fo that as a Law in genere (exiilent
only in jpeciebxs*) commandeth Obedience, and the
Law of Innocency in fyecie commanded [ pcrfoud
M 3 pcrfeft
C 166 )
perfett perpetual Obedience^ the Condition of Life'] ?
fo the Gofpel commandeth Faith in our Redeemer^
as the new Condition of Life : on which fuppofiti-
on, even the Law of lapfed Nature further ob-
ligeth us thereto : And as the Commands differ, fo
do the Prohibitions.
There is a certain fort of fin excepted from par-
don, by the pardoning Law, viz* Final non-per-
formance of its Conditions : And to judg a Man
not guilty of this fin, is part of our Juftification, as
isaforefaid.
§. 10. He addeth, [If Legal and Evangelical
Juftification are fyecie dijiintt) then fo are the Courts
in which vpe are -juftified. — - If diftinU and fubordi-
nate, and fo he that is juftified by the Law> is jufti-
fied by the Gojpel, &c]
Anfw. i. No Man is juftified by the Law of In-'
nocency or Works, but Chrift : Did I ever fay that,
[ that Law jufiifieth us Jj, who have voluminously
wrote againft it > If he would have his Reader
think fo, his unrighteoufnefs is fuch as civility for-
bids me to give its proper Epithets to. If not,againft
what or whom is all this arguing ?
2. I call it [Legal] as it is that perfed Righte-
oufnefs of Chrift our Surety, conform to the Law
of Innocency j by which he was juftified (though
not abfolved and pardoned) : I call it [pro Legalis
)uftiua\ becaufe that Law doth not juftifie us for
it ( but Chrift only ) but by it given us ad ejfefta
by the New-Covenant * we are faved and juftified
from the Curfe of that Law, or ftom Damnation,
as certainly as if we had done it our fclves : I call
Faith
Faith our Evangelical Righteoufnefs, on the Rea-
fons too oft mentioned. Now thefe may be called
7n?0 Justifications^ or ( rather ) two parts of one,
in feveral.refpe&s, as pleafeth the Speaker. And
all fuch Word-Souldiers (hall have their liberty
without my Contradiction^
3. And when will he prove that thