^ftifjirgtfaman, *c- 
fides hit decree to ^(iifie m. 

§. »9. 
R.B. T Confefs I had farre rather be implcycd in debating the point of Juftifi- 
•* cation^ then of Gods Immanent ads, which you before infiitcd ©n. 
But to deal freely with you, I nerer read frcm a LearneJ, Orthodox man, a more 
fupcificialj unprofitable Difcourfc on that Subjeftj orthatlefs exprefleth a com- 
pnent undcrftandiog of the point, if my Judgement fail not, as probably 
it may. 

1. To what parpofe you tell us what Arguments you will not ufe {vi^. from 
RwB.8.3*.) I know not. 

I. Though I little know to what good ufe it wou!d be, to acquaint us vhoi k 
li^e^fiificititn, yet, me thinks, were it ufeful, it fhould have been better pro- 
ved. And firft me thinks your Mtmory fails you (which you had need to'^ake 
cxttaordinary care of :) The laft Difcoarie was much fpent in (hewing that 
[there is a great difference between Immanent Afts and Tranfient] and that 
ttbere is a dear diflerence between them as between heaven and earth : Tranfieuc 
Afts being in the Patient, and Immanent in the Agent] So that to equal them 
in Eternity [is either to make the Creature eternal, or to deny God to be Eter- 
nal.] And now the fecond Difcourfe muft be to prove them to be like : For the 
Decree which is an Immanent Aft hath fomewhat like Jufiification, which you 
tonfefs a Tranfient Aft. But yet I doubt not but your Learning can make this 
good : For you that can prove that Gods Immanent Afts which are his Effence, 
do differ no more from poor mans, then as you have expreflcd, may well prove, 
that Gods Immanent A fts are like Trarficnt Aftsj much more that Heaven 
and Earth are like. And dcubtlefs your undertaking is very feafible : For you 
may well prove, that there is a fimilitude between Gods Immanent afts, and a 
ftonc, or a tree, or a woriUj or any thing in the world : For you will fay, that 
Godslmmancnt afts are God himldf, and that thefe Creatures are all Good; 
and then all things that are Good, arefomewhai Liketo God; Therefore every 
thing in the world (having feme Good") is fcmewhat Like God ; Alfo they have 
a Being, and therefore have feme likcncfle to the fiift Being, But then what 
LikencBcthis is, er in what Degree, you have more Wit then to undertake 
to tell. 

4. The Rcafon that you give for your not arguing from Rcw.8. 30. isbecaufe 
[indeed he is faid to have Glorified them alfo.] But how fell it out that you ob- 
fcrvcd net , that on the fame Rcafon , you (hould have rejefted the Argu- 
ment which you here ufe ? Becaufe indeed it faith as much ( for ought 
1 knew) to prove Gods Decree to be like Glorification, as to be likcjulti- 

5. Should you not have told us in what fcnfc you take Juftification before yoU; 


define it ? Who knows whether you mean Juftification Conftiiutive, or Sett* 
tenciall V (notiofneak of ihc many other diitinftions of J unification.) 

S. Whjr wouid you tell the world whu 4U 7me/{<tn(/ cake Jttfti£cation to be ^ 
as if you knew them ail ?, 

7. Atlcalt, h jw comes i: to pafs that fo Learned a man hath read fo little, and 
would bewray it Co eafuy ? as to fay that [ All I'loteftanti confentthat Juftifi- 
cationis theRcmiJTioaof (in, and Accepting of u$ as Righteous ?] Would yau 
be believed in fucbnoLOiious untruths which you fear not to utter even in a mat- 
ter of fa*.^, where there is fo much vilible evidence againft you ? How many of 
our Englifli Divines ( befules all othcts) affirm Remiflion of fin to be a fruit or 
confequent, and no part of Juftiii:a:ion ? had you read but M:.XradJhiW and 
Mv.Gitilier, you would have known fome. How many on the other lide make 
Remifli jn of fin antecedent to Jullification in order of nature ? and JulUfication 
tob; its immediate confequent ? How many take Remiflion of Iln to be the whole 
of our Jultihcation ? yea wha: full Difputes and TreatifesaRe written only or 
principa ly, or ai lead vc.y n^uch to prove this ? and wbac famous Divines arc 
they that maintain it ? How many be there that take Jullification to confiil part- 
ly in Remiflion of iin, and partly in the imputation of Chrilljown Righteouf- 
iiefs ? andthefe with the former fay, that Accepting us as Righteous is a confc- 
nuent of Jurti^cation; Sin mult firllbe remitted, lay the former, and Chrifts 
Righteoufnefs imputed ours, fay the later, before God can Accept any man a^ 
Righteous ; For man mull firil be Righteous, before he can be accepted ^as fucb. 
Yea Mr. Arthur Dent in his Catecbifm, defines juftificarion to be, A clcanfing and 
renewing of our nature by the Spirit of God, 

The number that are of chei'e fcveral opinions are fo great, and the men fo 
eminent, and well known to Divines that have been much verll in this Con- 
troverfie, or are of any confiderable reading in our Modern Writers, that I 
Ihall thinK it needielle to cite any of them. Hath Mr, I^. read none of allihefc f 
or will he blot out their Names from the number of Proteftams ? 

8. Yet more grolVely doth he affirm, that he [knows no man that will fay it is s 
meet tranfient ad.] I think then you have either read little of this Conttoverfic, 
or little remember what you have read ; at leafl, are an unfit man to tell us what 
All men hold, or all Proteltants, when you profefs to know fo little. You might 
hav« feen this in fome plain £n^li(h books, that are in the hands of the multitude 
of thofe below you. Mr. Tfeo, Hoo/cer maintains it, That JulUfication it not an 
Immanent but a Tranfient ad. But what need I name any, when it is known to 
to be the comjnoa'JuJgement of our Divines, and thofe tew that have maintained 
Juftification to be an Immanent aft (and confcquemly eternal) have been taken 
for Erroneous therein, and as militating fo farre for the Antinomians. Sec Mr. 
2;<rgejJof Julfitication, Lcf?. 20. p. 167,168,169. 

9. If Juftification be a TranUent ad, and yet not a tneer Tranficnt ad, thco 
is it both an Immanent and a Tranfient ad- And if fo, then either it is two ads, 
or elfe the Immanent and Tranlienc ad are one. If luftification f Adive) be two 
ads, then it feems it is ditrifible i yea and one part of it is £ternal, and the other 
in Time only: And then we muft not enquire, What the juftifying ad is? but 
What each of thefc ju(lifyi«g ads arc ? Of this if I knew your rainie, perhaps I 
might fay more. If the Immanent and Tranfient ad be but one, diverfly confi- 
dered ( i. As in the meer form of an Ad, having not yet efFeded anything > 
z. And as the fame ad is received into the fubjcd EafTire, and To isthePafHon) 



then the fame aAUno more Immanent, when it is onc« trtnfient j and then we 
muiifay, that the aftof Juftification wasctcrnalj but the paflion or eflFed in time 
bnly. Butthisfenfe fcems Tomuch to contradid, .both your foregoing difcourfc 
of the diSerence o( Immanent and Tianfient ads, and your after hint of the 
iTran^ntad which juftifyetb, thatlwill^not imagioe it to be the TcAfe you 

10. But your rcafpn why no man will fay it is a mecr traoficnt ad, is very 
darkly oilcovcred : It is bccaufe [there is no tranfient ad of God, which doth, 
not fuppofe an immanent one.] But doth it follow that therefore Juftification is 
not a meer tranfient ad, b'ccaule it fuppofeth an immanent ad ? Why did you noc 
tell us whether it luppofe ic as an antecedent, or as a part of Juftification, or as 
what elfe ? But you know that all that is fuppofed is not therefore a part. Or i£ 
it were never fo necefl'ary a foregoing caufe, yet it follows not that the neerec 
caufemay not bctaufa totAlifitt fuogetterc, and fo be denominated. May not you 
on thele grounds as well fay, that there is nothing in the world is a meer tranfienc 
ad, becaufeit fuppofeth an immanent? The building of ahoufel think is a 
tranfient ad } and yet it fuppofeth divers immanent ads in the builder, and an 
immanent ad of God that willed it. 

11, But what is this immanent ad ? You adde [For that he ads nothing up- 
on the creature, but what he firli purpofed in himfelf to ad.] 1 doubt not but 
youeafily fee, that if this reafon prove any thing, it will as well prove that Cre- 
ation, Redemption, Sandification, Refurredion, Glorification, are none of 
ihem meer tranfient ads : For God ads thcfe in Time: and therefore he firli 
purpofed to ad them. Yea it will do as much to prove that God never di.i, noc 
can perform a meer tranfient ad: becaufe he can do nothing but whathepurpo- 
fcth. What need youthen apply this to Juflification any more then to any thing 
elfe? as if Jullification had any peculiar participation in this honour, abovq 
fotBC other ads '. By your reafon, the dividing the red fea, the fending of Manna 
and Quailsjthe writing of the ten Commandments, were none of them meer tran- 
fient ads. 

' 11. Immartent adspafs not into the extrinfick objcdi ani make no change 
ton them> and therefore are not caufall : and therefore cannot well as caulals 
be denominated ttom their efFeds : therefore no immanent ad of Gjd can 
be called Jullification, orpart of Juftification, or a juftitying ad : For it mult 
be fo denominated from theefF:d of juUifying ; But it is the tranfient ad only 
that efFcdeth Juftification (Paffive :) therefore it is the tranfient aA only that is 
to be called Juftification. 

ij. I have oft times asiked the Antinomians, what text of Scripture they coull 
(hew thatcalleth any Immanent Eternal ad of God by the name of Juftification, 
or of pavt of Jultification ? and I could never yet fee any that they pioduccd ; 
and I fuppofe that you are alfo unable to (hew any fuch } or elfe you would its 
like, have done it- 

14. When you fay [God decreed to Juftifie] do not you plainly make [De- 
creeing] and [Juftifying] two things ? and denominate only the tranfienc ad 
which is in time [ Juitiftcation ?] So of other ads j as when we fay [Gad de- 
creed to create :] you do noc fay, His Decreeing was Grciting. 

15. You conclude that [an Im'-naneac ad mullbcconfcft if therebca Tran- 
ficTitone.] Anf. U is eafily confeft that an Inmancnt ad (fo called, for our 
undctftanding ) there is from Eternity concerning everything that is in Time 

- " "N • • • ' pr9- 


produted : bm that provrt not that the prodacfng tft in TJm«, is flot mecrly 
rfanficnr. 1 all this while fuj^pofc that you mean by denying Juftificationto be 
fa meer tranfient ad] to include feme other zSt juttifying, eras part of Tu- 
ftlfication, artd not only to prove an antecedency or concomitancy of fuck 
4n Immanent s6t. Elfc your rcafonlng wotild be abi'urd or againft youi 

i6. Hating thus proved that there muft be an Immanent aftj you next fay, 
that [There can be no other then the Dccreeof God topafi thistranfient ad.] 
Youf contention for this is bold, your proof of it weilc. As Gods immanent ids 
are the fame with his fiffence, fo he bath but One, that if, he is but One : Un- 
icrftandiflg, Willing, Nilling, is all One J and fo there is but one Immanent 
atft injuflification. Condemnation, or what you will elfc, bec^te there is but 
One God: Of rather God hath nothing properly called an Ad, bccaufc he is 
God. Bat as we afcribc One ad to God Analogically I\)cak*lng of him according 
to our capacity, fo mufl we on the fame neceffity afcribe to him more then One, 
and that IS by denominating them from the variety ofobjeds which they rcfped 
and connote. And fo as truly as you can diftinguifh between the Divine Intelle- 
dion and Volition, fo truly may we diftinguifh the Volitions of God, according 
to the divers f^ate of the objcds. Andfoif we could yield to you that there is any 
Immanent ad a part of Jnftificatlon, or that ctrrieih in it as much as conccrneth 
acceptance of us as Righteous, we might fairly fay as much, at Icaft, for another 
ad, as you can do for the Decree : For the Decree that you fpealc of, is only [ a 
Decree to pat's a tranfient ad] and fo hath for its objed fomething future : But 
the Will of God rfe pr«/r7rt/, by which he willeth the relation of the juftificd per- 
fon, is yet nearer the effed. So is his mcntatl approbation, and hii acceptance 
cf the perfon as Righteous (Willingly and Approvingly judging him Jufl j) fome 
call his eftimation of us to be Juft fcntmiam cvwepum asdiftind from fentnt- 
tut lax , but neerer to ic then the Immanent Decree to pafs an ad d« fu- 

i«7. You »dde [That this Decree of God to pafs the tranfient ad of juftifyijig, 
carries in it as much as concerns Gods remifCon of fins, and acceptance of us as 
Righteous.] By which words you may mean almoft what your lift j but how any 
man ftionld undcrftand your meaning that knows not your mindeby fome better 
difcovery, I do not know. i. Whether do you mean by [as much as concerns! 
antflemial conftitutive concernment, ^. i. [as much as conftituteth ?] But if 
fo, thtft you fhould exclude your tranfient ad, and the immanent alont fhould 
not be [fomewhatlike Juftification] but Juftification it fclf. For if thi» imma- 
nent be as much as conftituteth remiffion of fin, and acceptance of us as Righte- 
ous, and Juftification condfteth of thefe two only, then the immanent ad is the 
whole of Juftification. Or if you mean [ as much as concerneth it antecedently 
exparte Tiei'] that were manifeftly falfe : For the giving of Chiift, the accepting 
his Satisfadion and IntercefTion, and many other ads concerning Rcmiffion ana 
Acceptance, are antecedent to Juftification. Or if you fhould mean it in the full 
latitude, as your words import, vi\. That nothing concerneth our RemifCon 
and Acceptance bar only Gods Decree, then it is yet more palpably falfe : but 
this is fo grofs that I may not fuppofe you guilty of it, though your unlimited 
Words do fcem to cxprefs it. Or do you mean [as much of Gads immanent adi- 
on as concerns Rcmiffion and Acceptance is found in this Decree to pafs the tran- 
licnt adj] fuppoTrngtbij to be part of our Juftification, and the tranfient ad the 




tnbtr^utf Bur i. yotir nett words before ait4 after fe«n<o£diitrt<Iift that. Far 
you r»y it is C* Decree to juftifie] wbicJi therefore cannot bf pn-t of the thing 
Decr«C(it 2^« Andwl»»tiiic»nyoud)eii topka^thattcis [fomewbat Like julU* 
ficatioH] if it be a paccjand fuch a part. Is it worthy a Divine laborioufly to prove 
that a mans foul is Like a tnao ^ Or that [laying the Foundation] is ibmewhat 
Like to Building ? The truth i$, your terms perfwade me either that yon hold that 
Antinomian eternal Juftification, which yoa are oihatncd plainly to reveal^ or elfe 
f hat you know not what you hold your fclf, 

»8, Yet do you repeat theCc ambiguous words again, asthofe, it Teems, which 
fceft fit your defignt and you prove them thus : [If it donot, thenthe Rcmiflion 
jof fins, and Accopting of us as Rig,bceous, are other immanent ads : but thac 
cannot be:] Here you feem to explain your meaning of the former words, that 
it is £a conftitutive concernment] that you fpokeof: (but whether as the 
whole or as a part only I cannot tell.) For you fay, that elfe thefe [ircother im- 
manent ads] vtx,' [Rcmifliofl and Acceptance 4re either Gods Decree, or other 
immanent ads.] But i. why then do you make it your dedgn to prove Gods im- 
manent ad to be fomewbat like Juftification ^ RemifTion and acceptance of us as 
Righteous, are more then like it. Did not you fay before [Juilification is, by 
the confent of all Proteftams, a Remiflion of fin and an acceptance of us as Righ- 
teous ? a. Why did you before lay your proof no higher then this, [ that every 
xranfient ad /tt/»po/«b an immanent, vt^. Gods Decree.] j. It fcems to me here 
that you ail'ert eternal Juiiification in the definition, while youdifclaim it as to 
jiame. 4. At Icaft, you feera ( if I can underftand you ) to maintain that Re- 
Stviflion of fin and Acceptation of us as Righteous are from eternity. For you here 
import that thefe [dre] Gods Decree, and you elfewhere fay enough for the cter- 
dity of the Decrees. But you knew, its like, that this is fuch grofs Antinomia- 
nifm, a« that it was not for your credit openly to own it in the plaint ft terms. 
You give me not fuflSciem occafion hereto ftay long in confutation of this Error : 
yet briefly this I (hall oppofe. i. He that was not a (inner from eternity, was 
not a pardoned (inner from eternity : (or, he that had no (in, had none remitted.) 
But you were not a (inner from eternity : Therefore j^c. For the minor : He that 
VPtft not from eternity, was not a (inner from eternity : but you were not frot» 
eternity: Therefore,{i^(;. If you fay to the wujor, that it is enough to make us ca- 
pable of Remiflion, that we were Tinners in ejfecognit$ t I anfwer, either you (peak 
deef^efuturitionif, or dc c^e exiflevtt4i ut cognite : If of the former, the aflertion is 
falfe : for [Future] is a term of Diminution, as to any true Being. An inno- 
cet man is not a fubjed capable of Remiflion of (in, « «o»k'w, becaufe he will (in 
hereafter. If of the later, I fay, God knows no man to be a (inner quosd exijleH- 
titm prsfeutcm, that is not a hnner : Elfe he (hould know untruly. £. Where 
there is no obligation to puniJhment there is no remKfion of fin. Baton you or 
mc there was no obligation to puni(hment from eternity : ThereforCj^c. The 
»ni;or is proved from the definition of Remiflion : which is AdilTolution of an 
obligation to punifhmcnt. Where there's no obligation, there's none tobedifp 
folvcd. The minor is proved thus : He that is not a finncr is not obliged to pv.- 
niihmcnt : But you were not afinner from eternity : Therefore, (i^c. Alfo <>i^i 
non Eli, uon eft obligitui ad penam: At tu dbaternono^t fttijli : Therefore, c;'c. 
3. That which is undone in Time was not done from Eternity. But fin is un- 
pardoned in Time, (v/i^;. till we be united to Chrift by faith, as Scripture abun- 
dantly witncileth :) Therefore it was not pardoned from Eternity. 4. God ac 

N a cepteth 


ccpteth rio man ts Rigbteoiis-tBat i$ not Righteous ( yea that i< not ") (for he ac* 
ccpccfh rm.n as tiity arc and not as they arc not.) But no man was Ri^htcoBS from 
E-.erniiy : There tore Grd accepted none as Righteous from Eternity, liut enough 

oltii:ic, till you ip«ak "cnc cpfnly. I 

19 Y larproof ( that. iiciniffion and Acceptance arenootherads immanent 
but the Decree) is this: lFof then cither in the Undcrftanding or the Wil. : 
but neither, c^f] tAnf. i. I eafily yield that Remiffion » no other immanent 
3(51 i btcaufc it is none at A\ z. But your proof fecins rwne to me. Yiu utj 
[Surely God cannot be laid to Dccrea to know anything, or toDccrecto will any 
thing.] Your argunjcm I chink iic» thus : [If God cannot be faid to Dtcrec t» 
know or will any thing, then he hath no other immanent ad bnt his Decree: 
Bm/j'c. Thereforc,C7''.] liut here's no proof of the Conlequcnce ; which needs 
proof. G 3d cannot be faid to Decree to know himielf (according to you} fori 
profcfs I am ignorant of thefc high mytteries:) Doth it follow that therefore he 
doth not know himfclf ? I think nor. Nor doth it follow that the knowledge o£ 
himfclf is only his Decree, as T hope you will eafily contel's. Moreover ( accor- 
ding to you) God cannot be faid to Decree toknow rhinesto be Pafl. ( For you 
lay he cannot be faid to Decree to know.) Yet I think Gjd doth know, as bis 
own Eternity, focur Time, and the Futurition, Prefence, and Preterition ot 
things in our Time : and therefore it doth not follow that he hath no knowledge 
of things, but his Decree. For his Decree (as new taken ) is de futurif i but 
befidcs that God hath i. a knowledge de 'Trxteritis, and i. de ^T rxfentibug. 
You argue, from the NeccfTuy of Gods knowledge and the Arbitrarinefs of his 
Decree ; and many words you ufe which fticw that confidence'wbich I admire at : 
that you fhould pretend to be fo far acquainted with the Divine Nature, as not 
only to afcribe to God the ads of man fo far as you do, but to determine which 
ads are ncceflary, and which arbitrary, and that he cannot Decree to Know or 
to Will. I confefs I am ready to tremble inflead of replying, to think into what 
Myfteries you lead me fo boldly. But I refolve no further to follow you, then to 
manifeft your prefumption, and to fhew you that they arc things unfearchable 
which you vainly pretend fo well to know. Gods Knowledge is commonly dillin- 
^aiOixcd into fimplicif Intelligmi^, (^ Furx Vtfionk: The former is faid to be irt 
order before the Decree, and the later in order after it : therefore neither of them 
are taken for the Decree it lelf: and will you overthrow both by reducing all to 
the Decree ? The knowledge of Vifion is taken not to be nccelfary (imply, but 
only on fuppofition of the Decree, v\ hich anteceding in order of nature doth caut'c 
the Intelligible ob/eds. For, fay they, it is by this Decree that things pafs from 
the number of PofTibles, into the number of things Future : and they cannot be 
known as future, till they arc future J and they are made future Freely and not Ne- 
ceflarily : therefore in the knowledge of Futures there is a freedom rtiikAliter (s^ 
piTticipitive. And fo it is no luch hard or abfurd coneeflion, to fay, God might 
not have known what he knows : as long as he might not have made it an intelli- 
gible objed. 

ao. You next proceed to an objcdion, which you caft in your own way : and 
though I conceive you would not have made your felf any work, but what you 
were confident you could honourably and eafily ditpatch, yet here I think it fals 
9Ut otherwife. The objedionis from our ule of faying [ Now we are juftified 
in Gods fight.] Here i. you fay [ This puts not a new ad of knowledge in 
Ged] of which I have laid enough before. 2. You tell us (be fenfeof it: vi^. 



rhat [It fignifies only a Teftimony given by God, wbwtby be makes u$ know 
that we are juflified before God] and you fay [Sight in God fignifies a making 
us to fee: and we are faid to be juftificdin his fight, when he makes itj as it 
were, evident to our fight that an e arc juttified.] This interpretation is to me 
fomcthing ftrange, and not eafily received, both bccaufe of its Errcur, and be- 
caufe you fay fo little to cover that Errour, but thruft fo grofs a conceit upon u« 
upon your own authority. I rather think that the afcribing of fuch New afts to 
Godj is I. From tlie Moral A dot his Law, God being faid to do that which 
his Law doth: and fohe is faid to jud;;e us Righteous, when his Law of grace 
doth fo judge us : and vve arc (aid to be Righteous intejlmationeDivirii, when we 
Arc io in ff^fu Legkx i. From the change cf theobjeA: For as the variety of 
objcftsiienominateth Gods afts as divers, foonthc fame rcafon the Novity of 
theobjt6t> muft denominate them as new, though they be immanent ads. 3. Aad. 
by an Anchropopathie , Sight is oft pu: for Gods Remembrance or Obfcr- 

But you thruft upon us pure Antincmian fancies. 1. If your conceits be true, 
then rone is tc be accounted [Juftified in Gods fight] that do not lee themfelves 
tobcjuftifiedj for you think [Sight in God, fi,nifies a making us fee.] Then 
wo to all thole honctt fouls that fee not themfelves [uftified, nay rather think them- 
felves condemned : But yet ifl difcourfe with fuch, I will venture to give them 
better encouragement, for all yourdcftrinej and to tell them [You may be ju- 
ftified in Ood$''*fight, when you are condemned in your own.] 1. Shall we per- 
ufe the Scriptures that ufe thatphrafe, and fee whether ail or any one of them can 
be underftood as Mr. I^. cxpoundeth them in the Antindmian way of MAnifeftH' 
'tiojt. Pfal.Mj.z. Forinthy fghtjhaUnomitn be']uftificd. Doth it mean, no man 
ihall fee himfelf jufiified ? Jer.i8.ij. F orgivc not their iniquity, neither bl$t outthcir 
pnfrom thy fight. Is that only meant of hiding the rcmiflion from their fight ? or 
letting them know the wo«-forgivcncfs ? Where the Scripture fpeaks fo oft of 
doing that which if goodin the fight of God, or that which U evil in his fight, Dcth it 
mean Gods making tis to fee that it is good or evil ? What is fo good in the fight 
offinnersasthatwhichiscvil in the fight of God ? Job 1$. 15. Tbeheivens are 
Tiot clean in hif fight. Job 25.5. The fiarres are tot pure in hU fight. Is this fight of 
God amakine the creature fee ? Hcb. 1^.11. iVorfiirtg in you that whub is wctf 
fleafing in his fight. Isthismaking us fee? It were tcolong torcciteallj ifthc 
Reader will perufe the reft, 1 ^oh 3.12. Exod.y 5.26. zSam.^ 2.9. i Ciro». 19. 1 j. 
T/4Z.71.14. Hof.6.z. Kam 5.20. Mat.it.26. Lm^.io.ij. & 15.21. Pfal.19.ii. 
&JI.4. & 9. 1^. & 5.5 GcM 18.3. & 19.19. cr any other where this phraie 
is ufcd concerning God, I leave it to his own judgement whether any one of them 
be takeninMr I^'sfenfe: That of iChron-i^.^i. which he biings, is neither the 
famepbtafe, nor hath the fame fenfe, and therefore is nothing to the matter. 
Yet is not Mr.IC's expofition of that fatisfaScry neither : For he cannot prove 
that it is meant meerly of difcovering Hc\eiiiiih's heart to himfelf. It may be as 
much the difcovery of it by the eff'efts to others tor their warning, and fo fhew the 
frailty of man : But the plain fcnfe of the text leferres that knowledge to God 
himfelf and not to any man J even by fuch an Anthropopathie which is ordinary 
in Scripture, as in E^f^.i 2.3. It may be they vpiU confidcr, though they are a rebel- 
licuahoufe, as if God had betn in .in uncertain hope ot it. SoIm^.io.ij. ^er.i6,j. 
So where God is faid to repent. If God fpeak of himfelf to man.aftcr the manner of 
his own infirmity, muft wc therefore fayjhe means [our knowledge] when he men- 
tionctb hi» ow£ ? N 3 u, Thai 


»l. Thit 1 mty know whom he fpeaks to, he tideth [lam fare lit.BJxiif 
whoquoretb J'u4rf^. ^chihUr mi K^iermm it every bout cannot be i^noraat, 
i^e.'} The mittcr which he racmionfth is nothing to his Caul'c. But let what 
an overcharged fiotnack this Leirned man hath ? How many cafts hath he bai 
•Ircady in vomiting up the cboler of his fcorn ? And yet i; comes up ftill as frcfli 
•nd as biitar as if he felt no IrjimcH by all that evacuation. ' Truly his oft fcorn- 
full repeating my quotation of thefe childiHi A uthours, caufcd me at latt te turn 
overall ray Book to fee how oft it is that I quote them. And I can findr Suire^ 
but once named, and no place of him cited. l^eeliprmMi bat once cited, and tbeic 
twice named i and ^c^iii/<r thrice. Yet doth this man tell the world I quote them 
at every turn > fo well may we believe his confident Affertions about the unfearcb- 
able nature and myiicries of God, who hath the face to fpeak thus in a vifible mat- 
ter of £ad,wherc any man that will bat try it may findc him Nay,fecthemo- 

<lefty of the man! I cited two ofthemonce,and the third thrice in a wholeBook.'atvd 
in thcfe five or fix leaves he tels me of it,or fcoins me for it twelve times I 

»i. Henextaddeth [To Decree to Will, cannot be faid ; for that ii as much 
ai to Will to Will, which was never heard of > the objc<fl of the Will being at 
bcli, but her imperatcad, not hcrown clicitc a6k.] Rcpl/, i. I ftill abhor your 
prcfuraptuous pretence of knowing more of God then you do know^ and of (q 
meafuring him by man. a. Still iefiicrAntur moieftia cr vcritu. Who woul4 
think that a man pretending fo much to Learning, ftiould never have met with 
Schoolman,orPhilofopher chat Cpeaksthat which he here faith [was never heard oQ 
or having read it (yea or not having read it) durft fo boldly fpeak thus? At lea ft 
he might have feen it in the mott ordinary and obvious Writings of our own Di- 
Yines. In y^we^whis Cal'esof CoafcJ!/.i.M^.7. thcfe ar« the Jail words: Hinc 
vere dtcintitt (y ex omnium gentium cot^enfu, Voi6 Fetle' Believe which thou wile. 
Reader i but I am fure there's a wide ditfcrcnce between thcfe two men: when 
one faith, Dicimm omnium gentium confenfa i and the other faith [fi was never 
heariof.'] YeiFcrriutinfchfUHic.Ortbodox.c^pty. (a Chapter worth the lai^ 
in^depraieterminitione^ctufapcceati) affirms it of God hamfslf lldeo videtur 
quod cum VeMpcrmtttitUpfum, ntn fe h^bet mere l^gative , fad cum ili^uo tHu paji- 
tivo : (^ ideonon fdum non v\ik, (edetiAmvnh non Vclle,i.t. l^tluntM refieHitur 
fupn finon volentem : Dumfcilicetnon l^ult fi.da.m\impccca,re, fufpe»dendo aHum Tfl- 
litionit men negxtione, fed ctiim Vult fe non Vellc : (3* bxc cji aStudif ($• pofiitvs per- 
mijjio. /tttamcnutiHprim9fign9^rJ{j:giti9 pur4, dec Froiudecum T>ei(t VtliC' 
rit xh teurno non Incite Upfum, bibuit xSlum rcflexi-jum fuper negxtianem, Sec. At P«- 
terminavitfore injuici. Minime: Abjii hoc.'] This is approved by Churches of 
France. And yet this Learned man dare tell the world in print, that it was never 
heard of: which that he might have I'afely done, he had need of more ears then 
two. And it fccms this LearoeJ man hath lead little of the contentions of the 
Jcfuitej and Dominicans about th: natu e of f.oe-will, where he mi^ht have feen 
many of them touch this Q^ieftion, as Peuvius doth againft VtnceMiia Lenis, ali- 
as, Fromondus, and orhers frequently. N ly it fecms he is a llranger to the 
Schoolmen too : Perhaps in ftead of reading :hem, he conteinns them as he doth 
Scbtblcr, Sutre^ind l\eclierm\in. Scotusin^. fent. dijt.A9.q.i. f<'^- ^mibi) ^66. 
B. faith, Ftnit extra ejt fi!nt>lici:erop{trnum (^ funme volcnium: Ergo inter a qux 
funtiifinem fjoi e^fibi immdMiut eft migif volendum : fed VcUe eflfibi immedixtiua, 
qxiximmcdtJititeHliciiiipfuiiutin iinemuUimum, cum fink uUtmui ut bujufmodt fit 
preprium 9bje^'4%ipfi^ i^elle. Trtbonmrem : lUad «ft mAzis ^i^Undum volunttte 




rtberiquodappetituinaturalinatttTAliterefimagu appetenduta; hujufmodi efi qmipr^ 
pinquiui cfl ultimo, quid fimpliciter ntaxme appetitur vatwralitcr. 'TntUrtA Volumas 
poteA VcUe (mm aSium, ficut JnteUeSitti InteUigit [mm actum .- out ergo Fait (uum 
yeUc propter Ititetligere, out ittHverft, aut neutrum propter alterum : O'hquorde VcUc 

Sicol. i* OrkUit faitb, infent.l z. difi.i$.dub.i. lOmxe quod Vult, appetit dd fui 
kpm imperium : quia fie Vult altquid M Velit fe VcUe illud ; Et idea in aHu VeUndi 
feipfum mtvct, O'fibi demindtur , (^ pro tamo dicitur liberum {arhitrium) quamvk 
imtnutabilttcr ordinetur ad iUud.'] AnJ^jfcjCK/ flicws, that God Inth K/fHum vo- 
tuntatii pofitivum circa fuampermiJJioncmlt.i.deLibcrt.capiJ^. (^cap. ii, § 7,8, ^c. 
And why not as well iben about his aft. And Gods Will is his Efl'ence : There- 
fore he willeth it. "For that 7)eua vult feipfum h.uh hiiherto been unqueftioned^for 
ought I know (fo fai/cashemay be faiJ^atall to Will.) Aquivaa i.ia.q.i^.a.z. 
e. faith, ^jUa cum P^olmaatii objeBum eft lionnm Vniverfale, quicquid fub ratione 
loni contnetur, potcfi caderefub aSiu t^cluntatis. Et quia ipjum Vellc eji quoddam Bo- 
mm, f«ic^ Vcllc fe Vcile, ficuttJ" Ir.tcllcHMS cujm etjecium e[l Vcram , ImeUigit fe 
lutcUtgert, quia hoc etiamcjiquoddimycrum.'} yid(ff i.q.Zj.i.x^, If I thought 
it ncceilary, it were eafic lo heap up many more that are of the fame mindc But 
Iftiall only inbrothcily duty admonifliMr.I^. to make moic Confcience hereaf- 
ter of falfe fpcaking : and feeing he hath read fo very little, or loft it again, ra- 
llbct humbly to acknowledge his Impetfcftion (as wc that are guXty of the like 
muft alfo do) then to make a confident vain-glorious oflemation of ihac which ic 
feems by this, and many the like paffages, he bath nor. 

Let us adde fome Reafons, that the Elicite aftj may be the objcds of other E- 
licite afts of the Will, and not the Imperare only, as Mr. I^.faith. 

1. As ycfltwargueth before from the proportion with the Intcllcft. A man 
may underftand tHat he doth nnderftand> by a rcfleft zSl : Therefore he may Will 
that he Will. 

1. That which is an apprehended Good may be Willed : Bat an Elicite Aft of 
the Will may be an apprehended Good : Therefore, (g-c. 

J. Amanmay WillhiscverlaftingHappinefj; (For if the End may not be 
Willed, what may?) But his everlalting Happinefs confifteth partly in the Eli- 
cite Afts of his own Will, everlaftingly to be txercifed on God: [God being 
Objeftively our Happinefs) Therefore, (s'c. VcUe, Amare, Frui, arc afts that 
muft be peipetuatcd, and cither may be Willed, or no man may will his own 

4. Whatfocver is apprehended to be a fit means to this End er Happinefs, may 
be Willed ; But the Elicit afts of the Will may be apprehended a ht means hereto: 
Therefore, cy£. They arc commanded, a.nd they are made Conditions of Happi- 
nefs : and therefore are a means. 

5. The Eftefts of Gods fpccial faving Grace on the ioul may be Willed : Bat 
the Elicite Afts of the fanftified Will, are the EfFefts (and principal efFefts) of 
Gods fpecial faving Grace on the foul : Therefore, (j-c. 

6. Tiiat which a Ghriflian may pray for,that he may and muft Will : Bu: he 
may pray for the Elicicc Afts of a fanftified Will; Therefore, (jT'c. As he may 
pray. Lord, LBelieve, help my Unbelief : Sohemaypiay [Lord I am Wil- 
ringj make me reore Willing, and hcreaftc; Willing, ■^j't. 

7. Experience is in ftead of a thoufaud arguments, Ifcclthai my Wiliingnefs 
il the objeft of my unwillingnefe 5 and that in thcfe fcvtial waycs. j- I feel that 



uponthcrevlcwof my paft Wiilingncfs, and thcfi^ht of my pr</cnt WiliuigneTj 
(in any Good) my Will barh a Complacency in it, which is a true ^c//f, yea the 
firll and pnncipal Elicits Aci of the Will. x. I finJe that by a lefs perftft and 
intcnfc Ad, I do Will a more pcrfed Ad. Iain fomcwhat Willing, bat I 
would fain be more Willing. Nay to procure the Amendment ot my own hear: 
by this increal'e of my Wiilingnefs (which is indeed the Incrcafc of moft of ray 
Graces) is thcmain bulinefs of my life, committed tome by God, and to be in* 
tended by my fclf. And if I ftiould cail ofichii great bufinefi, and neither dc- 
Rre moicWillingnefs or Graccj aor pray for more, nor labour for more, becaufc 
Mr. I^. out of his fubtiUy tels me, rhattbe Elicite Ad isnoc the Wils objt'd, I 
{hould be bcfool'd out of my Chriftianity and Salvation by a trivial trick of vain 
Philofophy. }. I finds that by a pfefent Ad of Will, I do Will a future Ad. 
I do Will now that I may alfo Will to morrow, and to my lives end, and for ever 
in glory, and that better then now I do. 4. I feci that I do Will a more fincerc 
Willingnefs. I do Will Salvation with too much refped to my felf in ir, and too 
little to Gods honour. Now I would fain Will this more for God then I d». 
5. I would fain Nill many things which through my corruption I now Will. 6. 1 
would fain oft ful'pcnd a vicious ad of my Will, a: Icaft. In all thcfe rcfpeds, the 
Elicitc Ad'of my Will is the objed of my Will. 

But MrX. will be Learned in defpight of Natural and Gracious Experience 
(for 1 hope, for all his Learning, that he Would Love God more, as Love 1$ 
taken for au ad of the Rational part, and that he Wils a greater and a perfevering, 
yea a perpetual Willingnefs of God and obedience i and a fruition of God, and 
frui is an ad of the Will :) He will therefore prove what he once faith, and that's 
thus. [For what need of Willing to Will a thing, when one Willing is enough ? 
And be that Wils to Will, Wils no more then he doth already, which is to Will: 
one of thefe ads muft needs be fuperfluous, O'c'] To which I Reply j You may 
fee in the feverallnltanccs which I gave before, that it isneedfull, and that it is 
nor fuperflaou$,as you fay,and that it is more then he did before i A more perfeft 
ad, a future ad, a perpetuated ad , are more then he did before. Yea its 9 
doubt, Whether a very graceleffe man may not FcUe intcndere 7)eum, vel frui De» 
yea firidly Will to Will God as his bappinefs, or to Will Holin^Ts before Volu- 
ptuaufnefs, who yet doth ic not already. And me thinks fo acute a man might 
fee that this is not the fame ad which he performech already, for it hath not the 
fameobjed. The man is Willing to be favcd from Hell, but Unwilling to be 
Holy : He is convinced that he (hall not be faved , unlefle he become 
Willing to be Holy ; Therefore he wifheth he were Willing to be Holy ; 
If this were but with a Vt'cJty, it is yet an Elicite Ad of the Will, but 
it may be called a Volition, .hough unefFedaal, becaufe there is a Itronger con- 
trary Will : So that it is l^olitio quoad aHum <sAb(olutam , but quoii aHun Q>m- 
pxraxum, he is unwilling. The Objcd of that Will which he hath, is his 
ydle fanHiut€m ,• the Objett of that Will which be would have , is Holi- 
ncls it felf. It that l^elle (^ ftm^itnf be not all one, then thcfe two Ads be 
not all one. 

But Mr.I( confefTeth at lafl that a man may be faid to Will to be more Willing, 
but he faith [this is rather to Will a freedom from a difturbance of the fenfitive 
appetr.c, then to Will the excrcifc of the rational Will.] Bat why is it that this 
man would not be difturbed by the fenfitive appetite ? Is it not becaufe he would 
Will heely ^ Djth not be that Willetb tbe meausj much more Will the End ? 


,And is not the RemovAl of the Impediment, a Means to your freer and more In- 
tenfe Willing ^ And do not yeu yomfclf Will the increafe of your Willingnefs 
upon the quieting of that Appetite ? Befides, I hope you do not think that the dt- 
^fturbanceof the fenfiiive Appetite, is the oncly Caufc of our Imperfedion in 
afiual Willing : Or that our own Habitual Corruption and diftempcr of the Will 
it fclf, is not a greater Caufe. 

Afferall this you conclude,that [it appears there is no new Immanent ad in God 
requKcd yea poflible to the juilifyingof a man, belides his Decree to jullifie.] 
To which I fay, Though it little appear to me from any of your arguing, yet I 
eaG'y yield to the Negative part of your Conclulion > and 1 fay, that the De- 
cree it felf is no part of Jultihcation, but an Antecedent. 

Again, Let it be obferved, that all this arguing will as much prove that Gods 
Immanent ad; is like to Creation, San(^ification, Glorification, Damnation, or 
any thing that ever God did, as to Jultihcation : For of all his Works it is as 
true, that he doth nothing but what he decreed to do. And fo it may as well be 
faid that our Glorification is an Immanent ad from Eternity, as our J uni- 

§. 30. 

Mr.K. %MOrepdrticuUrty, itmllbewi Evident that his Decreeing to Remit our 
iVi fini, carrtes tt Remtjjlon of them tantamouttt : For whojhall tbirge them 
9nut, rvhere god d€crecibt« remit them ^ The Gonfcience I confefi mjj i jo mij the 
7)evU jaymng with our confctence ■. but ^H thk while their charge it of 710 great dinger t$ 
m, when God htth decreed to remit them to tts : and though they may trouble us they can- 
not damn ta, for that their charge is to be brought m Gods ^jmo, ax for fins committed 
dgamjl his Qrown and Dignity : Mow where he hath decreed to remit thofefint , there it 
no danger of fufering for them, let what ever accufcrs manage the Evidence agtinjl us, 
AUthattheycandoitbuttbis, to bring us to cry guilty, and thereupon to appeal to God 
for Mercy \ who upon our atipexl to him for Mercy, he is gracioujly pleufed to pronounce 
pardon tout, qoihimfcif I adinowledge alfemay charge th:m on us; and proceed iit 
(everttY againjl us for a while > but this charge it not any way objlruSitve to his Decree ta 
remit fin, but rather fuhfervient to it, and to bring us to fee aniconfefS our jins, atd cifl 
our (elves wholly on bis Tdercy in Cbriji, ta which r jpeSi I mi^ht better jay, that God 
doth jhew love even in punijhtng unregenerate men that are Eleci, thenyott did erewhiLes', 
that he may be (Aid ioh\x.zGoi\y mzn, when be punijheth or rather correSietb them: 
Puni(l)-neHt ayming chiefly aitbe fatisfaciionof fifitce, CorrcHton at the amendment of 
the offender. Sotbcnhis Decree of Rimittin^ carrtes in it at micb at is required far 
Any immanent 'Act in him to our Rcmtfjiott, ani (0 much as mceffarily procures the tran^ 
fient AS in the time that be baih appointed for it. His Decrees are Hie Miunt Zion, and 
(land fajt for ever: Tnc Coankl of the Lord ftandeth forever, the thoughts of his 
heart to all generations, T/if. J } . » « . 

§. JO. 
R.B.WOar [rantomount] is a word miie for your ufe > Cajfesthat dare noc 
I fee the light, ufe to go covered with fuch cermi as will Itretch. But if 
you mean plainly, that the Dicrecdoth. amount to asmiuh as a rem iTijn of fin,] 
then I mull needs fa/} that youL Djdrine is tantamoaai Antinjmia3ur>n« Lcc 

O ' the 

the confclemious Reader that l<5vcs Gods truth and hij own Pcace/onfidcr by thcfc 
few particular! following, what a Theologyjnay what a Chriftianity this Learned 
man would intreJucc* 

I. Dothnot this lead men to flight Chrift and bis fuffcrin^s , and to look on 
bis Dcaih zs that which did them no great good ? For when all our fins were tan- 
tamount forgiven from £ternity,there was little left for Chrift to do by his Death, 
Merit, IntcrceflGonjC^'f' as to our Rcmiflton. 

a. How fmall a matter is left for the Regenerate to receive upon their Repent- 
ing and Believing in Chrift, as to Reniifllonof fins, when they arc tantamount 
(Imuft afc Mr I(,'s School- terra) remitted already ? Is this the Repenting and 
Believing for Rcmiflionof fin which Scripture mentioneth ? 

i. How fmall a matter is left for Baptifm to feal and exhibit, as to Remiflion, 
when all fin was tantamount Remitted from Eternity ? 

4. Where is the Excellency and Glory of the Golpel, either as to the Narra- 
tive, Preceptive, or Promiflbry part ? For the Narrative, it makes a large De- 
claration how Chrift was Promiled, Incarnate, Borji, how he Obeyed, Suffer- 
ed, Satisfied, Merited, Rofe, Intercedeth to procure a Remiflion which was 
tantamount done already even from Eternity. For the Preccpcive, it prcfcti- 
beth man a way to obtain Remiflion by coming to Chrift, and to maintain that 
RemiflTioa by abiding in Chrift, when our lins were tantamount remitted from 
Eternity. The Promifc feemeth to hold forth an excellent benefit, and all men 
arc invited to Receive it i and when all's done, it offereth and promlfeth to do 
that which is done tantamount already from Eternity, If you fay^ that yet Chrift 
and the Gofpel have their Excellency as they refped other benefits, vi^. our San- 
ftification and Glorification:! anfwer according to Mr.f^ s groundSjit muft be faid 
that thcfc alfo were done tantamount from Eternity, in that they were Decreed. 

5. How fmall a matter have Chriftians daily to pray for, in that Petition 
l.Ftrgivtuacurtre^ajfes'] when they were tantamount forgiven from Eternity^ 
And what a fpur is this 10 prayer ? 

6. How fmall a matter have they to Give Thanks for, as received through 
Chrift from the promifc, upon prayer, 6^*. 

7. How fmali a matter as to Remiflion of fin, do we re«ive in the Lords Sup» 
per, when it was done tantamount before ? 

8. How great a help doth this Dodrinc give to Obedience, when men are told 
that all their fins are tantamount forgiven from Eternity ? 

9. How fmall a Difference between the ftate of the Regenerate and unre- 
generate, fuppofing them Eleft ? The fins of one are forgiven, and the other 

10. How unfoundly do we perfwadc wicked men of their mifery, and tell them 
that God hateth all the workers of iniquity , and that they are by nature children 
©f wrath, C7C. when for ought we know all their fins were tantamount forgiven 
from Eternity ? And how hard to convince them of any luch mifery, when they 
have this Reply ? Lay all ibis together, and fee how much of our Religion and 
Chriftianity is left ! 

But he proves all this by a Queftion [Who fhall charge them on us where God 
decreeth to remit them ?] I Reply, The fame perfons, and as many as might 
liave charg'd them on us, if God had not decreed it. His Decree takes off no 
charge, nor difablcs any from charging us. It were not an Immanent A A, if it 
^id (onerc aUquid in objtllQ. i. We are as much under (be Charge, Curfe, or 



Condemnation of the Law, till we belierc, as if no fuch Decree hid pafTci. 
a. Wfiac the Law doth, God doth by it; for it is his Inftrament. J. Satan 
may charge us. 4. Andromayconfcicncc. J. And men. But you confcfs your 
fclf that Con fcience, Saran, and God may charge us : But you fay [there is no 
danger] Reply, i. What if you were to lie all your life in torment with the 
ftoneorgoutj and yet were furc that you fhould die never the fooncr , and fo 
there were no danger ? Would you think your felf tantamount a found man? I* 
it fo fmall a matter in your eyes for an cleft man to He under the guilt of fin, and 
as an enemy to God till n«ar his death, fo be it he be not in danger of damnati* 
on? i. If you mean that their damnation is ne»/a?Kr4, I confcfs it: And fo 
it would be if God ihould but fore-know it , and not decree it (fuppoGng it 
might be the objed of fuch a fore-knowledge.) j. Butyetl think it is not fie 
language to fay [there is no danger of fuftcring for fins that God hath decreed to 
remit.] I lee Itill whither Antinomianifm tends, i. If Chriftdid die to de- 
liver us from danger of fuftering, then we were in danger of fuffering ; Bat 
Chrift did die to deliver 0$ from it : Therefore , (5'c, Would you make us be- 
lieve that Chrift favcdus from no danger by his death? %. The aftual Coa- 
rerfianand Jultificationof theEleft, isa faving them from danger: Therefore 
they were in danger. 3. If the Elcft unconverted are in no danger, then you 
muft preach no danger to them, nor perfwade them to avoid any, nor to repenc 
the incurring of any : orif, becaufe youknow not the Elcft, you fpcak to all o£ 
da.ngerj you muft tell them that you mean it not of the Eleft ; Bat what fuccefs 
fuch preaching would hare, iseafie toconjedurc. 4. Where men are bound to 
Fear and Apprehend danger, there is danger : But God bindeth the Eleft (even 
after Converfion, much more before) to Fear and Apprehend danger ; There- . 
ieve,(^c- There can be no Fear, where there is no Apprchenflon of dangers 
no more then there can be Love without the Apptehenfion of Good to be beloved . 
Chrift bids his Difciples, Pearhtmthstif ablcto dejiroy both boJy mi foul ia hcil 
firc: And fo Hcfc 4- 1 • Fexr kfi aprtmife bfin^ left of entrin^ into his r€jf, any of 
you jhoHld come Jhort of it. God bids us fear : Mr.I^. tantamount bids us, Fear notj 
by telling us there is no danger. 5. Where men are bound to labour, run, ftrivc, 
and ufe much means to efcape danger, there is danger : Butfo God hath bound 
the Bled: Therefore, ^f. How many Texts might be cited that binde us to 
fave our felves, and fcek our deliverance, and that fpeak of ourcfcaping, our de- 
liverance and falvation, which all imply a danger from which we efcape, arc la- 
ved and delivered :• 6. Mmb.^.iiiii. He that callctbbii brother F0OI, is in dan- 
ger of hell fire: But an Elcd man hath called his brother fool : Therefore, O'e. 
7. Nay if this be true, then God never faved his people from any Danger. Foe 
he that never was in danger cannot be faved out of it. And he that was from E^ 
ternity Decreed to be pardoned, according to your Doiflrinc, was never in dan- 
ger. 8. Andthcn we ought to give no thanks to God the Father, or to Chrift 
iheRedeemer^ or to theholy Ghoft theSanftifier, not to any Preacher er other 
Inftrumencj for faving us from any danger of punithment. I think thefe are noc 
matters to be made light oi : nor that Doftrine of Libertiuifm to ba chcrillicd, 
which plainly leader h to fuch unhappy fruits. 

But let us pcrufe your Reafons : You fay [the charge is to be brought in Gods 
name.] Reply. So it may be ncvcrthelel's for the Decree j for that takes ofFnone 
of the charge. Youadde [All they can do is but this, to bring us to cry Guilty, 
and thereupon appeal to G.7ti for Mercy, (^c.'\ Reply, i. Muft they cry Guil- 

O i IV, 

ty, and look for Mercy and Rcmiflion, that were tantamount forgiven from E* 
icrnity ? i. Either you fpcak of an unconverted c\c6t pcrlon in ibii life } pr 
elfcas fuppofing he were at Jurfgem< nr in that cftate. If the later be yourmeaning, 
rhen their Acculation might and would do mote then you fpcak otj and would 
rend to condemnation (it luch a cale might be fuppofcd.) If the former be youc 
mcanin;^, then thfi'e Eledpcrl'onsdo [Cry Guilty, and ajipeal to Meicy] with 
true Faith, or without it. If with Fai:h, then their fins arc remitted further 
ihen by Decree, and thel'eare no: tkc perfons new iiiC^clUon. If without fai;b 
then they are not Forgiven for all this. As long as liit Elcft remain unrcgcnerate, 
though that Law, and Satan, and Confcicnce accufe them, yet they do not Belie- 
vingly feek mercy ; and ifthey were in that iiate at Judgement, it were coo iateio 
feck Mercy. 

Next you [acknowledge that God himfelf alfo may charge fin on us, and pro- 
ceed in fcveriiy againil us for a while j but this charge is not any way obllrudivc 
to his Decree to Remit (In,C/c.] Reply. God may be faid tocharge finne on the 
EKdtbefoie faith, i. By obliging them by his Law to punifliment. i- By in- 
Aiding fome fmaH part of the punilTimcnt on them. You fecm to me to take 
notice notice only of the later. But every Chiiltian murt acknowledge that for 
all Gods Decree, wc a.rcz\l Obliguti ad pcenam fempitcrnam, till we are united to 
Chrirt by faith. To fay this is not obltrudlive to Gods Decree, is nothing to 
the queftion. The worlds being uncreated from Eternity, did not obftrud Gods 
Decree of making it, and the Elect's being unfandified or unglorificd doth not 
bbftruft Gods Decree of Sanditying and Glorifying them: and yet this provci 
not perftcuting Saul was tantamownt fandifaed and Glorified. And what if God 
maks the knowledge of our Damnable llate, or our nsH-remiffion,a means to Re- 
miffion ? That doth not prove that we arc before remitted in whole or in part, or 

Whether you fpeak to Mr. Goodtvin or me, about the phrafe of [hating 
the Godly ] I know not : but if to me , I do not believe that ever I fo 

Your diftlndion of Tunifliment from chaftifement, is pervcrfe : fo learned a 
man fhould know, that Punifhmcnt ii the Genut and Chattuement is a fpaiet 
t{ it. All Puni/hment is for the Demonltration of Jultice j but not all foe 
the fatisfadion of Jufticc, Correftion is as well for a Demonftration of Ju- 
itice, as for Amending the Gflendor : Elfe it were mecr Afflidion, and no 

YouL Condufibn next laid down, much differs fiom the divers formerly laid 
down, and wlwchyou fhould have proved j and yet I have lliewcd, for part of 
this, how ill you have pirivcd it : though, for my part, I know no Caul'e that 
I am enga^d in that will be any whit prejudiced by yielding you ail ; as 1 eaiily 
yield youj that the Tranficnt A£l will certainly follow. 


I^ K "] Ext hU decree to t/icccpt ui, urrkib as muih too ; and there needs nothing 
i ^ but a Tranficnt A^ to prove his Acceptance, and evidence it to us / for to 
decree to loof^ upon m as righteous, U not to loo^i upon us as rightcom in our (el.es, but hk 
foH ; and to ihii looliijig on us, there needs no 7ICW immanent ASi, beyond his eleSmg u» 
to faitb ill bis Son, mi pcrfcverawe m tbdifniib t Thtu be mof be (aid to give ju to bis Son 



before, and fo then there it no vcve mmatievt nH. Gods Remitting eur fins, ini ae- 
cepttng us as Righteous, though they fsund lii^^e Immanet Acis, are t o be fenfcd wf Tranfient, 
dttd bvwjhali bejheopcd neiit : in the interim this which hath been fiid isfufficient tojhevr, 
Thitinthe 'ccreeofGodto jufiifeue, there is (ontcrthMthit lool{^sliiie fujlifcdttetii 
a-tid no other immaneut iSi in Ood ts required to our ^ufttficaxion ^ befidcs his Decree from 

R. S.*! Shall ilever think the highdt pretenders totxaA explications to be the 
J brrt pcrforr.crs. for your fake. You treat ot Acceptance i but who can 
finde by all that you fay, what you mean by [Acceptance.] You lay, [Though 
it found like an Imaancnt aft ir is to beicnlcd as Ttianfient,] but what that 
Tianlient aft is, tor all your p. omii^cs, I can ha;dly finde you difcovering. Surely 
[to Accept] in oui ordinary Ipecch lignifijth an Immancnc aft of the Will j but 
(o you take it not } elfe inult vou vield that Immanent afts may be Decreed. Be- 
fides this, it may fignifie tilt Moral aftiOii ottheLawof Grace, which viitually 
judgctbthcpci ion RiL,htccus, and its adion is Geds aftien. But this you can 
Jefs digeft ; and theietorcwha: y^.iir [Acceptance] means, let him tell that knows. 
All that I can finde is, Citi^er that ic is [the Giving of faith] or [tkeMakingus 
know our Acceptance] ot which mere anon. 

You fay [There needs nothing bnc a Tranfient aft to prove his Acceptance, and 
evidence it to us.] Rep. Here is chcn but two Afts needfull ; the one is [Decree- 
ing to Accept us as Righteous;] This is not Accepting, as the word and your 
own confcfTion witntls : The other is [a Trarfient aft toproveand.evidencc his 
Acceptance.] This cannot be acceptance neither: For what man will fay, that 
the evidence and proof is formally the fame with the thing proved and evidenced # 
It it all one [to Accept] and [to evidence and prove Acceptance ?] What a maze 
do you run your felt into under pretence of difcovering the truth ? You have fairly 
difputed [Acceptance] into Nothing. 

Youadde [For to Decree to look upon u$ as Righteous, is not to look upon u$ 
as Righteous in our felves but in his Son.] Rep. To Decree to look, is not to 
Look : cU'e you may fay, it is a Decree to Decree. Your phrafes of [in our ielvcjj 
and [in his Son] may be fo interpreted as to make your fenfe true > but if yovi 
mean that it is Chrilt only and net we, who is the lubjeft of that relative Righ- 
teonfnefs, which formally makes us Juft, then it is falfe. 

Ycu fay [And to this looking onus, there n.cds no new Immanent aftbcfides 
cleftingto Faith and Perfeverance.] Rtp. I pxay ycu then tell us what you mean 
by [Looking on us:"] an Immanent aft it is not. you think; And is Gcds 
[Looking on us as Juli] a tranhcnt aft ? What aft then is it ? Did you fay, That 
God is faid to Look on usasjult, when his Law call us Jult, 1 ihouid not dif- 
agree with ycu: but \ou difclaim that. But 1 forgot il at ycudid expound your 
meaning before upon [Gods feeing :] as Gcds feeing is a making us to fee, fo 
its like you mean [Gods Decree to look.on us as Juft] is a Decree to niake us 
Look on our lelvcs as Jult : and lo the per f on is changed. But if this be ycuc 
meaning, 1 had as lieve you faid nothing. 

But 1 will tell ycu again, that it you will take [an Immanent aft] formalitcr for 
Godscilencc, fo there is none new, nor is there any more then ccc j Knowing, 
Willing and Nilling, Love and Hatred are all one, But if ycu will condefcemi 

03 '° 


to US of the (impler fort, toJl'peakof Icumaneiu adi'aj applied to God after the 
maiiner of men, and as his ads arc ftrmtUttr, or molUiur, or rtUuve, or denomi- 
tutni, or however die (in a way unknown co us) diftiocl from his clTcncc, ib^s 
they may bedivcrribcd among themlelves without diipira^eaient to Gods fim- 
flicity, they may aifo be^in and end without difpatagement to his Immutability, 
fjT any thing thi: you have ycc laid to the contiary. And io u they arc divcrfi- 
ficd or faid to bc>gin denomi nutivi ex (omotitione objeHi, they may as well be laid to 
be the objects of Gods eternal D:crce. And thus I conceive, Decree refpedinj 
the futurcj and [Accepting and Approviag] being ads that connote a pt-efcnt 
obj«a, and lo may not be laid [to bel'ucbad*] till th€ objed exift, therefore 
God may well be laid to Decree to Accept us, and Approrc us, and Love us, and 
Delight in usjeiT**;. though ail be Immanent ada. And Lo my conclulion Ihail be 
contrary to yours, tha: you have not proved that there i$ no other Immanent ad 
in God required to ©ur Juftification, belides.his Decreej and if you bad, yet 
you had done little to the bulinefs : And that you have no more proved [that in 
the Decree is fooaethlng tha: looks lil^cjuftificaiion] then that it looks like Crea- 
tion, Salvation, Damnation ; And bad you proved it never lo Itrongly, I know 
not CO what purpoi'e it is. It is fomewhac like God that is called his Image 
in his Saints: and yet be that cal$ the Saim«, God, may bUfphemc for ail 

§. jr. 
Mr. i^. i.'T^Hjtth'h [mmsnent aH amot be ciUei ^xjlifiutiett, ttpfxirs hetce, tbst 
•*: HO Imnuncnt a^ mskcs a. red chsnge in the fubjeH, /u fu(lifiuim dotb : 
TbiXAlVtll to jujlifieut, it a .\fr. Baxter riihUy f£th, terra inusdiminuens, Ati 
eutmtbe the aSI whereby roe arejujUfied, Th*t fuftijicuion iionil hinds confeffed to be 
pronouncing or decUring $f ta Righuotu, vbiib unnot be done by in Imminent ik done : 
iVhit then is the TnujientiH } Teforelciu jpak punHiuHy te this, it if fit to fet dovfu 
tbit Remiffion of fins, xni editing ta in the condition iai priviledges of Rigkteottt, Are 
the tvtomxM pins diliinguifhed ratione ratiocinata At leAJl, allgrint, / mull needs 
fdy, I thiuii ReHly. Reauffion of^ns bung the fir (I, And vthich of courfe dnws the other 
After it, enquire r*€ i . timber there be a TrAnfieat aH of goi vfbcreby be remits our 
turfiHs i 1. IVbitthis Ui 

§ 5*. 

R. 3. r Am loath to fpcak againil you where you arc pleafed to plead my caufe i 
L yet I mull give you thefc brief Animadverfiions. i. That JuftificatioQ 
mikes on the I'ubjcd a real change, asoppoledto Feigned, Nomina!, Potential, 
tfc- I yield : but not as oppolitc to Relative : Wherctorc our Divines ordinarily 
call Sanditication a Real change, as oppofite to the Relative cliange of Juftific*- 
tion. a. It is but one fort of luftificition wiiich is [on all bands confetfcd to be 
a pronouncing or declaring us Righteous :] your Lelf Ao afterwards fpc^k of Julti- 
fication in a fenfc that will not agree with this. Who doth not yield that Contli- 
tu:ive Jullificacion goes before Sentential ? Dochno: God make us Juft before he 
judge and pronounce us fo ? Yet in this confufioado you go on llill j and fuch 
aftirredo you make with [Immanent and Tranficnt] as if you would wear 
chcfe wordi chredbarc , or never have done wicb tUem ^ So Immanent are 



tijefe Notions in your Phantafie, that whtn they witl be Tranfient I can- 
not tell. 

So often do you promife us over ana over to enqaire what is the Tranfiem ict 
ifl Juftification, and tain of [fpeakingpun^ually to it] that you railed my «- 
peftationto fuch a height, that I looked for much more then ordinary : But when 
1 had read to the end, and could fcarcc perceive certainly, wrhctherever you fpalsc 
to the Point at all, or at iealt in fo few fyllablcs and fo cbfcurely, that I am un- 
certain whether I underftand what you mean, Iconfefs you left me between ad- 
miration and indignation J that after all your proloaiiei and premifcs, and our 
areateft hopes, you fhould drop aflecp when ycu fhould come to the work, or ceafe 
before you remembred the perfoimaflce,made me refolvc to fee lighter by fuch pio- 
mifes hereafter. 

Mr.K- ['T'<' P^^'^ *''^* '^^^' *^ '^ Tranficnt aSl,th(y ttU m no more (faith Afr.Baxtcr) 
1 buttbis,thstitdotbutit\&vc in fubjeftum extraneum, by mailing A wo- 
rallchivge on our Relations, though not a red upon onrpcrfons.'] I confcfS every tran- 
fitio, to ufe that word, in fubjeftum extraneum mailing a MonU ihingc, hr.otnC' 
ctjSarily ATravfienta^: For if it be only as upon anOhjclfy vcbcrcto iigiventut &n 
extrivfectUdevominstion, not tK upon the fubjcSt of aRcaU change, midcbythe aH, the 
tB bsth no title to Travfient .- for knowledge doth thii much : but whcrcever is a. ^orai 
en Legal chtngcmsde, tf^frc is of Wifjftty d Tranficnt aH : for that the Lares of men 
ttke no notice of Immanent aBs 5 and the Law of God ta^cs no notice of any change made 
in the ohjeH of hare Immanent aBs ; A mm by lujlivg after a woman commits Aialtcry 
punifljabte by the Ltff of god i the woman ii mhmgthe more defiled: So a man thdt 
covets his neighbours goods, is lookt 011 by God as a thief ^ the goods notmthftandivg 
remain in the fame place, and fcfejfm of the Orencr, vor doth God cha''enge than 
W! Felons goods ; no change made on then -, t^'krever then thercU aTiionU, i, c. « 
Legall change, there is aTravfieut aSf, and this being in ^uftification a Tranfiem aB 
is neeeffarily required to this charge. Nfw / yield !Mr. Bsxtcr that [no TranfiettaH is 
immtdiatly ttrmmed in a Relation, and the immediate cffcH ofGodsfufitfisationor Ke- 
mi^onof fins, mufi be fencwbat ReaUy mought, either upon the finncr, or fmervhat cife 
for him. 

R.T. T Will not fland to open any wcaknefles or impevtincncies in rhis Sc- 
Idion, as long as the fcope is found, left I (hew my felt as quarrelfoaie 

MrVi-^T^ Re feeond ^eflion is, if' hit is this ? and fo vi>h&t the TravfieM act is f 
X Mr. bsxtcr faith, [ 1. That the paffing the graut of the New Covenant, or 
the promulgation of it, is a Travfient act. 2. 60 may the continuance of it alio be* 
J. This Law or grant hatb a Moral improper i>M ten, whereby it maybe faid to pardon or 
jafiifie, which prof erly h butvirtuall )uftifyitig. 4. By this gram 1. Geddctb gtv« 
wth<2{jgbu»uftiejiofchrifttob€ourtwffcn we btiiive. x. Avd difablttb thf Lew t9 




thiige u t» pmulhrnent «r Ctnicniiitioit. j. IJ^'yich Kts'l founUtitns bcirt^ thn. 
Uii, $ur RclMioHs $f ^ujiifici uni ^ttrdtnei in Title of LxM io nccejfmlji fol-, 

I cinnotpcrfveiic mj felfia Icsve mi oli DoSfors to foUow Mr. B ixrer, for my tbiu^ 
be huh fi'd m ill ihii. Let the pro u :. : ttton of the ^{jtv /Joveiuiu firjl sn.ifliU be 4 
tnnficnt iH i ihii Cavemnthiih inolic empty Tion'L A^tn iK jujlifiin^ us when we 
bcUcvCi ani by the promjl^itionof t'.M Co-jcmut Goidoih if tnproperlr give us the 
Ri^hteoufneJ?ofChriil,snd difiblcth': Liiv toconiemriM, as ihi'i appesr by confiicrinr 
thmllhere fpoiicnof j.cii»ns,is m ofiHioas i>npr9pcrly fo c^Ucd.xndfuch lU cinnst fu^ce 
to nuke i ReiU cffeci. 

§. J4. 

R. B. trtZHo your old Doftors are is utterly unknown to me} for I remembec 
V V not that I hive ever read any Dodw before you that goeth your way 
C if I know it) and am in hope that I never ihall reaJe any fuch bereatter. Foe 
your no: following me, as 1 have not been very eager to obtrude my opinions on 
any J fo if ic be no more for your own advantage then mine, I am noc 
to dedrous of your company, but that I can be without it. Njw to ths 

I am very glad that I am come to a Controverfic more eafic and more ufefuil 
then that which you made and ftuck in fo long before. As for my opinion abou; 
the nature ot Remilll m of (ioj I have had occallon to view and review it fince the 
writing ofmy Aphorifmes, and have received Animadverfions on this very Poinc 
of another nature then are thefe of Mr. I^'s, both for Learning, Sobriety, and 
Exaftnefs of Judgement i and upon my moll faithful! and impartial pcrufal of 
all, I muft needs profefs my fclf much more fatished in my firft opinion, and 
confident of its verity, then I was befort : And lomc Learned men (as molt 
Eng/ini hath ) do fully confcnt to it, and confirm it in their Aniini.ivcrfions ; 
and I remember none of the reft ( Cave the firll-intimatcd Reverend Learned 
Brother) that doth contradid it, of all chofe Judicious excellent men that have 
vouchfafed me their private Animidverfions. And even he doth confefs all that 
aftion of the L»w and change maJe by it, which I mention, asbtin^ a known 
truth beyond Controverlie j only he thinkethchac the nami of Juftification is to 
begivcn to no ad but a judicial Sentence, which I call, the moft pe.fed fort of 
Jultification- Indeed I am alhamed that I fpake fo ftiangely of foeafie and 
timi'.iar a Truth, as if it had been lome new difcovery , when alj that arc 
verft in Politicks and Laws miydifcern it to be fo obvious: but the reafon 
was, that I had noc read any thing of it in Divines as to oi^r prefent 

Before I come to Mr. I^. let me tell the Reader mv thoughts of Remidi in more 
fully. Pardon aftivciy tasccn is an ad of G")d. Palfive pardon is iheterminua ot 
efeft ofthat aft. Pardon Aftive, is i. Mentall, in a more imperfcd, dimi- 
nute, and lefs-propcr fenfc called Pardon: As when a Prince doth pardon a tray- 
tour fccretly in his own thoughts and refolution only. This is applied to God 
fpeaking after the manner of .nen (in which manner we are neceflr.ated to fpeak 
of Cod :) and it is noc (as Mr.f^. imaginetb) to be conceived ot by us as being 
the fame with his Decree defuturo (fo far as we may conceive of G ids Lnmanenc 
ads as diners :) though ic be but the fame aft chat recciveth tbele divers dcnomit 



ihationsfromjthedivierfity of the objcfts. i. Thefecond Aftive Pardon is Sig- 
nal, Legal and Conftitutive i which by fignifying Gods Will, doth Legally con- 
ftitucc us pardoned, by caufing our J« ad Impuvttatemvel Liberstionem, i.e. by 
diflolving the Obiigarion to punifhment, or by taking away guilt. The aftion 
or caufation of this pardon, is but fuch as is that of (very FM«iii»ien/H»j in cauling 
irs Relation, j. Pardon taken adively alfo may lignifie the very Grant of the 
ad of Pardon (whether particular or general, abfolute or conditional ) that is, 
theaft of Legiflation (inourcafc^ whereby the Law of Grace is formed, a* the 
remitting Initrument. This goes before that forementioned j as being the cau- 
fing of that Fundamentum, which in time caufeth the Relation aforefaid. 4. The 
Promulgation or Proclamation of this Law of Grace, or Aft of Oblivion, may 
aUo be called Pardon. This Legal pardon is an Aft of God as Fc^or fupn Leges 
inrefpeft to the old Law whofe Obligation it diO'olveth; and it is the Aft of 
God asLegiflator inrelpeft of the Law of Grace which dilfolveth the Obligation 
of the Law ol Works. 

Accordingly Pardon in a Paflive fcnfe, is taken as many waics. i. With men 
for rheeffeftsof mcntall pardon in the hear: and minde. i. Vor the ^mad Im- 
punititcm, or the Diflolution of the Obligation to punifhment, caufed by the fe- 
cond aft- J. For the Law of Grace, orthe promife it felf. And fo the pardon- 
ing Inftrumcnt of a King, is commonly called a Pardon. 4. For the hopefull 
Rc.ation or ftate that he is in that hath pardon oflered hini on very ealie and rea- 
fonable terms (as for the Acceptance with thanks.) I think all thelc fenfes the 
word is uled in the Scriptures j I am furc in Writers and common Ipeech it is 
fo. Now it iseafie todiicern that all the refl are but impetfeft pardons, and (o 
called in a diminute fcnfe, except ooly the fccond, which is the full and proper 
pardon, i. All this I fpeak of Pardon in Law fenfe, the fame with that which 
I call Juftification conftitutive (or but notionally diflcring :) But befidcs all this 
there is Pardon and Jultification per fcntentjam ^udicis, which thcfc aic but the 
means to, and which is the moft perfeft of all. But note that as the word Juftifi- 
cation is moft proper to [the fentence :] So the word [_Pardo7i'] is molt propec 
to the Civil or Legal aft that goes before Judgement. 5. And as Go<l pardoneth 
I. as KeBor fupra Leges by Donation and a new Law, z. and asjud^e by fen- 
tence: To J. alfo as the executor of Law and fentence or his Will : And fo par- 
doning is but Not-punifhing. Where note i. That this fometime may be be- 
fore and without the firlf , by raeer providence : and i"o wicked men are pardoned 
without a promife, in fuch meafurc as God abateth and forbeareth punilhing 
them. i. That in our cafe this executive pardon quoii i«/(ih»i prefuppofeth the 
fii It Legal pardon, ini quoad complementum it prefuppofeth the fentential abfolu- 
tion. J. Note that thisiort^of pardon hath divers degrees, according to the dv- 
grccs of any due penalty which_is remitted : and fo may alter. So that in a word, 
all pardon is of one of thcfe three lorts i. By G)i as Author of the New Cove- 
nant, giving Right to Impunity, i. By God as Judge abfolving. 3. By God as 

All this being premifed our qiieftion is, which of thcfe it is that "^'cripturc a- 
fctibeth to Faith, and is called Rcmillion, or Believing, or Jurtification by Faith? 
Some fay. It ii only Gods mental pardon : Some fay, It is none of thcfc, bu: a 
Declaration to tha Angels in heaven, who is Jufl. Sonc fay, It is none of thelc, 
but a Minifeftation to our conlciences ( as fome fpeak) or a fentence of God iu 
our hearts (as others fpeak.) Some fay. It is ipfi Impunitas, oc uon Punirc (as 

p * rw/j^ 


TTfti^f romcti^dc, or noUeTunlre, as other times.) I think it is th< Diflblving oi 
the ob:it;a:iui to puniflitncntj oi the givin" us a §ui dd Ubcrationcnveladimpiai^ 
Utm, or Ooiisrcmitting his Jm /i«n/<«i« ; Where the hnmediatc tfrw/TUM is the 
PiUblution of tbc obligation, or our 'Dcbitumlibermonis, vtl jittidimpunitjteni 
and the remote tcrmiuui (which is yet connoted in the term Pardon, aseilentially 
ncccffiry ) is Impunity it fclf, or adual liberation from puniflimcnt, or h»ih 
punire. And withall, as in man a mental! Remiflion goes before the aSual Sig- 
nal, Legal Remiflion, i'o there is iu God, a Nolle punire, and aher the oiannet 
of men, it may be afcribcd to God, as then beginning when the Law remitteth, 
and the (inner is a capable fubjed, bccaufc it cannot be denominated Rcmifllon, 
but by connotation otthcobjcft, and that rauft be, when there is an obj?d fit : 
And To after tbc manner of men, we attribute it to God, as an at^ which in time 
heismoved to by an Impulfivccaufe, -ji^. the Satisfadion aixi Meiits of Chiiil ; 
though ftriftly we ufe to fay, there is nothing abextra can be an impulfirccaufe 
to God : Much more then this 1 have faid for explication of this Point in pri- 
vate Papers to fomc Learned Friends j but this may fuflBce for the right under- 
ilanding of what here pafleth between Mr. J^. and me. And now I proceed to hi» 

X. He acknowledgeth the Promulgation of the New Covenant to-be a Tran- 
fient aft : It is the fame Inftrument of God that is called his Covenant and hii. 
Law here. And as it is a Law, the term [Promulgation] doth moU fitly agree 
to it. And I doubt not but either Mr. IQ> implieth Legiflation fperhaps be mi- 
Itakes the terms for e4uipollent) or at leaft he will as. freely acknowledge that a 
Tranfientaft. But he faith, i. That [this Covenant hath an cxlde empty mo. 
rail adion.] Let any man that reades thefe words of this Learned man, judge: 
whether I be not cxcufable for 'that cenfure iathe Preface to the Appendix of my 
Bookof Baptifm I A School Divine and a Chairman, ax)d know no more the 
nature of a Law, Covcnant,or any Legal Inftrument I A DivijK, and an Ari^ 
ftarchus, and yet dare to fpeak fuch words of all the holy Laws and Covenants of 
God 1 Why what doth this man fludy and preach, that thinks lo bafdy of Gods. 
Laws ? The Moral aftion of the Law of Grace or Tefiament of Chviii he calleth 
tan oddc empty Moral aftion :] Yet its like he knows that Commonwealths are 
chiefly upheld and ordered by Laws, Contrafks, Convcyances^c^c. and coiifc- 
quently by aftions of the fame nature. The whole body of the Commonwealth 
and each member of t, do hold their Eftates, Liberties and Lives by fuch odde 
empty aSions. Takeaway the odde empty Moral adion of Laws, TcftamcntJ> 
Obligations, Deeds of Sale, Lea'cs.(5'c. and what is a Commonwealth, and 
what a, Reftor, and what fccuriry have you of any thing you poflefs ? or what or- 
derly commerce among men ? His next aflertion is as defpcrate as the former^ 
that tby the promulgation of this Covenant, God doth as improperly give us 
the Righicoufnefs of Chrift, or djfable the Law to condemn us.] Could any 
words (not certainly deflrutftive to Chriftianity it felf) have fallen from this 
Learned man more unworthy a Divine ? Doth not tlie Telbmcnt of the Lord 
Jefus properly convey the Legacy ? Doth not Gods Deed of gift of Chrift and his 
Righteoufnefs to us, properly convey ? and doth net God properly Give thereby ? 
Why bow can a more proper way of Giving be imaginable ? i. If a man do pro- 
perly give, by a Tcftament or Deed of Gift, then fodoch God : But a man doth^ 
(^c Thercfore,67't. i. Where there is a plain fignification of the Will of the 
Donor to confer thereby the bcneficon tbe Receiver, ihero is a proper Giving : 
* " " But 


But in the Gofpel-piomlfc or Teftaaiem of Chrlft there is fuch a fignification of 
the Donors Will ; Thcrefore,^;*^. Doth not an A&, of Oblivion or Pardon pro- 
perly give pardon to ail tliat it pardonech ? Doth not any Ad of Grace give the 
favours exprellcd ? 

2. And where he faith, that [God doth hereby as improperly difable the Law 
tocondcTin US ] 1 Reply, i. Nothing in the world can more properly dilable 
the Law from cttt dual condemning us, that is, fo as to procure fcntence and exe- 
cution, then a c.encral Ad of pardon, or then the new Law doth, which is in its 
very nature Lex Remediant, ^ obligAtioncm ai pxnam prioru dijfolwitf. Though 
ftillthe Law as to itsfenle is the fame, and therefore doth virtually condemn till 
the faid dillbluuon. How can the Law of the Land be more difabled from cfte- 
dual condemning all Trayiors, fer what is paft, then by an Ad ot Oblivion, 
or a particular pardon under the SoTcraigns Hand and Seal ? z. Yea this Lcarn- 
td mandifputesagainfl the very forrfiall nature and definition of a pardon: which 
is to he an J a of the ReSlor jreeing the guilty from puniP)mcnt by dtj}'olvi»g the obli- 
gation. And certainly as the obligation it I'elf is one of thefc [odde, empty Moral 
adions,] To muft the dilfolution of it needs be. Indeed Theologm eji ^urifcottfttltict 
ChrijUiKua, a ChrilUan Lawyer : and what a Lawyer he is that knows not the 
nature, ufe and force of Laws, is eafie to be judged. I could wifli men would lay 
by their over-bold enquiries into Gods Decrees and other Immanent ads, or 
ac leaft , their vain pretendings to a knowledge which they never had of 
them, and ftudy this intelligible and neceflary part of Theology a little more. 

But Mr.I^.tels us that he will make all this ftrangedodrine[appcar :3andho\v ? 
Why[by confideringthat all here fpoken of adions, is but of adions improperly fo 
called,and fucb as cannot fuffice to make a real efted.] Rep. Do you oppore[Real] 
to [feignei or nominal] or to [Relative i*] If the former, it is fuchdodrine as 
I dare fay, no Divine will believe, no Lawyer, nounderftanding member of a 
Commonwealth, and I think, no Chriftian, that underllandcth what you fay. 
Think not the words rafli, for I think him not fit to be accounted a Divine, no 
nor a Chriftian ((uppofing him tounderftand the matter) that will or dare main- 
tain, That neither the curfc of the Law, orthreatning of the new Law, whereby 
fo many arc adjudged to Hell, nor yet the Teftament, Covenant, ProtniTeof the 
Gofpel, whereby Chrift and his Bcnefi:s, Jullification, Adoption, Salvation 
(qutad^Hs) are given, do any of them make a true change ? But if you oppofe 
[Real] to [Relative,] then I muft tell you, that [ Remiflion and Jullification 
Paflive] are no Real eft'eds, but Relative ; which I had thought you need not 
have been loU. The ad of Legiflation and Promulgation 'makes a real eftcd ; 
but the Fundamcntum once laid, caufeth but a relation. Do not you know tlwt the 
very formal nature of all morality is Relative ? What elfe is @/£ ^uuntf^uJlHmy^Mc^ 
rituniy Debitum, ^us, yea benum morale, d;' malum, &c ? 

Again I mult tell you, that you ^o not well to mention Promulgdtion alone, when 
1 fpokcof Enading, or Granting, or Legiflation, before Promulgation, I hope 
youtakenot both thefe for one. Nay indeed Promulgation is proper to a Law 
as it is obligatory to the I'ubjed, and fo is neceflary af:er Legiflation, ai aHiulcm 
obligationem: but a Law of Grace which doth conferrc benefits, and whereby 
the Lcgiflator doth, as it were, oblige himfelf, may be in force in fome decree, 
without a Promulgation : bccaule a man may be madecapabl:of Right to Be- 
nefit without his knowledge, though he cannot be obliged to duty vvithoiltf 
b<s knowledge, except when he it Ignorant through his own fault. 

P z ^r.K- 


§ 35. 

Mr.i^r"Or/r/J, ThtCovcvMt^ufiifitsus, notby iny til, hutmccrly by the tenour 
L* 0} it, 04 a Law, wtjigent, and ntofiy things in this hjnde arc faii to do, 
vrbcn there, IveU, is no acf ton at all: Quantitas facit quantum j / hope n» ASlion, 
tt dotb it formalitcr, not cfficiemer : Patcrnitas facit paticm j I i^no-wtio Affi^ftthu 
ever WIS afcribcdte Relation, itidoth it formiVncr , not efficienter : and ft dotb tbe 
Covenant rot ^uflife a Believer by avy /jfi, let Mr.V>zxitxminceH as he vPiU, a mo- 
ral improper Adion, but as hit grea: Metaphylical RabbicsiroM/i (peaii aptitudina- 
liter, and tbii but cxtrinfccc too'y /erfcedus non facie Jultum of itfclf, butitmujl be 
beholden to many intervcnient Caujes- 

5- ^^- , . . 

K.B. 1. 'TpHanksto Inadvertency (as I fuppofe) it is here acknowledgcJ 

_|_ that the Covenant doth Jultificj and iiiat as a Law , which it it 
doj wc ftialHee anon whether it can be any other way then that which 1 affirm. 
I. But little thanks is due to this Authour from the friends of Truth, for his dil- 
covcry of the way of the Covenants Juilifying. [It is (faith he) by the Tc- 
nour of it, as a Law :] True : How elfc fliould it be ? [but not Agent] Not 
by a Phyfical proper Adion : that's true : But have Laws, Tcltaments , Cove- 
nants, Grants, Pardons, (iT'c. no Moral Adion ? Or is this Moral fo contempti- 
ble a matter, that a Learned Divine ftiould make Nothing of it ? When all mens 
eftates and lives depend on it here, and all mens Salvation or Damnation hereaf- 
ter. But how is it then that the New Covenant J uliifics ? why he thus proceeds 
[^^uantitas fjcit quantum j 1 hope no Adion : it doth hformalitcr, not efficienter f 
Faternitas facit patrcm t I know no'Adion that ever was afcribcd to Relation, ic 
dotb it /ormi/wr, not c^«f»fcr.] Reply, i. I thought that Ifacere'] had been 
as improperly applied to a formal Caulation, as {.Agere"] and that 1 may, at leaft, 
as fairly do the later, as you the former, z. If this Learned man do indeed think 
that the Covenant doth formaliter JuiiiRe, as J^antjtas factt qnantutTii (^patcrnitas 
pstrem, I ihall the lefs repent that 1 was not his Pupil : And it I knew who be his 
old Dodors that he here fpcaks of, 1 would never read them, if they be no better 
intherell : nay, I would take heed of looking into them, left they faatl a power 
of fafcination : What istheAfj»er that the Covenant doth Inform ? Gods Ad, 
or mans Qu_ality, Ad, or what ? What matter doih it concurre with to conlli- 
tute ihc Compofitum.^ls not ^uftitiaiha which formally makcth Juft ? Ts the Cove- 
nant the Relation oij^nft in the Abftrad ? Why then doth not the dcnominarion 
follow the form ^ Is it the Covenant qued cxplicat,quid^i^uftijicatus? Or by which 
^ufluscjlid quod eftf But let us make thcbeli conltrudion imaginable of M' I^'s 
vords,3nd fuppofe tha: he would only prove the Negative[what way it is by which 
the Covenant /uUifieth not,v/^ no: c^cicnter'] and not [what way itdorh Juftifie, 
vi\.formAlitcr2yii I fhould demand, i. What is then the ufc or purpofe of his Inlfan- 
cesjor fore- going words ? i.What the better arc wc for his difcourfe, if he tell us 
not what way it is ? 3. What Caufe will he make it if not an cflicient ? Will he 
fay it is either Material or Final ? I think not. Bur he faith, that [the Cove- 
nant doth not Juftifie a Believer by any Ad, let Mr.B. mince it as he v/ill, a Mo- 
ral Improper Adion, but as his great Metaphylical Rabbles would fpcak aptittt* 
dinaliter, and this but cxtr/n/cte too.] Reply. What Reader is muck the wifcr 


• for this anfwer ? Would you know whether FceJus fadt ^uflum, ut formA, vtl ut 
c^icietijf Why Mr.I(.. tdtcth you, hdoib nhai upututiiiuiitcrf It io, then cer- 
tainly, nor ut forma: iox fornuaptmdtn^liifiicienstnformitum, is a ftiange crea- 
ture. It muii then be ma-te. 01 efficient. 1 would not ttiink lo hardly of MrX- 
as to imagine that he takes it for a Material Came > mtich Icfs that he takes it for 
MatcrUdptttudiridk ^u[i!fi<./tci6Vh aiiudis. 1 hope fuch dodrine never dropt from 
his Chair. What is ie;': then, Inu that it be an cfHcient. And if lb, is not ail 
efficiency by Adion of one [on 'Ji r -.her ? h iid moi cover, h-- w comes Efficitvs tan- 
turn Aptitudindis, to be E§icie7is "A c! uJL f And if not AUtulii , how comes the 
Efied to be produced, vi^. The Believe;- to be Juilified ? But 1 dare not 
impute this ntn fenfc to Mr. I^. Perhaps he takes the Covenant to be no 
Cauie at all of Juftification ? But that will not hold neither ? Forheplainiy 
I'aith, that [i he Covenant juftificih] twice here together. And fure^MjJj^/w^iig- 
niBeth fome Caufation. 

Yet he amufeth me more by adding [and this but fxtr/w/ffe too.] Why, who 
isit that hath found oot another Juftifying cificient , But onely the cxtrinfccal ? 
By this 1 fee he takes it not for Matter or Form > for they arc not extrinUcal. But 
iinottheLaw, thejury, the Advocace, thejudge, eachoftheman cxtrinfccal 
efficient in juliifying every man that is juftifisdix /ore /wwiaso/ It may be Mr. I^. 
hathrcfped to the juilification of Conlcience : But doth he think that there are 
not extrinfick efficienrSj that do more properly and more nobly juftific then our 
confcienccs do ? Then let man be his own pardoner and juftificr, and be prefer- 
red before the bloud of Chriftj the Law, the Advocate, and the Judge of Be- 
lievers, 1 think it is no difparagcmcnt to our Glorious Judge, thai he will jufti- 
fieusextrinl'ecally. Conscience which juflifieth ( in fome fenfe) intrinfecaily, 
doth it by fo low an Aft, by fo fmali Authoiity, that it is very doubtful! 
whether it be iit to call that Ad either Conliitutivc or fentential JuQi- 
fying,fo gi eat is the Impropriety : (Of which I have fpoke more fully ell wherc.^ 

Jf Ml. !(,. had named fome of thofe Metaphylical Rabbics, and been guilty ot 
naming as it were the Chapter and Veife (of which crime be accufcth me) I 
ftiould the better have known whether he fay true cr falfc, when he telsus that theyi 
would fay the Covenant juUifieth aptitudimlttcr, and rot by any ad. Its true 
that the Covenant juftitiech, Vt fignum volimtAiis 'Divina per hec Tccati re- 
mittentis : And had he laid that it is ■ngr.um Afiitudtmlc to men before they be- 
lieve, and 5jg?/HOTy^flHj/c after, there had been lorr.c fcnfc in his words, though 
yet they had btendeftdive ot Truth or Fitncls: For tiicyaie^^wKwi dflzu/e to mil- 
lions of the unjuifificd, though no: fignum uciudUtcr 'fu^ifmns. But it is Believers 
that are adually juftfied, of whom he fpeaks txpitdj : and therefore be hath fome 
other meaning, what ever it is. 

Yet if Mrl^. had denied to the Cctenant in jufiifying, a proper Phyfical aft. 
only, we were agreed j But he denicth [rn improper moral adion] as he tels me, 
I mince it : which if I fliould do, I ihculd expcd to be told, ti.at 1 were a very 
lingular man indeed : For I doubt not but this Learned man Lath read many a 
large Volume of Politicks, and particularly rfcLcgzfc»4.. and ibctc read their Dii- 
cow'ks icLcgumnBiomhtu, viz. praiiipcre, prohibcrc , pritnime , punire : 1 doub: 
not but he hath read many a large Volume of the Civil Law in fpccialjand there- 
in of the Nature of Obligations of all forts : '(Fcr I would not luppofe him dc- 
fcdive in his reading of any thing.) And after all this for fo Orthodcx a man 
10 deny [a Moral improper adion] to Gods Laws, and fo to all Laws, and 

P 3 therein 

therein differ from all the Ltwycrs and Divine* that ever the world knew (fo farre 
as I can leirn) 'is fingutarity fnJced 1 Yea and never yet to write one Volume of 
hit Realons againll all the world, that we might be undeceived? Serioufly I 
wonder whJt he thi:ik$ot Gods Laws, Govenants, Promifcs, Tctltmeii:, and 
how hcpreachcth them, yea or believeth tiiem, or what work they have on his 
foul, who takes them :o hive no Moral improper Aftion ? I (hould think fuch a 
tteriu 'thyfictu vvcre a ftiange man to make a Divine. But let us hear his reafon : 
[For Voeiut nonfacit jitltum of it rdf, bu: ic muft be beholden to many intcrveni- 
ent Caufei] Reply, i. It Teems to be here granted that Fximfjch jujiun mtr- 
venientilfM ulijt Csiifis -. And it f o , it is an efficient j and if To it hath Lome 
kindeof Adion. i. ^i^itur fcqieii : What if the Covenan: juilifie not n/jJ 
intcrvenienttbxi Jliis quibafditn Csujitf Doth it thence follow that it hath no moral 
Adion ? And wc mull I'pcak mh iVnle to fay, that it jaftifieth but AptttuJtHjlttcrf 
5. I deny that there is any other Caufe doth intervjnc between the Covenant, 
and the Effjft. A Condition on mans part mull be performed before the 
Law or Covenant of Grace will tAliu Ciufare , i. e. ^uftifiare. And this 
Condition hith its Caufes ; But Remiflion and J unification have no interrcning 
Cau fes. 

I have in Anfwer to other Reverend Brethren fo fully and diftindly laid down 
my own thoughts of this whole bulinefs, vi^- of the feveral forts of Righteouf- 
ncfs, and of the nature of each, and the Caufes, that I will fuppofe 1 may be 
excufedthatl doitnotherc. Only I may tell Mr. i(|. that I take Rightcoufnefs 
as now in QuelUon, to be a Relation (whether predicamental or Tranfcendental, 
we will not now difpute ; but I fuppofe ic is the later.) And as Relation is fo 
fmall or low a Being, that it is by feme reckoned between Ens 67* Hibil, fo the way 
of it: produftion muft be anfwcrable i and muft be by as low a kinde of Adion. 
Yet if it have any kinde of Being at all, it muft have fomc Caufe, and chac muft 
have fome Aftion. And therefore Rabbi I^cc^^ermia faith, F uuiamentum idem fig- 
nificit quod E^cicHs j TcrminvA idem quod finis. I fuppofe Mr. I^. will acknowledge 
the Caufation of procatarcktick Caufes , objeSlum , occifio, meritum : and yet 
will finde thcfe efficients to hare but an improper Aftion (at Icall fome af them) 
as well the F««i4?ne;ifM»?i hath in caufing a Relation. Belides all this, it is found 
no eafie matta to reduce all Politicall Notions to the Notions of Logick 
ov Metaphyficks i and fome think that when wc fpeak of Politicks, we mull 
fpeak in the terms of Politicks, and that it is an unfit or impoflible attempt 
to fpeak there in the ftrid language of Logicians, though I am noc of their mindc 
in the later. 

But fuppafe that I had granted all that Mi'.I^. hath hitherto faid : What is it to 
thai whicii he Ihou'd prove ? He undertakes to prove, i. That the Covenants 
Aftion (as [call it) is [an odde, empty. Moral Adion] and fo cannot make 
thisEffeft: But he hith not yet proved, that the Relation of our Rightcoufnefs 
may not Rcfult from the Covenant as its Fundamentum, though without a proper 
Aftion i as fo3a as the Cjndition is performed on our parts to make us fit Sub- 
jefts. X. He undertakes to prove, that [by the Promulgation ofthis Covenant 
God doth as improperly give us the Rightcoufnefs of Chrift, and difable the Law 
to condemn us, bccaufeall here fpoken of Adions, is but of Aftions improperly 
[0 called] liuc doth he indeed think that Legiflacion, or Promulgation, or Cove- 
nant making is but Improperly called Aftion ? If he do, I will not wafte timein 
fuch a work as the Confacinz him is. 



Laftly, If his Argumert be gocd [We arc not properly juflificd hj aft A^'en 
improperly called A dicn : Bui the Afticn of the Covenant is Improperly called 
A ftion : Therefore, t^c."] then it will follow that we are iM)t properly Juftificd by 
anyAftJonot God. For it isgennally held, that [-Aftiori] i$ not properly ap- 
plini to God, but y^nalogicallyjand afrertbc manner of the cicaiure. 1 think this 
firft Argument of Mr.I^. deferves no more anfwcr. 

uVr.K. a. /^ Odii vctpnpcrly fate to ^ufitfcvi h this tratfevt jiH tf ihe C^ve- 
VJ tai>i : Fcreitber hc^nj:7fi}tU, orcvlyfome. NctaU:)«raU/lT»pe 
artttttjiiftified : not fome pure ihen others j ftr tbf New i^bvimntnAka vo difcrtr.ce 
tfii [elf i and fo God)hftifctb none by it. 

§• 56. 
3J..B. I. Thither you mean, that Litisnot by the Tranficnr t& Alcne that 
iZ Godjbflifies] or L^ot by it at a'.!.] If ;hc fcimer, 1 ccnfcfle 
it, bccaufc the Moral Aft which IcUowcih doth intervene to the prodiiftion 
ofthcEflcft. It is not by the tranfient Aft of Generation d/CKf, that T/itcr 
caufat jjhatkvtm. But it lettrs you rake it in the later fcnfe , and ^o it is 
falie, ^\\o\.\z^\ht¥unddmevitumdclhomticCaufATe'RdatTOntm y idque immediate , 
yet that Aft which Caufeth the Fundamgntitm, d«th proprrly Caufc the Rclari- 
QA too. 

• z. I ferionfiy proietsrhat it fecm^rome a very fad Cafe, that any man that is 
calJed a Divine, or a Chriftian fhould argue, and that fo weakly, and io wilicUy 
againil all the clficacy ot Gcds Teitament. Law or Corcnanr in conveyfrg to us 
rkc Lading Rclaiiitc benefits of Chriit 1 If it were only (as feme Dtvincs that I 
deal with) that he acknowledged the thing, and denied ontly the fiinefs of the 
Name of Juftifyingto the Aft of the Covenant, it were a fmallcr matter: But 
it isRemifl'ion of fin it felf i the giving us Chrifls Righteoufnefs, the difabling 
the Law to condemn us, that he Iptaks cf, as ycu may fee before ; and fo he here 
darcito coxclude. That God juftifits none by it. To tl is lamentable Dilemma 
here brought for proof, 1 fay, 1. CoKiizftw<Ji/Gcd Juftificth y^ll by his Covc- 
runr, at leafl All to whom it is Revea cd. AStuiUy he Juftifieth only rhem that 
have the Condition. \ c^^oic ASiuiUy 10 ConditjovaVy, bccaufe that while it is 
hut Ccyiditicnal, it isnotyi^M<i/ in Law fenfe, that is, EfKftuai, though it is in 
/.5.U, fo farre done as it is : And indeed it is not \\\ ftrift knie that a man is cal- 
led, Juflifkd, while it is but Condiricnal: though yet it is a ccmmsn phrafc, 
bicaui'e the Agent hath dene it jM<niu?tt:«/c, when the Condition is but Accep- 
tance, a. God doth Juftifie feme more then othcis by liis Covenant, vi\. Be- 
lievers more then Unbelievas : ThismiC thinks a Diwine fliould not have denied.. 
But he hath rcafon for his denial: and what's that ? Why, fce faith [for the New 
Covenant makes no diflerence of ir felt.] A ftrong Reafon : Itdothit not of ir 
felf: Therefore it doth it not at all. But 1 Reply : Tbereisatwo-foid diflFercncc 
made between men in thcfe fpiritual chatjges. The fit fi is Real, when one that 
was an Infidel is made a Believci : and tiiis is done by t he Spirit and Wcrd ordi- 
nal!! y j andiiisbut to prepare men to be fit obfefts for the juftifying Aft; The 
fccond i% Relative, when we are rardor.cd, Juftificd; Adapted, and have a Righr 


given uj to other Bcncfi:»: This difference the Covenant makes of it felf, 'the 
former preparatory diff>:rence bein^ before made. To lay , the Cove^ 
nant makes uotthe fidl Real difference > Therefore it makes nodi ffereacc, Uill 

I would deli' e :he ReaJer to try how Mr. !(,*$ argument will fit the Lawsor 
Conveyances of men. If a Parent bequeath to each of his children an hundred 
pound on ConJition thev man y, to become due ac the day of Marriaj^e ; accord- 
ing to Mr.I^. you may 3rj,ue thus : Either this Teltamcnt Giveth the Lcijacy to 
All, ortoNone; Not to All, if All marry nor : Not to fomc above others : for 
the Teftaracnt of it felf makes no difference : Therefore it Giv;th it to none. 
Or if a King give OJt a Pardon, or parte an Ad of Pardon or Oblivion for all 
Traitors that are up in arms againrt him, on Condition chat they lay down arms, 
and Accept the pardon ; Mr. I^. would argue, it feems thus: Either this A.SL 
pardoneth All, or Some : Not All : for All will no: lay down Armrs, 
and Accept it: Not Some onely i for the ad makes no difference of it felf: 
Therefore it pardoneth none. Sec what an Interpreters hand the Golpel is fallen 
into at Blijlini ! 

Afr.K. J, \ M An fJuU properly be f^ij to fuHifiehimfdf (sthing which IMr.'&ixrer 
IVl bolls on, oirvellhe mij, wt Monlirum horendum) For where 
there ti i promtfe of a rcrvdri made to All, upon a Ctudition of perftrming fuib a fervice, 
hethitobtiimtberervird, gets It by hiiorvtt(crvicei without which the promife would 
have brought him never the ne^trcr to the reward : and thus a mis wifely ^ujlifies 
hmfelf by Believing , and more a great deal then God doth "fujUfie him by his 
Fromulgitioa of the '2{cw Covenant, which would have left him tn his old Condi- 
tion hid be not better provided for bimfclf by Believing , then the Covenant did by 

§. }7. 
K,B. J^ How much have I been too blame, in my indignation againft poor 
V^ ignorant Chriftians, for taking up the abfurdell Antinomian fancies 
fo ealily I When even fuch Divines as this Ihall ufc fuch reafonin^i as I here 
finde ! 

I. Idenythc Confequence, u bcin^ verba fomniantis. 

1. I think, I fhall anon (hew, that himfeif is undeniably guilty of this Con- 
fequence, which here ii Cd^Wcd Monftrumhorrendum, 

J. For his reafon, i. Its pity that he cannot diflinguifh between a Caufe and 
a meer Condition : Where he faith [he that obtains the reward gets it by his fer- 
vice] I fay, it is here By it, as by a Condition ftnequi non, but not By it, as by a 
Caufc, I. And its pity that any Divine ffiouid not dilHnguilh between fervicc 
and fervice. There is a fervice which is opcrjr/, or fome way profirable to him 
that we perform it to ; which therefore may oblige by commutative Juftice to re- 
ward us : and here the Reward is not of Grace, but Debt: and the Work is a 
Meritorious Caufe, properly fo called. There is a Work which is a Means oT 
Moral-natural Neceillty (on terms of Reafon and common honelty) to our or- 
derly participation of a Bwucfit freely Given : As if a Traitor fhall have a par- 


don on Condition he will Accept it, and come in : Or a$if a Womtn-Traitor 
ftiould not only have pardon and life, but alfo be Princcfs, on condition ftie will 
marry the Kings fon, that hath Ranfomedher. Here the ad may imprope; ly be 
called fcrvice, becaufe Commanded : but properly and in its principal Conlidera- 
tio», it is a necefTary reafonable means, to her own happinefs : And this ad is buc 
a meet Condition fine qua non,oi her Pardon and Dignity, and no proper Merito- 
rious, or efficient Cauie. 

4. What a dangerous reafoning is this, to teach men proudly to thank them- 
felveu for their pardon and happinefs, and deny God the thanks / To fay [Gods 
promife would have brought me never the nearer the reward, had not 1 believed : 
and I did a great deal more cojullifie my felf by Believing then God did by his 

5. Nay, I would defire the Reader to obferve, what Ihift Mr.IC- hath left for 
himfelf to difclaim this wicked Conclufion : Is there any of the Piemifes which 
he doth not own f i. I hope he will not deny but the Promife of pardon and fal- 
vation is made to all that hear it, on Condition, they will Repent and Believe: 
2. If he regard not better proof, I hope he will believe Dv.TrvijS (fo oft repeat- 
ing it) that falvation is given per tnodum pramii. }. I hope he believes, thac 
without believing, the Covenant would not have brought him to falvation. Muft 
not this man then conclude on his own principles, that [he wifely julirfies him- 
felf by believing? and more a great deal then God doth juftific him by his pro- 
mulgation of the new Covenant, which would have left him in his old Conditi- 
on, had he not better provided for himfelf by Believing, then the Covenant did 
by promiUng.] I am loth togive thefe words fo bad an Epithete as is their due. 
VVby may not any Traitor fay the like that Receives a free pardon ? Or a beggar 
that Receives a free alms, when Receiving or Accepting is the Condition fiuc qui 
»w of their attaining andpofleffing it ? 

6. The Gofpel bath a promiLe of Faith it felf to fome : and this Faith is 
Caufed by the holy Ghoft : Therefore it is ftill God that providech for the Eled, 
better then they provide for themfelves, howfoever fuch difputers may talk. But 
yre muft not therefore confound the nature of G >ds Gifts, nor their Caufes or 
way of produdion. The Spirit tjives us Faith firft, which is out Condicion.ani 

.makes as capable objeds or lubjeds of Juftification : which being do.Te,the new 
Law of G.ace doth immediately Pardon, Juftifie and Adopt us : which way then 
doth MrX'sdefperate confuquence follow ? Oc what (hew of ground hath it ? Ic 
feemi if this man had forfeited his life, if a pardon were offered him buc on Con- 
dition that he would Take it, and fay, 1 thank you ; he would fay , he did a 
great deal more to his own pardon by Thanks and Acceptance, then the King 
that granted ic, did by his G.anc ; becaufe the Grant would have left him in the 
old Conilition, had he not better provided for himfelf by Thankful! Acceptance, 
then the King did by his Pardon.] Yea and in our Cafe the Acceptance is Given 
too, though another way. I confefs my deceftation of this difputing, is beyond 
my exprertion. 

Zmchj in I ]oh.i. loc.icR.em't^.p.^\,^z. faith, Baptifm is not perpetually a vi- 
tlble Inrtrumcnt bv which Rcmilfion is offered [_t^crbum autemperpctud ejl tale In- 
(Irumentum.yerbum crgOHOn BiptifmuStCjl illud proprium^' perpeiuum iujlrumentum per 
quoi perpctuo pQctitorum remijfio nobis offerer (3' douitur (To multitudes more) And 
in cQmpcnd.Theol.p.76^. Per Evin^eliun Dem gntk fujitjlat. 

CL . §i«. 


§ j8. 

Ht.K' T r J </<'<>' /'» »&« f <i^c cf the N «» Uovcnant, as in thut of the OU : The C«f- 
i- vArtt ran. In the day thou carcft thereof, rhou (halt die : Tbit rtat G«ds 
Threat: Ifriy vchobrtught dcathiiMihcvcorld, god or Adam? ^u/l (ointbeHew 
Covenant, Believe and be Juftified : Wkojuliificsihe Believer, Gei orhtmfelf} 
Turpc eft doftori <\im culpa rcdarguit ipfuia. 

R' B. v-tEver let any caufe be thought [o bad, but that it may have the 
L\ grcatcft confidence to credit it with the world. [ Its clcir "T 
faith Mr. I^. in the beginning , and with his proverbiall Poetry , he trium- 
phantly concludes. But if ever man met with weaker grounds of fuch tri- 
umph and confidence j in a man of fuch learning, he is of larger experience 
then I am. 

I . To bis fir ft Qucftion, I R»pJy : eAdam brought death into the world as the 
Deferver, God as the Legiflator, making it Due to him, if he iinncd, and as the 
Judge, fentencing him to it for fin ; and as the principal Caufe of the Execution. 
But tAdim was the culpable Caufe. 

a. To his fccond Queition, I fay, God juflifieth the Believer, as Leoifla- 
tor, and as Judge, and as Reftor fuprx Leges, and as Donor or Bcnefador. 
And the Believer is not fo much as the Meriter of his own Juflification, ss 
lAisctn was of his Condemnation. Did I think that any Learned Prote- 
fiant had not known this ? That he hath his Condemnation by his Me- 
rit , and his Juftification without hii Merit, upon the performance of that 
Condition which is the Acceptance of Chrift that hath Merited it for us ? 
That Death is the wages ot finnc, and Eternal Life the Gift of God through Jc- 
fus Chrift. 

3. But again, I admire what the man means'. Whether he own the wicked 
Conclufion [Man juftificthhimfelf ] or not? For he makes it to be the Confe- 
quenccofthistenour of the Covenant [Believe and be Juftified] And dare he fay, . 
that the Covenant deth not fay,Bclievc and be Juftified ? Yea neverthelefs,thougb 

§ 19- 
Mr.K. HTHat firfi born of Abominations wWr.Goodwins phrafe UunluckHj l^ii 
» at Wr. Baxters own door ; andit may appear it is not rvrongfuUy- fathered 
upon him , by thtt very argument whuh heuniertaiics to anfvfer, gnd doth well enough for 
fo much Oi it cxpreft, but there it more implied tn it. 

R.JB. I. [1 1 Nluckily] muft be interpreted [byfalfc accufation] I expeft to 

*^ have fuch unlucky hands lay more fuch abominations at my door. 

2. Mr.lC- confelTeth, that I well enough aniwer the Argument for fo much as 



Isexpreft: And let tbe Reader well obfervc what the Implied addition is that 
he makes. 

§. 40- 
Hr. K. *^Hiiihc Promulgation of ibc 'Mjw (Covenant wot from the beginning: 
1 Miny menJhiU not be ^ufiified ttU toivards the cni of the iVorli t 
Ko mxn till a longtmc after tbc^romulgstion: Therefore wt fo much by Gods Pro-^ 
muli^ition of the Covenjnty m the mttit coYcmmcx hit performing the Coniitian, which 
is i/7c Immediate C(Ui(c of it, and therefore hcjuflijics htmfelf^ sad thM more then God in 

§. 40. 
R-B. I. \7t7Hat is here added as impliadte that which he confefletb, that I 
V V well enough anlwered ? Let him tell that can. 

2. How can he prove chat jidam was not juitified till a long time after the Pro- 
mulgation of the New Covenant ? A bold affercion, mc thinks. 

}. The Confcqucnce is a pucid «0M /cjMztor ; What ihew doth the man bring 
to make any man believe bis Conl'equence , but the bare Credit of his own 

4. What a ftrait doth this Difputer bring himfelf into ? He muft either fay, 
that the Gofpal or New Covenant doth not promife Pardon and Juftification on 
Condition of Believing. (And is he fie to preach the Gofpel that would deny fo 
great a part of it.) Or elfe he muft hold his wicked Condullon, That man ju- 
^ificth himfelf, and that more then God in the Covenant. And for ought I caa 
underfland by him he means to own one of thefc. 

5. The ground of all this rotten dodiine, is another notorious errour here ex- 
prefled, u/i^. That [mans performing the Condition is the Immediate Caufe o( 
hisjultification :] when it is properly no Caafc at all. A Condition may fome- 
timc be alfo a Moral Caufc, ic. when there is fomewhat in the excellency or na« 
turc of the thin2 Conditioned, to move the principal Caufer : Buc fuch a Condi- 
tion as is purpoTely chofcn for the abafing of man, and the honour of free Grace, 
and confilleth but either in Accepting a free Gift J orinnot rejeding ic again, ot 
not [pitting in the face of the Giver, this is no Caufe, bat/tne quA non. It fcems, 
this Learned man hath too arrogant thoughts of his own faith, as if it were 
the Immediate Caufe of hisjultification, and fo he jullified himfelf more then 
God by his Covenant. 

§. 41- 
Mr.K.. \SferinliMice: IhcrevoK aLivtmiie in ^etn Elizabeths time, thit, 
l\ every Engliflmiznbivingtilien Orders mtho Komifh Church, coming intt 
England, j/;iK/«jfcr a^ j. Trxitor : Tlut EngUfl) min, vohich hijini ti^en Orders in the 
Romijh '- hnrch, comes wow into England, dnd is condemned , hilk HOt[o much r(i[on M 
f fur^c hn couicmmtion on (he »S^f c«, as himfelf 


s. 41. 

I. Z.TTHat u becaufc he it the culpable meriting Caufc. Are we the Defervers 
^ of pardon ? 

§. 41. 
Mr.K-^r*He Lsw condemns bim-, but Jhc doth not vehomidcthe Law, veho iki 
J. rrnny yars fme i yea the ^udge who pronouncetb the fcntence doth uot 
fo properly doit as. the Seminary bimfelf: '2{onortbe Law, 4s the^rtcjlhimfelf ; wb» 
had he beeu minded to hive fccured bim fclf, might have done it at hU pUafurc, Qayed at 
'R.hcincierDowiyiaHd condemned the Liwof Tyranny -, yea andavtucht all tbofetbat 
fttffered by it as Tray tors to be really Mirtyrs. The cafe is the fame, though in a different 

§' 41. 
R.B. I. V^Ou confefs here that the Law condetnncth : and then no doubt it 
1 juftjfiethroo. 

*. Where you fay, [Shee doth not that made the Law] I fay, that is becaufc 
the Law doth operate or caufc, as it is a fign of the Will of the Rcdor, to confti- 
tate that ^w which he had power to conftitute. Now when the Queen and Par- 
liament were dead J "they had no power to oblige them that Jhould live after them, 
much lefs if contrary to the Will of their fiicccllois: Nor yet had they power 
while they were aliTC, fo to bindc pofte'-ity. The Laws therefore were divolvcd 
into other hands, and now bindes as fgnum voluntatis KeSlorU jam cxiftentis: For 
it is his will that it fhould continue > and that will animates it : Yet where any 
hath power, the figns of their will may be efteftual when they are dead : Or elfc 
Teftaments were little worth, and Legataries were in an ill calc. But whats this 
to our cafe? Goddiethnot, and the Laws of his Kingdom lofc not their force, 
jior change their Mafter, by the change of GovernouiS. Bu; if you had dealt in- 
genuoufly, you fhould rather have enquired, whether the prcfent Reftor and 
Mafler of the Law, may be faid ro condemn him that the Law condemns. 
And that methinks you (hould not deny. Yea, and it may be faid that dead Ly- 
curgtu was a caufc of the condemnation of furviving odiendors, for all your bare 

J. Where you fay that [ the Judge who pronounccth the fentencedoth not fo 
properly condemn him, as the Seminary himfelf.] Seeing you yield that both 
condemn him, the Judge Sententially, and himfelf Meritorioufly, and theque- 
ftion is but of the greater or lefs propriety in the word [Condemn] I think ic 
not worth the contending about. Yet Appello "^urifconfultos : and if they fay not 
that it is a more proper fpeech to fay [The judge condcmneth him] then to fay 
[He condemned himfelf by breaking the Law] then I am content the next time 
its aded to take Ignoramut his part, and confefs that I know little of the Lawyers 
language. Indeed I ftill fay it is the cftendourihac is the culpable caufe. Where 
you fay that the cafe is here the fame ; I anfwer, then it feems you think you de- 
ferve a Pardon^ as a thief deferves the Qaliows. I durit not have called thefe cafes 
the fame. 



§. 4J« 

Mr.IC- T AT <t Ukf natter take it thta. A man is found guilty of a felony $ the Lave faith, 
i He jhall be faved if he JbaH reade : be reads and is favcd : gramercy, faith he, 
to my Reaatng more then to the ceurttfie of the Lave : and though he acknovUdge pro 
forma that n « the iourttfie aiid grace of the State to him, ytt as the bad Evglijb 
man, God biefs her Father ana Mmhcr that taught her to reade, elfe the Lave would 
have been fevere etiough $ he may he faid to have faved himfelf. 

5. 4?. 
R. 2. i.T^Ou fay, [It is alike matter.] But you fay To much and prove fo 
1 little, that you lofc much ot" your labour, as to me. It is not a like 
matter. The Law for laving him that reads ut CleritKt, was made partly to fparc 
Learned men, beciuTe the Prince 01 Commonwealth hath need of them, and lu- 
ftaineth a greater Icfs in the death of fuch then ct the unlearntd i and partly in a 
refped to the worth of their Learnirg, if net with feme fptcia! indulgence to 
the Clergy for their Office, and to pltafe the Pope. But Gods Law of Grace 
pardoning a penitent, graceful! Believer, hath no luch intent : God needs not us, 
as the Commonwealth needs the Learned. lUfidcsthe Law hath laid the con- 
dition of efcape in intelledtual Abilities, without any Moral vefpeft to the virtue 
of the party : but God hath laid it more in the mcer ccnfenc of the Will. 

a. Butifyou will interpret the Law of the Land otherwife, asifit were an 
z6i of pureft grace , then I fay, your Client with his Gramercy is an ungrate- 
full fellow, and your bad Engliihman, is the pidmeof a bad Chriftian, indeed 
no Chrillian : But by your fpeeches 1 perceive that about thefe matters experience 
is a great advantage to the right underftanding of the Truths by the means 
whereof many an unlearned Chriflian knows mere then feme Learned Difputcrs. 
He that hath felt what it is to be condemned by the Law, and afterward pardon- 
ed by the Go^pe^, and put into a ftate of falvption by Chrift, doth not fay as 
Mr.I^. that he is more beholden to h"s believing then to Gods prcmifc, but hear- 
tily afcribcth all to God. Faith fi the aft of an humbled foul accepting of Chrift 
as he is offered fn the Gofpel. And can any humbled foul give thanksto his own 
Acceptance, more then to Gods Gift ? yea when the power and ad of Accepting 
is his Gift alfo ? If MrX- have an imagination that in every conditional Dona- 
tion, there is more thanks due to the performer of the condition then to the giver, 
1 dare fay, he is an ungratefull perfon to Gcd and men. If his father leave him 
all his Eftate on condition he give a younger Brother ^'^eu: of it, or that he give 
6<' to the poor 5 it feems he will more thank himfelf then his father. If he had 
forfeited his life, and a pardon were given him, on condition he would Accept it 
thankfully and humbly on his knets, and that he would not fpit in the face of him 
that giveth it, nor feek bis death, he would give the chiefefi thanks to himfelf. 
A$ for the phrale of [faving himfelf ] he knows it is the Scripture phrafe, x Tjct. 
^. laft. though pardooing oui felves be not. 

Q^J §.44. 


§• 44- 
Mr.K-\/Ei.V/. Zixiet cxprejfetb ftmcwbu inhU tnfwer wbitb aiii^cs up full mU' 
1 furc of evidence a.^iinjl btm. He fuiih. The coniiiion being pcrfermcJ, the 
C6ni:(iotu'2 gr-int beconici abfoiutc. Erz^o, fij [, Re tbu performttbc ConiittOM, m^et 
the grsju to be ibfoLutc, aui jo d»ib more to hU ^ujiificMioH then God, vtbo trnie 
9hI} d CenditioiuU grdnt, and vihich uoMithjUndiug be might hive perifht, yea muji 
vithcutbUewnaH of believing. And truly vtbocvcr mik^t fjJfb tke Condition of tbe 
New CovauKt injuJ) ifenfe 36 full obedience veii the Condition of the Old, carinat jrjoii 
it, birtthit minis jujhfiedchiejiy by himfelf, hiiorvnacis, not fo much bj Gods gr see in 
imputtngchrijls Righicoufncf, but more bj hk ovctt fiith, which IhopeU hiiQxvnaSi, 
though Gois rvorli. 

§. 44. 

R.!B. 1. A Li's clear agalnft me, if you be ]uJ^c» buc the whole charge <ic- 
/Apcndsbut on -he credi: o£ your bare word. That [Er^a, lay I] is the 
fifon^ proof. Your conftqaeacc is none, buc a mccr fadion. By [Abfolute] 
1 mean, i: adually confcrres withouc any further Condition, when all the Con- 
dition is peiforincd. Its a hard cafe that a man fo Learned in his own eyes fhould 
bi. ignorant what a Condition i$, in fenfii Civili, vel LegiU. Were you noc fo, 
you would not ftill make ic a caufc j when ( unlcfs fomewhac beyond the mecc 
nature of a Condition be added) it is no caufe at all. Ii is falfc therefore that the 
performer in our cafe makes the grant to be Abfolutc, it by mj}iing, you mean 
{iufing, as you before exprefs your fclf, it is only a performing that, fiiie qui DO' 
rMiononcrit A^uilif vcl Abfoluti. It is the Djnor (yea though he were dead 
before) that makes the Conditional grant become Aftual or Abfolutc when the 
Condition is performed. And if ic IHU ftick in your ilomack, that he perfometb 
no new aft to do this J I anfwcr, it needs not : the ficft ad of making his Tefta- 
ment, Deed of gift, Contraft, Lz7/,0'c. dochall this. The Law or other in- 
itrument, is but the Iignifier of his Will, and tharcforcconveyeth when and on 
what terms he will ( in a cafe within his power.) If it be his will that this In- 
ftrumenc iTiall ^04 conferrc prefently and abfolutely, it doth it ; If buc in iica and 
ablolutcly, icdothic : If fub c9?idi(ione, it doth it : and in both the lall cafes, its 
his will that the Inftrumcnc ihall give no Adual Right till the day come, or till 
the Condition be performed • fo that a Condition is no true caufe of the cffcd ; 
the new-peiformincc of i: fufpendeihthe aft of the grant, but the performance doth 
not caufe ic > unlcfs you mean ic of a cAufifMiu, which doth buc rcmovere impcii" 
menfumi fo chat if chc Day be twen-y years after the Tellaiors death, that the 
Legacy becomes due, or if the C mjitioa be fo long after performed, it is the will 
of the Donor that makcch that Inllrument then convey Right, which did not be- 
fore ; becaufe it works only fignifiando voluntxtem Uonxtorif, [and fo when and how 
he exprelTed his will it fliould work. Would one think fuch trivial obvious poinds 
fliould be unknown to M "I^. i 

i. Where you talk of [faith bein2; a condition of the New Covenant in the 
fame fenfe as full Obedience of the O'.d.] I fay your words [in the fame fenfe] 
arc ambiguous : ^^ond rattonem formalem Gonditionis in gcnere, it is in the fame 
fenfe a Condition, liai ic is noc a CoAdition of cbe dmtjpecies. Ic differs in the 

macccc > 


matter; one being the humble thankfull Acceptance of Chrift and Life freely 
rcflored ard given J the other being a perfcd fulfilling of a perft A Law : the ends 
aredifttrenr: One is to obtain part in Life purchalcd by Chrift, when we were 
undone by fin; the other to maintain continued intereli in the felicity firft "lytn 
by the Creator : One is to abafe the finner by felf-deniall^ and to extoll Free- 
grace 3 the other was to obtain the Reward in away as honourable to man, as he 
was capable of. More ditfcrencts might cafily be added. 

3. Let .he Reader mark what our Quellion was [Whether God Pardon or 
Juilific us by the Covenant grant ?] and whether Mr. I^. hath nowcauiedit ? 
It was all this while maintained, that the performer of the Condition, is noc 
Juflified fo much by the Covenant as by himfelf : Now it is come to thefe 
terms ; [ Not fo much by GoJs Grace in Imputing Chrifts Righteoufnefs , 
but more by his own faith.] He feems to me to yield, that we are as fure- 
ly Juftified by the. Covenant , as by Gods Grace imputing Clorifts Righce- 

§. 4$. 
Mr.K-VE* (iyligitinfi A/r. Baxter i. Thdt faith is the Real efftlf rvhich Ood 
1 vpor^is, by a Travficnt aSi on a pcrfon vchom hcjujliftj. 

§. 41. 

R.B'\?0\i aterefoived, it feems, it fhall bcagainft "Mv. Baxter whatever you 
1 fay. But what Rational Animal bcfides your felf can tell how this is 
againftme? If it beagainft me, its either Dircftly or Conlet^uentially. If Di- 
redly, then I have fomcwhere denied it, or fpoke the contrary : Shew where and 
fliame me. If Confequentially, why is there no hint given us which way it makes 
a^ainft me ? or againll what opinion or words of mine ? It feems it was intenti- 
onally ag^iinft nic, not againflmy Dodrinebut Me ; Your minde may be againft 
me, but Truth is not againft me. 

§. 46. 
Mr. K-TP'^''* f^"^ ii a KcaU cffcSi , eibcrswill admit vfithout proving ; iMr. Bax- 
_|_ ter who denies facuUia avd b<ibits diQitiB from the foul, may be forced, 
to yield it ly thii Argument. If faith bcnotaReaU cfcH on the foul, then neither is 
any other grace, for all fore from fxiih, and avfcqucntly no rcall alteration wrought 
in SanBificatiov, and eenfequcntly no fanHijied foul Really differs frem her (elf when 
unfavSiified , no nor more then numero from mfinBtfied worldlings -, they are all 
alike. T aking it then that faith ii a Real effeB : 2. 7/ is acb^dowledged it is wrought 
by God, and that not of tur {elves, it is thegtft of god. And 3. that it is wrought by a 
tranfient aH , a/i being a^eaU cffcSl by Godin fub)cdocxtraneo. Let ui fee now hovn 
by this tranfient alt whereby god works fAi^h, he may truly befaidto jujiifc m in time as 
he decreed from eternity i 

§. 4^. 


R. B- I. •T'Hc man vionM have his Reader believe that 1 muft be forced by hit 

1 Argumcnrs to confcfsfaithtobcareil cftc<^. i. Till he prove ir, 
I willtakcit forameei flinder, that I dcay FacuUies and Hibi;s diftinft from 
the foul. 1. I fa id I though: [ic would not be proved,] but I rofe no: to the 
confidcnccof aflat deniallj as knowing what is faii on bo:h fides, i. Whac 
■was i: that 1 faid would not be proved ? That the faculties were no: RuUj difiinU 
from the foul or one another : bu: not tha: they were no: difiiHS, as Mr. I^. faith. 
They may bediftind modally or Forniilly, though not «rRa(j7' Ra. j. When 
did I fay this of Habits, as Mr.IC- aifirmcth ? But 1 will hereafter crped no 
more truth from him, even in matters of faft, then according to the proportion 
of the foregoing dil'pute. 4. To the point it fe!f I fay, we muft diftingui(h of 
Reality: If you oppofe Real cither to Feigned, or Pavativf, or Negative, or 
Potential, or to an cxcrinfecall denomination, or to meerly Relative, lo its out 
of doub: that faith and all graces in the aft and habit are Real eflFcft,. But if by 
Real you mean more then a diftindion formall, or Ratione Kitiocimti, or Modal, 
I will neither affirm nor deny it, till I better underftand it: You that know fo 
well the nature of the Immanent ads of G^d, mayathoufand times more eafily 
know the nature of the Immanent ads and habits of man: but I confefs exceed- 
ing great ignorance of both : and to tell you my opinionsofthefe things would 
be but vain and unfeafonable. ?• Your lall words contain themyftery, that 
by [that tranlient ad whereby God workcth faith, he may be faid to Ju- 
ftifiej] we ftiall have good flu^, I think, when this myftery comes to be o- 

Whether Faith Juftifie as aninftrument. 

§. 47. 
Mr. I^. * yffr Baxter ahjeSis igiinji fiiths beit^ an injirument of our ^ujlijiution : and 
iVl tbut it if neither msns nor Qods injtrument. I (hill mtiic it appexr to be 
hothGodsitidminsin fome fenfe, though in different refpeHs, ntuvithjlduiing aU he 
hithfuid to the contrary. Saithhe, If fiiih be ah ln(trumcnt of our 'fufiificitiOH, It it 
the Inltrument of God or mm : iiot ofrnxn ; for mm is not the priucipiUeJlcicnt, he doth 
notjujiifehimfelf I Anfvpcr i. According^ to hii doSfrine, man doth jujlifichimfctf, 
ut fupra. ». ihitmanisnottheprincipille^aentofbisjaiib, more then of hit "fujti- 
ficatitni it if God who mult hi jethu honour, i- That mnidttb recciv:bis "fuftifi- 
cation h) faith it an Inftrumcut, a/s fhiU.be fhewcd hereafter. 

§• 47. 

3^3. T^Hisquarrelfomc man wanting work, had amindctotakc in thisCon- 

X. troverfiealfo. about faiths Inftrumentality in Juftifying: but what 

anunhandfome Tranfition he makes to draw it in, maybe ealilydi kerned. Let 

the Reader remember, that the tbin^ which I deny is, that faith is an Inllrutuenc 


In the ftrift • Logical fenfcj that is, an Inftrumental cfEcientcaufeof our Jufti- 
ficacion : and that I exprcfly difclaim contending de nomine, or contradifting any 
that only ufe the word Inftrument in an improper larger fenfe, as Mechanicks and 
Rhetoricians do; fo that the Quefiion is dc re, whether it efficiently caufe out 
Jaltification as an Inftrument ? This I deny. And to his triple Anfwer I Reply. 
I. The firit ijofthcold ftamp > a grofs untruth, needing no other reply then a 
deniall. i. The fecond if it be I'enfe, implieth the dcniall of this maxime, thac 
[_Injlrumentum eft effictentis principalk InBrumentum "} and thence inferreth, thac 
t.is man may be his own Inftrument in efi'etfting faith, though he be not the prin- 
cipal! caufe, fo may he be in Juftification of bimfelf.] If this be not the fenfe of 
it (ifcontradidions may be called fenfe) then I cannot undcrftandit. But the 
denied maxime needs no proof : that man is his own Inftrument in effeding his 
faith, needs no more then a deniall to difprovc it (fpeaking thus dc homine, and 
not dcpme Ali^UAbommi organici.) That man is not cnufi principalis in bclecving, 
is untrue J though God be QaufAprimi: May none but the Caufaprima be called 
Haufa prinCTpilis ? then no creature is capable of ufing an Inlhument. g. His 
third muft be confidered when we come to the fuller proof which he referres 
us to. 

§. 48. 

l/li.fl-TyOtwbetibe ptith. Faith is not Gods Inftrument, i. I do not fay it is pro- 
iJperiy, but it is his wor\, and by giving us faith he juHiftes as, at JhtU be 
Jbewedanon, he giving tatbM which is our Inftrwrient, whereby we receive the RightC' 
oufnejS ofChrift. 

§. 48. 

KB, i.rj Vcnnow be undertook toproTc it Gods Inftrument, but now,he doth 
111 not fay it is properly : and I will not contend againft an improper 
term, when the thing is difdaimed. i. Here is another touch upon the myftery, 
that [by giving us faith he juftifics us] but we ftiall be fhewcd it anon : therefare 
I muft not overhaftily anticipate it. 

§. 49- 
Mr. IC- 1. D**^^ i' " "^ much his Ivftrumeut as the new Covenant is ; for faith wori- 
Dinginmyheart, is that whereby God pronouncetb the Sew Covenant to be 
of benefit to me for my ^ufttficatm. 

§• 49. 
IS^JB. I.I F the New Covenant be properly Gods Inftrument, and faith be not, 
1 then faith is not as much his Inftrument as the New Covenant : But 
the Antecedent is true: Thereforej(i;'c. The fecond member of the Ancecadent 
Mr. I^. now yielded. Forthefirft I will appeal to all Lawyers and Politicians, 
or any that undcrftands what an Inftrument is, whit Civil commerce is, and 
what a Law or any Contrad is, whether a Deed of gift, a Teftamcnt, or a Law 
be not as proper Inftruments confcrtnH ^us, conftitHcnii Vebitutn, an is imaginable, 



or a$ the nature of the thing confthutcd or conferred {Debttum) is capable of. In 
the mean time, I leave Mr. I{- to examine it, by the common Canons and pro- 
peniesof an Inftrumcnt. i. Faith is noc [Gods pronouncing,] bu: your belief 
cf what he pronouncetb, and Acceptance of what he r'.crs; Will you confound 
faith with its objeft ? Divine Tcftimony is the objcft of faith, and you makcic 
faith it fclf. J. I know the Antinomians take faith to be [ the belief of our Ju- 
llification T or the perfwafion or apprehcnfionof Godslove to me in I'pec a!,] buc 
fodo not our moticrn Proteftants. 4- If this be true doSrine, then wo to poor 
Chriltiansthat have no AlVurancc of their Juftification r and then, how few have 
faith ? For I think it is comparatively but a fmall number that have felt Gad pro- 
nouncing in their hearts, that the Covenant is of benefit to their own particular 
JulUfication.* except by the term [ofbenefit] be meant, a conditional JuiUhca- 
tion, or a tendency or means towards their Juftification; and fo even ungodly 
men may know that it's [of bcncfi:] to them for Juftification ( as Mr. f^. phra- 
feth it.) 5 . Doth not Mr. I^. (hew here that the Truth flicks in his minde, and 
that he is fain to hide it in ambiguous terms. What can he mean by this faying 
tGod pronounceth the New Covenant to be of benefit to me for my Juftificati- 
on] but this [That the New Covenant juftifiethmc ?] He would not openly 
tell us which way it bencfitcth him to Juftification, and yet be no efficient inftrii- 
mentallcaufeof it. 

■, u O » 1 

§. 50- 

Mr. K- A '^^ ? • '* ^^y ^^ ^^^' Ivjirumcnt notveithjlunding his Argument : rvbertof 
lythejirjl IS \_ for it is not God thit bdioveth'] nornecdsit, (ly I : it is c- 
nougb ibut god mifieih me believe, and jo rccave the Righteoufncjf ofchrifl: yea God 
ky maktiig mebclic-jc gives mc an hxni whcreveiib to receive, opens my hand rvhereby I 
receive it: I alone receive, but thcfe are GodsaHs, and though God be not (aid t$ be- 
lieve, he truly miy be faidtobexhc Auihourof my belief ^ my belief is an mmavent aif 
in me, and fo denominates me the believer, atnvfient aSi m from God, and denominates 
him 9nly ibc tAuthour of my believing : in mc it u an adjunct, it bath to him only the r«- 
litionofaneffeH- For example, I throw a bowl: the motion of this bowlis more from 
me then the bowl, and I accordingly am [aid to have howled well or ill: but the motion 
doth not denomiuats me otbcrwife then in the /'gent, not the fubjeSf ; and though I be (aid 
tobtwlwcll, the bowl in this cufo is only faid to run, not I. So the chief Authour of my 
Believing is Cjtfd, and hcmufihivexhc glory of turning aid framing andupholJiug and 
wcrfiing all in my hearty as betng the authour, Prefcrver and Fivifl?cr of my faith, yet t 
aUvc am [aid to believe, not God; though my faith be more properly Gods wori{_, then it 
is my own : had not he begun itinmc, I had no more believed inChriJi, then the bowi 
would have run to the marliof it fclf i all tbeprogrc^ ofmy fuuhisfromhim, dndtohm 
be all the glory. 

§. ^0. 
JR. 3. i.VlOnc of all this is brought againft my Conclufion, for be yicldeth 
i\l that J (that cur faith is not pvopttly Gods Inftrumcnt in jjftifj'ing) 
but it is to fticw the ftrength of his wit againft my mediums. If he yield it to be 
the truth which I maintain, the matter is thclcfs if I fail in proving it: Or if 
oncmfiiiwTTjbedcfcftive, itislittlemauer^if thercft, or any onefufficc. 2. Wha: 


hath he faid in all thefe words, morcthcnwhat I faid in thofe.fcw words which 
hcoppofeth, w'^. [Ir is not God that Belicveth, though its true he is the firft 
Caufe of all Aitions.] 1$ not this the full fubftance ot his fpeech ? j. All hi» 
word's fecm to tend but to pnwc that God may be (aid to be the principal Caufe of 
our faith, and it to be his aft : but what's that to its inftrumcntality in jullify- 
ing, 4. 1 intended this firlt Propofitioii, chiefly as preparatory to the reft, ra- 
ther then as a full proof of the Cenclufion by it felf. Perhaps wc may give hitn 
fomc plainer Argument anoB, when he hath done with thefe. 

Mr.K. %/lT'BixttrsfecondArgHmenttoproveit, not Gods Injirument tba rmn U 
fVl Caufa fecunda fcffirfcn Goe< (t«i tibc ^ff/Off, anifo fHUfnii to jnfitfic 
himftlf. I anfwcr, i. Man is indeed C%u(i (ecundz, but not bctvtccnGoi and the 
j'iHi9v, for god detJ) immedidtelj covcitrre to it, and man u in rcgird of the habit oj 
faith purely fifftvc, -not aSive at all, for that though ether habits msy be acquired, faith w 
ivfitfed both for the ejfcnce and degree, i. Man may not be faid by his btheving tojuQi' 
fie hitnfelf, but to Believe to his f unification, and to receive ^ujlificatton by believing, for 
that by faith, at it is gods work.,God doth jujiifie him, viz. declares hereby the Righteouf- 
wjfe of Chrijl to hcHisfrpfn ; he doth apprehend or receive the Ri^htcoufnej! of Chriji by 
believing, as it is his ortn aH, xphcreof (lili he is the SubjcB, not the Author, as the Bovri 
is of it running. 

R.B. I. ^ 71 7Hether Godconcurre Immediately to ail humane aftions, I 
V V havenomindetodifpace : li Mr. Iv want work on that fub- 
jed, hemay anfwerL«iov.<t Z)o/i. But it I'ufficeth me that man alfo is an Im- 
mediate Caufe of his Believing, i. Whether man be Pallive or not in receiving 
the habit, is nothing, that I know of, to the matter 5 as lon^ asthe a<fl which ju- 
flificth is immediately by him. 3. It is a great uncertainty which you aftirm fo 
confidently. You know not but that the Spirit of G-od by the VVornl, may excite 
an aft of faith before he infufe a habit, andbythataft (ormore) produce a ha- 
bit. 4. And fo the habit may be faid to be Infufcd as from God, and acquired by 
man too : and it is commonly granted , that Infufcd habits are attained (ecunium 
m odum acquifitsrum . 

To the fecond Anfwcr, I fay, i. For your Receiving Inftrument, we rtiall 
fpeak to it anon. 2. St fides ejicit ^u[lificationem, turn Credcns per fidem ef- 
ficit Juflificationcm : Atfidcsfimodo InjirumcNtum lujiificationis e(l, iHJiificattoncm 
efjitit: Ergo, Sec. The »i;f;or is evident, in that man is the immediate proper 
Caufe of the aft, therefore if the aft doth it, the Agent bythat aft dothic. The 
luitrument is his that immediately and properly ufcth it. The minor is undeniable, 
(peaking of a true inilrumental Caufe : For there is no inllrumemal Caufe in any 
kindc, butof efficients. >^,j <) > 

1. A hint I perceive more here of yout opinion, what is Gods juftifying aft, 
vi'[. Working faith in us : but I will wait till this opinion dare come into the 

5. I perceive alfo here what yoawke Juftificationtobe, vi^. [declaring Chrifts 

R i 'Ri^htcouf- 


Rigbteoufnefs to be his own] Right Antinomianifm. i. Will you tell us whe- 
ther [Dedating ChiiftsRightcoufners to be mine] do not fuppofe it to be firft 
miner Elfe it is the Declaring of an untruth. And if it were mine before, was 
not I juft before ? and fo conflitutive juftified ? z. Why did you not tell us when 
and how that wasdonc ? And what was the ad whereby God did conllitute mc 
ju[\ ? Which is firft to be known, and which ycu knew that I was fpcaking of. 
3. Where, and to whom is it that [God declares this] ycu fpeak of ? Onclyin 
Confcience, and not to others, no doubt. But I doubt not fully to fliamc (in 
due place) this Antinomian fancy, that Juftification by faith (in Scripture fcnle) 
is but Juftification in Confci'.nce, 4. Many a foul hath juftifying faith (ofAf- 
fent and Confent) who yet doth not believe that Chriib Rightcoulnefs is their 
own, 5. May not other Graces declare Cnrifts Righteoufnefs to be ours ? ( I 
know not whether it be/iino/e»/« that you fpeak of Chrifts Righteoufnefs being 
made ours, but I will not digrefle to enquire further into it now.) 6. You do. 
ftrangely affirm, that man is not the author of his own aft fwhecher he be the 
I'ubjcft, I rcferic to what is faid :) If by the Author, you mean, not the perfwa- 
der, but the Agent, the vital, voluntary felf-determincr, then he is the Author ; 
or elfe I could tell you of fucli uuavoidablc confequents, as you will be aftiamcd 
to own. If you be indeed enc of thofe that think man a free Agent, is no more 
the author of hisownafts, then your Bowl is, I fhall fsar, left you will think 
your fclf very excufable for all the evil you do, and therefore little care what yoa 
do : I fhall be loath to truft a man of fuch principles, if his carnal intercft carry 
him to do me a mifchief. How many Philofophers or Divines are of your minde 
in this, that man is but the Subjeft and not the Authnr of his own aft of Be- 
lieving J* 

§. Ji- 

CMr.K.'T^OhU third Argument, that the A&ion of the principal Caufc, and ot" 
J_ the Inftrument istbe fame, istrue, aiidvphcnhc ae^is, Whodare lay 
that faith is fo Gods In'' rument ? I undcrftand not any great danger in afjirming, that 
Cod giving tne faith, the habit and thereby the aH of believing , comurs rvith my faith 
whith he hath gtjcn in enabling me to receive Chrijli he gives me an hand, ftretihctb 
it out, and opens it, and puts Chrifts Rightcoujncffe into it: 0^y U not my hand here 
his Injlrument xchercby he conveys Chrijls KighttoufnefS to me, as well or more then my 
«vpn whereby I apprehend it ? 

§. 5z. 
7{jB. I. rF it be true, that the Aftion of the Principal and Inftrumental 
J[_ Caufc be the fame, then it unavoidably follows, that man juftifi. 
eth and pardoneih himfelf, when God doth it. For then when God etilfteth 
our Juftification, Faith, which is his Inftrument doth cfFcft it too : When God 
forgiveth us c^(?c?/v^, faith forgiveth us cjfc^/W; and confequently the immedi- 
ate agent man, doth it too. 1. Again, I tell you, the place to examine your Re- 
ceiving Inftrumcmality is anon where your fclf hath defigncd it. I may not an- 
ticipate you. 


§• si- 
Mr. K. A 'Nj whereat he fiith, Fourthly, The Iv^rument hath in Influx on the efc^, 
£\ hy AproperCaufiiny, whtchivhedare fay of faith f I anjwer, i. That it 
hath a proper Cau'ality upon cur fujiification paffivcly talicn, tbatu, upen our Kccctvhif^ 
thel^jghtcoufncfofLhrifl. rAnino more need: for we make tt an Inftrument not to 
veorii, but to receive. "But fecondly, according to him ithath mere then the Influx of an 
Infirumental, that of tie principal ifficient upon our ^uflificatien, as being that xvhicb 
maizes thu Qonditional Grant in the Coienavt to become Abfolutc : And all the hencjit roe 
receive by the (Covenant if more to be aftrtbed to our faith, then gods grace in the Cove- 
nant, which would have been of no advantage to us at all, had it not been that our faith 
came in and rendrcd it of ufe to us. 7 bus then we do not deprive God oj hk Glory in 
jufiifying us by faith, though rve afcribe purification to faith j for roe afcribe our faith to 
God, and make our believing hif work, which as it comes from him is an aSiive dccUrati- 
9n,asinuia Taffivertfentingof his favour tern in Chrifl, of which we alwajes may 
th$ugh we xot alfually a^ure our f elves. 

§• u. 

H, B. 1. "I3 EceiTiBg is cither Properly, which 15 alwaycs PaflTivc : Or impro- 
IV pcrly, morally, imourativcly, which is the Content of the will 
when a thing is oflPered, and it is adive, called Receiving, becaufe it is ncceflary 
to the Paflive proper Receiving. 

In the former fcnfe, to Receive pardon and Juflification is nothing but to ba 
pardoned and juftificd : it is a meet Relative Reception. In the later fenfc, faith 
itfelf is our [Receiving] If Mi.I(,. mean the former, when he faith, that [faith 
hath a proper Caufality upon it] 1 fay, His words are fcarce fcnfe. To have 
[Caufality upon] implieth a fubjcft upon which there may be fuch Caufality : 
But the Reception of a Relation is no fuch capable Subjcd. If he mean only [a 
Caufality of that Reception] I fay, There is no natural proper Caufe of the 
Reception of a Relation, but that which caufeth the Relation it felf , by 
Caufing its foundation : thougfi there may be other Caufes of the fitncfs of the 
Subjed, yet that fitnefs effedeth not the Reeeption. Moral Caufes there may be 
befidcs ; but this is not pleaded fuch. An efficient Inftrument of the Reception 
of a Relation, (that is, ^uSitia, vcl juris ad impunitatem) we ftiall believe it to 
be when we firlt finde feme, and then truth in that afTcrtion. 1. And for the 
fecond kinde of Raf/wagChrifts Riglueoufnel^e. it is Faith it felf. And to fay, 
that faith hath a proper Caufality on it (elf, is a hard faying. 

Your fecond Anfwer is the meer repetition of a notorious flander, not 
cnely unproved , but bewraying the grnfle miftake of the Nature of a Le- 
gal Conditionjas I have fulficiently ftiewed,and will not watte time to recite. 

I conclude therefore contrary to your Ccndufion, that if you make faith the 
proper Itittrument of juftifying, ycu make man his own pardoner, and rob God 
of his Soveraignty. Your reafon to the contrary is fuch as the Papifts bring to 
excufe their dodrinc of Merit: they fay, Chrift hath Merited for them a power 
of Meriting, and fo the glory redounds to him : fo you fay, [We afciibe 
our faith to God , though we afcribe Juflification to faith. ] But you. 
muft needs afcribe it al^ immediatJy to your fclf,if you be the man that believes. 

R } Again, 

Again, you touch the way of GjJs juftifying darkly : [As it comes from 
him (youfay) it is an aftive declaration, asin usa Psflivc refentini; his favour 
ro us in Chriit.] But, i. do you mean, it is a Declaration Enunciativc ? Or 
mecily lignal ? It the termer, it is very t'alfe. Tofpeaka Truth, and to Caufc 
one to believe it, arc not all one. It the later, then it icenu you think God ju- 
ftificsaman, cveiy time he giveth him any Evidence ot his Grace. And if lo, 
then other Graces julliiie as well as t'aith j and then Juftitlca-.ion is incrcaied 
upon every incrcale of every Grace : Bat more of this when you come to it of 

And Partive Rcfenting Gads Love ot F.ivouv is an ill defcripdon of juUifying 
faithj and not a Little dangerous. 

A/r. K. \ /I \-.'Q3i%.icr proceeds to t.ii(C of an Objeiiion. iBut [one woali eviic it 
IVl tbm: FMib, (dy they, u a^djfive Lajimment, not an A Hive'] I inovf 
not voho fjy it, nor mmtrs it muih, yex it is neclkji to (jy f» : Btit t^lr. Bixter* anfwer 
to this I conceive to be very unfitisfaHory : For rvhcrc be (mb [ i . Even ^ijjivc iajiru- 
nentsarefiid to help the ASfion of the pri/icipxl yi^CHt, Keeker. /o|. p. 1 5 1. md he Ihtt 
(iith faith dotb[o, in my judgement giv:s to9 much to if] I mfwcr, Tbit voithout fence 
umxy he(jud, tbit Fmh doth help the Action of the pnncipil tAgtut, i.e. Goi in 
our fujlificuttin, God doing nothing in it vfitbout fditb ; I Jpali of fuch at are adulti, 
«r of years. *. That Afr.Baxter wiu/i fayfo, for that according to bimfiith milies Gods 
Conditional ^rant in the No* Covenant to become ahjolutc. And therefore doth the rmiv, o/ 
^ods xvorli. 

R. B, 1. T E: it beoblei'vcd that Mr.I^. takes it for needle fle , to fay. Faith 
Lmd isa Paflivc Inftrument : and therefore be muft maintain it to be 
an Aftive Inllrument, or none. 

a. I doubt M.r.}^ would have thought me near to a Blafphemcr ( fuppofing the 
intereft of his Cauie to have carried him another way) if I had faid and main- 
tained that mans Faith doth help the Aftion of Goi : i.If Gods Aftion were ta- 
ken to be CiZ«/i/)^r{/(j/« (which I think Mr.I^;. doth not believe it to be) yet mans 
Adion would help to produce the EfFeft, only by concurring with Gods Aftion, 
but not properly, help Gods Aftion j for it would have no influx into it. z. If 
Gods A. A'ion he Caufa totalis in f no gCHcrs, and mans Adion fubordinate to it, 
much lelVi can mans Adion be faii properly to help Gods adion. j. But the 
truth is in pardoning lin, and )ulUtying us, Mans adien ot believing is no Caufc 
atall, and therefore no proper Help to GoJsadion, God hath no need of our 
help to pardon on: (in. The performing of our Condition by Thankfull Accep- 
ting Chriil and Lire, is no Helping Gods Adion. But its ftranze to fee how 
Mr. IC. reels too and fro J Sometime he dare fay it over and over, that if the New 
Covenant Cay [B.-lieve and be Jullified] and make our faith the Condition of 
our Juilification, th:n a ram juttificshimlelf by believing, and more a great 
deal then Goi doth by the promulgation of his Covenant, and that he is juftined 
chiefly by himfelf and his own ads , and not fomuch by Gods Gace in im- 
puting Chrifti Riglucouinefs , but by his own faith. ] And yet now he 


dare fay, that man* Believing doth help God in Pardoning or Jaftify- 
ing him. 

3. And what's his proof ^ Why [God doth nothing withour faith.] A 
Grange proof ! So every Matter, Objeft, 7)1 f^optio Materia, or Condition ^«c 
quanort, ftiouldhelpthe Adion of the Efficient. Sure Helpin" is adin", and 
therefore EfFefting. So he may as well fay, that the prcparacion^of the foul for 
Receiving Regenerating, SanAifying Grace, doth help the Spirits Adion of in. 
fufing it. 

4. Asforhisfecond Anfwer, that [I muft fay fo too, for that according to 
me, faith makes Gods Conditional Grant to become abloiiue] I Reply^ that^this 
is an oft repeated flander of a hard fore-head, vvithout (liew of prooK If this be 
mine, it is either diiedly orconfequentially. If diredly , let him produce my 
words. If conffquentially, let him prove ic if he can. If he attempt it, ic 
muftbeby thisSyllogifm, [He that faith, Upon the performance of the Condi- 
tion, the Covenant becomes abfolute, dothfayin fenfc, that the performance of 
the Condition, makes the Covenant become Abfolutelyj i.e. cffeds ic : But M.B. 
faith the former : Therefore, crc] Let him that knows nodiffeicnce between ari 
efficient Caufe, and a meer Condition^nc^/u noit, believe the m^ijor. I know fo 
much difference, that I dare fay, It is falfe. 

^.Hl.. ■■ ^.I.U 

§• ?5. 

Mr.K.- \J\J Hcrcas be faitb [2. Irw pafi }>iy C'^pscity to conceive of a^ajftve 
VV Moral In firumcnt.'] I ati fiver, rehxt ever Mr. hixtei: maj conceive, 
votinvg k more obvictu tbenthat many men at lenfl arc ufcd by oxhcrs mcerlyfor hlim'es, 
to bring about their defi^nes, and [0 do very much torvurds tbem, by deivg notbing but 
flanding fttll. 

- »i ,jt >«). 

§ 55. 

Jl. B, I Knew before I heard of ycur name, that the fame thing which iv fenfa 
* P/'^^co is a Fafficn or Pi iv'ation, may in fcufii Moralt, i.e. reputativej 
be Adion or an Iniirument. But I everluppolcd that as it hMoralitcr velrtputu- 
tive /}iflrumc7aum,io hath it MoraUm vtl rcputativam aiJiovcm, 2. That [Tome men 
are uled by others meeriy for blinds about ibeirdefigns] thisblinde woikofMr.I^, 
dotli partly perfwade me. 

§■ 56. 

Mr. K. \',\7Haihcfaiib IbcvfantbcaB of IcUcving (wbiih huih m other beings 
V V lilt to be sn Ad) be pcjfihly & P.'fjivc Jpftrumcnt i Deib tlw act cf- 
)c£{ by ftiffcrivg ? Or (anm(emcnbi-u A gruffer comcntbcnihiii'] I at^fwer that tbis 
^H ii equiMAlent to [uffer:rgtat ccTtfi^mgLbKfy in * rcUame on thrijis rightcoufticj^c, 
without cxalttrg our thcugbti aguinS tt, laptivatirg our ilyoiights to it, rawumvg all 
t}}nigbtj tfour iwn rigbtcoufrxfi , y ea aU ibbngbn that are too apt to rife agamfi it ptmtbe 
conjidcraticn of our twn rigbtccufr.cf j hcvfbeztf tribe fa:m it he du ailiuhyct viiiually 
thii dBiov ii afuffirivg our f elves to be led by ibc Spirit fif ^ci, and by bis AwborUy 
againil the (uggejUins of cur 6ps>n reafcn- 


§. 5^- 
K.B. 1. T^Wo things you hare here topi ovc : i. That the Ad of faith is a 
•■ fulVering. z. That by fuaciing it cfftdcth our pardon oi Jufti- 
ficationasan Inltrumcntal Caufe, For the former, you fay [it is equivalent to 
fuffering.] Reply i. It fecms then it is but equitalcm. i. Wherein it is equi- 
valent ? I, As to its nature ? That were a ftrangc aft. i. Or in excellency; 
fo it is more then equivalent to lufFcring. j. Or is it as to its ufe and end ? I ca- 
fily grant you that the ufc of this Adion is to make us capable fabjcdi of pardon, 
or ficob cds for Gods ad, and difpofcd matter to receive Juftification j as Mr. 
Benjitninlf^ooibriigc hath plainly and truly, though briefly taught you in his Ser- 
mon of Juftification (think not much to learn of him in that, and other points 
there touched.) If you have a minde :o call this PaJJio KepMAiiviveHMordk, I 
will not contend witli you : it being Cofli/n'oiffzvi ii Keccpiioncm proprism rcquiji- 
U. Doubtlcfs the Reliance and Renuncia:ion which you mention, are adions. 
I. And where you fay, that it is [yirtually a I'uffcring our felvcs to be led by the 
Spirit, though it be an adion for the fcnm] I never heard before of an Adion 
immanent which was virtually fuffering : and that from fuch a Gaufe as Authori- 
ty is : Sure it is fomewhat more then luch a fuffering j and therefore it is new Lo- 
gick to fay, that it hf^irtuaUy fuffering. Though as I faid, if you hare a mindc 
to call it a Moral or Reputative Pafllon, I will not contend. 4. But then \that a 
fuffering is that you imagine it ^ I thought you would have come nearer the mat- 
ter, and have faid that it is Keceptio Chrijii, vel ^uftitiie donau : but you fay,It is a 
fuffering our felvcs to be led by Gods Spirit and authority. 

2. Butnow I come to the great bufinefs, I finde you as mute as a fifli : You 
had another AlTertion to prove, [that this Ad doth by fuffering Effcd our par- 
don :] On this lay all the controverfie : and of this I finde not a woVJ. I pray 
you remember by the next to fatisfie your Reader, that [this Ad which is Vir- 
tually a fuffering our felves to be led by Gods Spirit, and by his Authority againft 
thefuggcftion of our own Reafon, doth by that fuffering tffed our pardon or Ju- 
ftification.] Nay, I thought if you had made it but a Receiving inltrument, as 
you phrafe it, that it had been the Receiving Chrift or R.ighteoufnefs, and 
not the fuffering our felves to be led by Gods Spirit and Authority againft 
the fuggeftions of reafon , which (pa tdU) would have been affirmed the in- 
ftrument of our Juftification ? But you faw not what Roman dodrine this im- 

§. ?7. 
hdr.Vi.XJtTHcrea^beaiis [4. tAndUftly, I believe vith Schibler, that there is 
V V 7ig fuch thing aa a Pujftve Injlrument'] I believe he bsth fecn a man oftcu 
hold up a Jire-J})Ovel to receive coles, vpbich fire-J})9vel if an InSrumcnt, but in that cafe 
meerlypajjive, and he hath fecn qucjiionle^ boyes at trap hold up their bats to receive the 
ball i here their hats are Injlruments, but mecrly Pajftve. l^hat examples Burgcrfdicius 
or Keckerman^/w, ii not confidcrable i iVhatif they mifttok. in their mOances of Paf- 
pve Infirumentf f FoUows it there are none f 

;§. J7. 


R. B. 1. 1*^'^"^"'* ""^y'^^^ ^"^''^"*^°^^^» * Paffive Inftrumem, and fo 
1 your boy may do bis hat. I will allow them both that name among 
Mecbanicks, Rhetoricians, (s'c. but I (hall not believe that Logicians ftiould fo 
calltbem, or that either of them is an inltrumentftl efficient Caufe, oc do cffed 
by fuffering, till you have better proved it, then this put-off comes to. i. I have 
found no realon yet in all the reading of your labours, to judge your Logick more 
confiderable then Burgerfdtcm and l^eciermans ', or that you are likely to finde out 
fit inftances, where they could finde none. j. QaUovm and many more arc of the 
iaEne opinion as ScbibUr in tbis> 

Mr.BC- Tyy^f^yy^" Itbelnjlnment is m Efficient CMfe: ill efficiency U by aSfion t 
O And thit which doth not aH, doth not cffeSl : ] Tou hive forgmen thxt tht 
grut InfirHmentt of the Roman State, dtiaU by doing Nothing. Unus homo nobis cun- 
dando reltituit rem. Tbeirjirength, faith the Prophet, u tofitfiilL 

K'B. I. OUch athing I now perceive may be : for I think when you have here 
^ done all, you bad done more if you had done nothing. 

X. I attfwered enough to this before. What if the Confequents of doing no* 
thing prove better, tbenif there had been Aftion, and thereupon you do call [do- 
ing nothing] by the name of [Adion?] Is It therefore Adion indeed ? Or 
if you therefore afcribc a Caufality to it, is it therefore a Caufe indeed ? I fay 
again, as fuch are JWori/iter w/ Reputuivi iu^rumenti, i.e. Caufa efficientk injlm- 
mentxles, eum^hyfici (^reverx nonfunt ^ fo morally and reputatively they arc A- 
gcnts,and therefore not to be called Paflive inftruments. 

5. Let it be ebferved what a fupeificial kinde of anfwers Mr. I^*s Chair doth 
vouchfafeus? He durft neither plainly deny, that an inftrutnent is an efficicnc 
Canfe; nor yet that all efficiency is by Adion : and yet fatisfics himfelf with the 
touch of an alien inftance, implying the denial of the later. 

iMf.K.. IJ'Kdeei (fsithMr.Bixicv intheclofe) if fame extend tbeufe «f the vf)rd, 
1- In^rument,y»HmiyciUalmojiiinythingtin(nJiru>netit, wbtcb U my xtxy 
coniucibU to the proiuHion of it»e efcSi under the firji Caufe, and (0 yett miy cxil 
fxithanlnjlrument.^ Bdilicitts Inthumcntum quoddam vocatum, whxt you rvitt 
intbeLxrvyers Littne„ audytumujl be beholden to thit to mi'ieihe JV>w Covenxnt Godt 
Injirument in ^ufti^cition. laftrumentum Novuii for Tcftaaiemum Novum* 
(jy the CriticfiS' 



R.B. I. •TpHefe wordi I fpokc, tofignifiemyrefolurJon, not to contend sbouc 
1 words i and ifany man will ufe the tfrm [Inftrumcnt] improper- 
ly, tnd tell ut his meaning, and not make it the efficient Caufe of our pardon 
and Jullification^ much l«(s make the Pipifts believe, that in that notion lieih 
the very kernel of the Proteftant doArine about Juftification by faith alone, 1 am 
content fuch a man fpeak as he thinks meet, allowing others the like liberty. To 
this Mr.I(. gives this learned anCwer [Belike its Infirtnnntum quoiddM vocdtum, 
what you will in the Lawyers Latine] Outof which wards, or any yet Ipoken by 
him, if the Reader can pick an argument to prove faith the inftrumental Caufe of 
forgivenefsor JuHificacion, let him make his bcft of it. AjelHs readier then a 
good Argument. 

X. It ill becomes any Preacher of it,> to 3eny or jeft at the inftrumentality of 
ef Gods Law, Covenant or Teftanient. It bcwraycj that which you might 
with more credit have concealed. If Gods Deed of Gift of Chrift, Life, P^r* 
doHj^tf. be any Caufe of our Right to Chrift, Life, Pardon, (i^'c then is it an 
in/trumental effi>;ient Caufe, conftltucing that Right : (Let Mr. I^. tell me what 
other caufe it is, if not this.) But fomc Caufe it is : Therefore, ti'C- Onely as 
Relations have an imperfcd Being, fq the Caufing of them is anfwerable to it. 
If Gods Deed of Gift, Lavv, Coveijint, TettamcDt, be no _propcr initrument, 
than there i« no fuch thing as a proper inltrumcnt Known in Laws, Politicks, Mo- 
rality, for the conveying of any Right. Asfayruaft'uh, Cltv.Kegiali.6.cap.6.n. 
ij.p.jjo. N aturdjvfiituit voces t^ fignaunquam In(irumcnta ty medis fine qttibm 
unia homo aheri iton ■poffit obligari. Not only are they certain Inihumenti when 
ufed, but is commonly held that they are fonceeflaiyinftruments, that by a meer 
mental Conception without words a man is not obliged to another. So faith jih 
mainjn ^J.iyq.x. ^of. Angles infer. 4. fentq.de v^te art. z. di^c. 4. ArmtLverb. 
premijp«. 'Petr. de Arragon. t.. z. q. 88. srt. 3. dub. 4. ^kh.Sttlonjn tzto.i.q.^.ie 
dominodrt.z. dub.i. Lud. Lope^. p .z-.ivflr.c«nf. c<sp. 30. Emamicl Rodrique\ pdrt. t. 
tumc.zj.Concl. And its certain that conceptions give no Right to men, though 
ibc concciver of a ptomifc may coram 2)co be obliged. 

Afr.K. inHUtferemtTPBnhtbthMingo*, but to Jhew rviih rvhit tools Wr.Bax- 
jL tcr endeavours to breafi tbt wor^x of fo many cminenf MaHer-builders^ 
4nd with vkatftrmidiible weapons he vslimitty (ett himfetf Again fi thofe grtat Ukantm 

— ^^ - fie dama Leonem 

Infequitur,audetqueVirQConcurrere Virgo ~ • 

the mjferable fate of poor Drvinity \ that mufl be put tt School tQ Bnrgcrfdiciits <wi 
Keckcrmans Logick 1 andbe fe beatenforgHu/k }ax:k'Se3iton\ Had ?iof Afr. Baxter 
been at they fay he veof dvjoJiJkKTVi, he had not fet fo high a price on thefe beggarly tU^ 
merits, ta to Ut tbcm mafie utramque paginam m this noble ctturoverfie. 

■'- '■ .j^ ' 


R. B. ty^Hether this merry Hhetoncal Tviamph were groooclci ort Tuchi 
V V rcall vlftory as the rrtan dreJim$ 6f, or vVhtthcr prcmircs and Con- 
clufion be any other then a meer Rapfody of windy oftencationj I muft leave t* 
the judgement of the impartial, underftanding Reader. I confefs they fticw that 
he is not onlyunrcafonable J (otridcre is proper to a Reafonable Crcatuvc. I 
had thought to have given a particular anfwer to each paffagc in this Paragraph, 
but upon review I iinde that the Replying to fuch like, hath occafioncd more iro- 
nies and /harp paflagcs then I date approve j and therefore I think it belt to fay 
nothing to it, only to remindehim of thefefew things : 

I. That I will be none of his adverfary, where he argues only to prove me ig.- 
norant. It never came into my head to make it the QaelHon, whether Mr.l!|^. oc 
I were the more wife or learned man ? I have much more ignorance then he is a- 
ware of. 

i. That yet I dare contend with him In point pf veracity, if heufcto do with 
others, as he doth with me, particularly to talk of [making utramque p^ijiiml 
and to fcorn at it no !ef$ then twelve times in five or fix leaves, for my citing thcfc 
Authoursonce or twice, and S'cJb;fc&r thrice in a whole book. 

g. That all is not Divinity that fuch Theologues maintain : For I chink he is 
not Theology in the Abftraft : and therefore its polTible to findc an errour in 
fuch a man as Mr. I^. without Schooling or ocating Divinity : Not do I 
think chat found Theology would feel it, chough he had a knock or tw« 

4. That he proves out of "^ec^ermstn , or others fuch like, that two and two 
Is four , doth not much abufe Divinity by it : Nor he that cites them ta 
(hew that all ciHciency is by Adion, though as learned a man as Mr. I^. deny it. 
Nordol finde Mr.i^. having recourfc to the Bible to prove the contrary, vi\. 
that there is efficiency without Aftion. And I think the Scripture Texts may be 
Toon numbred by which he attempts to prove Faith to be the iniliumcnial Caufc of 

§. 6i. 

Mr. I^. Tl E huh one •^cfiion more {.But though Fxtth be not the InjlrumeKt of ^u- 
n ftification, may it not be called the Injirument of Receiving Cbrifl vfho 
^ujiifics tai I do not ( faith he) flick fo much at this Jp eech at at the former (rvc are 
peholden to you : fome indulgence jet in this particular) Tet is it no proper or fit exprejJioH 
neither. For, i. thctA^of FAithvhicbisitthitjujiiJieth U our AHml deceiving 
of Cbrifl, and therefore cannot be the Inflrument of Receiving- To fay our Receiving if 
we Inflrument of our Receiving, is i hard fsying.l Be the aH of Faith thi a^uil Recei- 
ving of Cbrifl : /fTy / vponder miy not faith be faid to be tkc Inflrument of T{^cciving 
Cbrifl t Is faith only an A If ? t had thought it hai been an Hibit? J id tbr.igh the Re- 
ceiving be not tfrc Inflrument of Receiving Cbrifl, as being the aHaal receiving of him j 
yetfaithmayvery vfell be fo called: as tkougb my receiving of a book be not the Inflrw 
meiuof receiving it, yet the but i miy witbmttaHy great abfurdicj be albwd that nam:. 

Si ^6i, 


S. 6 1, 
Jt.fi. !• I Arguedj that if faitb be the Inftrumtnt of Receiving Chrift, then 
•■ ciihcrthe Aft of/aithj or the Habit : but neither the Aft nor Ha- 
bit: Therefore.- 67c. To prove that the aft of faith is not the inftrument of Re- 
ceiving Chrift, I ufed the words that he here citei. What doth this Learned miR 
but confute this by faying, that the Habit is the Inftrument ? [I had thought 
(faith he) faith had beenaHabic.] Thus he confutes me, who argue that the 
Aft is not the Inftrument, by faying that the Habit is. I thinkhc that is rtt/Tc- 
Ji/oiKTii need not much lament that he loft the benefit of fuch adilputanis tutor- 
age, if he be never in a more waking mood then here. 

a. HisRjietoricic is the beft part of hisaufwer. But when will he prove that 
the Habit of faith fo farre di$"cr$ from the aft, and both from the foul, as that the 
Habit may as truly or fitly be called the inftrument of Believing or Receiving, as 
the Hand is of its Aft or the effcft ? If hisfimilitude would prove any thing it 
would rather be that the Faculty is the Inftiumenr, then that the Habit is : which 
yet 1 finde him not here attempt : I think that the Habit of faith,, and the aft arc 
not of fo different natures as is the Hand and its aft. 

5- Let it ftill be remembred, that I do not much regar<i how this QmAion is 
determined (for which Mr.I^. doth fo humbly tell me, he is beholden,) it being 
much different from the former Queftion. For in the former, the term [Inllrur 
mcnt] is taken properly for an inrttumental efficient Caufe, in which fenfe I de- 
ny that faith jultifieth : But here it is taken Metaphorically or Vulgarly, and not 
properly: For that which efFcfteth not is not an inftrumental efficient Caufc. 
And that which they call an Inftrument of Receiving, is in Naturals but Dijpi' 
ptie miUrix, and in Morals, but "Dijpofitio Maralii, vcl Rcputativa, vcl ^Sfus ti 
Rece^tioncm pajfivam, fropTJam, vcram neccff^iritui and in our preUnt cafe, ftriftly 
nothing but a Condition. Now if any will be pleafed to fpeak fo vulgarly 
and improperly, as to call fuch a Condition, or Aptitude Moral or Natu- 
ral [an Inftrument of Receiving] fo he do not build any unfoond Do- 
ftriiie upon it, I do again profeffe that 1 will not contend with him. But 
the Reafons why I thought it neceflary for all that, to contradift the common Do- 
ftrine of faiths being the Inftrument of juflification, I have tuUy manifefted in 
ani'wer to other Brethren. 

§. 6i. 
Mr.K. TYOt fecondly , faith Mr. Baxitr [The feed or Hahit of fiiti umtt fiily b^ 
xJ called an Inftrument, i. TbejanSiifedfacuUyitfelfunuotbetbe Inftrn- 
mentjt being the foulit f elf, and not anything rcaUy diHinU jrom it,a6 ScotuSjD' O.bel- 
Jis, Scaliger,67"C. ©rjackfon, L^r.Pcmble iftiw^, and iMr.biW qucftiouj. z. J he 
holimJS of the faculties, u not then Inftrument: For, 1. it is nothing but thcmfclvei 
rtBified, and not a Being fo diftinU a/i may be called their Inftrument. z. ffho ever cal ■ 
led Habits or T^ijpofitionsthejouls InHruments .<" The hpitudc ofaCaufe to produce its 
cffcff, ciuinot be called. The /njlrumcnt of n. ToumAj ofi rotU call a mans Life the 
Inftrument oj Ad ing, orthefljarpucjSofthekn'fc, the fintves hifirnmcyit^ at to call our 
Holineffe or Habitual faith, the Inftrument of Receiving Chrift.'] I ah(a>cr, you pro- 
md by certain fteps, and to deny the Hdbtt of faith to be the Inftrument of Keceivir.g 


Chrifi, you fay , i- The (arMified faculty it felf csnnct be ihe Inftlrufnent. Mi 

: I . H^hat if it cannot f Who rtckpvf the Habit of faith for a ftnUified faculty f Tbit it 

that which fdvBifies the faculties: The faculty is of one Specie* of quality ^ potemit 

.tiituriWsy fatthrfhichfaft^ifes of another, habituj. Touare, it [cents, vowandtben 

tpt inyour Logiel^, at much an you trouble tu with it, and had necdrciitwyonr Burgerf- 

dicius <j?ii Kcckerman. 2. How prove youtbat the fanSiifedjacult} ii the fouln felf, 

Jn flcad of the few Narnes you mufler up, I may bringyouthoufands that arc againil 

it: and yet afcwReafonsweigbmtre then all thcje great Names. If the faculty be 

the fame with the foul , then the HolincQ'e of the faculty cannot be really dtjtiuH 

from the foul, for thittbU Hobncf is to be received into the ficulies ; 4?;i if no faculty be 

rtaUy dtjiivif from the foul, then « there no receiving into it any thivg really diji'nlf from 

the foul, and tfHolineffc be not Really di(itn£i from the foul,a holy foul, and an iml)oly one 

arenot Really diSltnlfiandfoyoujeem to imply inyour fccosd, when you (ay 1 

§. 6i. 
K.3. i.TI Jlr.K.yieideth, if lam ablctounderftand him, that :he Aft of faith 
iVl is nor the Inftrumcnt of Receiving Chrift : and he layes it on 
the Habit. Before we proceed here obfcrve, 

I. That the Generality of Divines that plead for faiths inftruTentality, fay, 
that it is not the Habit, but the A&. of faith that juftifieth : ( I faid To too when 
1 wrote my Aphorifmt, taking it on truft, but 1 now recant it.) If that be fo, 
then they cannot (as they do) argue thus: [ Faith is the Inftrumcnt of Re- 
ceiving Chrift and his Rightecufnefs : Theicfore faith jultifieth as an Inftru- 
ment] becaufe they fpeak of the Habit in the Antecedent, and of the aft in the 
Confcquent i and fo by [faith] meannot in both the fame thing ; and fo there 
are quatuor termini. 

1. Obferve, that it is commonly granted, that the Habit of faith is not al- 
<*ayes in aft ; as in flecp,and when we are wholly taken up with thoughts of an ali« 
cnc fubjcft, and allthetime of Infancy (according to them that think Infants 
have the Habit of faith.) This being fo, it muft needs follow, that faith is not 
alwayes the Inftrumcnt of Receiving Chtift, and of Juftifying; (nay perhaps, 
but feldome comparatively) For the Caufaiity of the Initrument is in Aftion, 
and faith is not alwayes afting. If therefore faithjuftificasan Inftrument, and 
wcare alway juftified, and yet faith be not al way an Inftrument, then either wc 
are not juftified by faith, but feme other way, at thcie times when faith afteth 
not, or clieccjiante Causa nevceffatefecitu : wl>ich though in feme cafes it may be 
true, yet here it cannot : becauie the efttft being but a ^us ad rem, a tranfcenden- 
tal Relation, it hath no nearcl^ Caufe, but its Foundation and Subjeft : and 
when thofc ccafe the Relaticr ccaleth ; And none jffirn;tth that faith is a Re- 
motecaufeof Receiving Chiift, that is, Right to Chiift (with his bentfi.s.) 
And if it were, yet the F undamentum ReUtmis wu^ have the fuitentation of a 
coniinned Caufe. Bat in the way that 1 afti ni faith to juftific, as a moral Con. 
dition only ( having no CauCaliiy) all theie inconveniences, or rather contradh- 
ftions are avoided : For it being the mecr will of the Donor, that createth the 
neareli nectflltyof the Condition, and iorcquircs the Condition to fuch an end> 
he may make either aft or Habit the Condition, and may make the aft the Con- 
dition of Beginning our Right to Chrift and Life, and the Habit con-.inued, to 
be the Condition ot coniiouing that Right, even whca the aft is intcimittcd : 

S i and. 

and yctthe cffrft miy ftill continue, bK:aute the Will of the Donor^ and the Law 
or Coremnc which is his Inilruaienc, do both coQcinue i and ic is they chacare 
C^ie c£Bcicnt Caufcs. 

J. Obrcrvcaifo, ihitboth themm forwhom Mr.I^ if here Td zcaloui, v/'^,' 
MrfPembU, and rainy more , do make the Habit oi taiih to be nothing clfc, buc 
ourNcwLife, our Holi lefs ofthcicnewed tacultii«^; >ii^ Spirit of God in utj 
and that all Grace* arc in the Hibi-: and feed but oncv a^ (o accordingly ic fol- 
lowSj iha: ic is our internal Sindification or HolineCs ttuu ia the Inilrumcnt of 
our Juftitkation : A Dodrine chat I thinJc thefe men «iU Ccacce own upon conil- 

4. Obfcrve a!ro> that hence it will follow, thai ft it other, graces that juftiHe 
inftrumcntaliy as well as faith : becauic chty lay, it is the Habit that is the Inltru- 
mcnt: and this Habit is buc one : not one Habit of faith , andaaother of Love , 
Hope, (ifc. buc all one : and this one Habit jaftifics, even when mea arc Infants, 
or aflsep, and do not aft. 

5. Thac which is naA^ commonly called, the Habit of Grace , is in Scri- 
pture called, [the Spirit in us :] and I'o the holy GhoHis made our inlhitment of 

Njw to M'l^'s worJs here. In the words of mine which he cites, I do both 
indiredly, or f« prin^fM confute a third opinion, vi^. that the fandified facul- 
cJes are the Inftrument , though the fandity of the faculties be not : and 
dirediy I argue i fortiore , chat if the fandified Faculties themfelvet 
may no: properly be called the laftrument of Receiving Chrilt, much lelfe 
can the fandity of the faculties be To called : Qaiy (^c. Therefore, ^f. Here- 
upon this coo learned man feigns mc to think, or fay, or imply, the Habit of 
faith 10 be a fandified faculty j and with feeming ferioufnefs fals a fchooling me, 
andtelsme, that [che faculcy is of one spst/ci of quality, and faich of anothcrj] yea 
proceeds in his dream as confidently as if he were waking, to tell me, that I [am 
now and then out in my Logick.and had need to review my Burgerfdiciut and t^ed^- 
ermin.'] But wou'd he a little rub his eyes, I would defire him to tell his Reader, 
whereldiddiredly orindircdly fay, thac Faith is a fandified faculty? And I 
would know of himj whether a man thould not underftand a matter before he make 
an anfwef to it ! 

Next, it feems, he expeded I (hoald have proved, that the faculty is the foul 
hfelf; And would not that have been as wife a DigrefliDn, and as Neceffary, 
at is this of his? The Scope of my words was but this, q, d. [It is a controvert- 
ed, doubcfu^. point, Whether che Faculties ar«diftind from che foul, as Ra Cf 
Ret, and therefore not fie to bear I'uch a weight as thofe that I oppofe do lay upon 
the affirmative] (and my own opinion Inclineth to the Negative : yet lo as I dare 
not be lo prelumpcuous asconfidently to in:erpofeamon» fa many Icirncd men, 
and maintain my own opinion as certain cruch.) As wife a man asMr. ]^. (and 
ifl my opinion an eight at Icalt above him) thought the like anfwer to be good in 
another cafe, 'Divenitt.Determ.'^ J7. pi^- '66. ^9i phibfopbintur voluntatem 
a^inteUeSHM ejfe du^f potential retpfx difiinSlM, dogmt fhilofophicum efl, ab onnibic 
hiuirtcepMrn, gt* TheolorUu di^nitibus firminlit Mf infirmtniif^ funiatti'ittum mi* 
nimi idoneum. And he knows, chat the cwoQueltions, ". Whether the faculties be 
reiliter tntcr fe di(iinS{it ? An J, x. Wheth.:r they be rulher abinmi dijiinHas i ufe 
to ftand and fall together in the Djtermination. 

F«r the few nam:s that he tels me I mulhr up, ic; like be may know that ic were 



eafic to give him a farrc larger muftcr-roll, efpecially of the Scotifts. And as f«t 
the thoufands thac he faith he may bring againft it (ho doubt he means Writers) 
I contt Is plainly, that he hath fof arte loll his credit with me, that I donotbelicv* 
him. For thooeh I know they are many, yet I do not thijik he hath read many 
thoufands on all fides ef that Subjcd. But if he have indeed read fo many thou» 
fand books rf that one point, alas, how many bath he read in all ? No wonder 
if poor Burger(dicm, ixhibler or Suarcfi be defpifed by him. It may be that's the 
teafon that ooth ;he margin and Text ot his book are fo naked of quotations j h^ 
having read fo many thciuUnds that he knew not which to preicrrc, or where 
to be2,innc 5 or el(e would have few mens names to bis Works but his 
own ( except as Adverfaries) left they (houM ftiare of the honour. Nay, 
if he mould have faid or meant, that there are thoufands that fo write, 
which others have read though he have not, I doubt he cannot prove 
it true. 

for his £;rcat weighing Reafons, I will honour them as foon as I can fee them, 
but he hadlittle Reafontoexpeft meto Reafon that Cafe. K this that be next 
addcs be one of his few Reafons, that weigh fo much, I muft tell him. Every maa 
tohismindc. 1 doubt he overvalues his own Reafons : For my part, one thou- 
fand great Names, yea one, will weigh as much with me, as this his Rcafoir. 
For, 1. I deny his Confequence, and fay, that the Holincfs may be Really di- 
ftinft from the foal, though the faculties are not j and that Holinefs may im- 
mediately inhere in the foul without the mediation of faculties really diSind from 
it. It had been cafie to have feen the ncccffity of giving' feme anfwcr to this de» 
nfall. As wife a man as moit we have ( if I conjedure not amifs) and a publick 
Profeffour in Ox/orii, and now rcfident where Mr-I^. had his Chair, I mean 
Mr.^iiWw , faith thus ; [And fo, however it may be true,tbat a faculty or natural 
Power may be fo far the lame with the fcul, as th.it it differ only ratioiicratiQcinati, 
yet in a Habit we muft of neceflity grant a diftindion ex pirte rci: For where 
there may be a real feparation, and not only mental, there muft audi be granted a 

But what if 1 grant Mr.I^*s bardeft Conclufion that Holinefs is not Really di- 
ftind from the foul, nor a holy foul from an unholy as [Really] is taken for a di- 
ftindion inter Rem (^ Rem. We fliall fee anon what danger would be in it. 
But then Mr.IC- ^^^ ^^ ^° honcft, as not to perfwadc any that 1 therefore deny a 
Real diftindion, as [Real ] is oppofcd to feigned, memal, called Ratmuj Rela- 
tive, or Dcaoniinative. 

§■ 6i. 
Mr. K. V70« p> [The HoUnrJS of the fuculties u not their Jtiftrument, for it U 
X nothing but them fclva rcHified, dfid net a 3tivg fo dt^inBoi mty bt 
caUei their Infirumcnt.'] But is it r.ething but tbemfclves rtSiified i I bad thought it 
bli been the KtSiifyi.vg of them, vehith "poteft adefie & abefle fine fubjcdi interim ? 
Mvicfinfcquevtlyitif not tbefaoilticfthcmfclves. jiiVPeUyourmyfjjf, thatthe rtgbtnejfe 
cf a fiiciiii nothing but the jlickmadenghtii aKdihenhncw^e of the vaU, vsihing but 
tie Witl made Tfhitc Quistulerit Gracchos five Graculos '■ 


■ -<•>, I '. . , ■ , . — i. 

§. 6j. 
K.B. I. A L' that I JlTert is, that Hjlinefs differs not from the facuUics , as 
l\ Res (^ Res, but as l{fs c?* moim. %. I think the abftrad hath no 
exiftcncc, but as in the Concrete, buc is a meet No:ion. Seeing therefore that is 
fo, I think the propcreft denomination, as moft i^reeaWc to the thin^ denomi- 
nated, is CO fpeak of it as t«Cfln<;rcro. j. Yoa did therefore too fuJdenly Itarc up 
intoyour wondering interrogation, as if there were any contradift ion between 
thofetwofayings ! As if he chat faith [a Rcdifi:d faculty : a white wall] did 
not as truly cxprctTc the Reditude, and the whitcncfs, aj you that cxprcfs them 
inCoiKreto! It is toogrolVea fidion, if (as you Teem) you would mike men be- 
lieve that I intend to prove the Rtditudc to be Fflrwij/Zrcr the fame with the Fa- 
culty or foul I My meaning is plainly, that HolincLs is nothing but the fouls Re 
dicude, and though I exprelVed it in the Concrete, I fay not, that it is the Fa- 
culty as a Faculty, butasRedified > (hewing in the ncx: words what k is thac 
I exclude, vi^. [ A Bdngfo diftinfl, O'c.'] 4. Miy not a Relation or M.0' 
ius be prefcnt or abfcnt fine fubjeSi interitu ? thoagh ic be not a dil^inA 
Thing ? 

For your ^i( tulerit ? I Reply ; P. ide makes men impatient. Did you think 
no more highly of your own Note, then fome wife obfervers do, you would ia- 
ftead of your impatient ^^tf tulerit, have compafllonated your felf and me, and 
fit down by me, m'M ^ Hos GrAculi However, why lliould you be fo impati- 
ent with one fo farre below you? Will you fct your wit to the wit of a <^rX' 
culiu f 

But I will make bold to try your Patience further. Will y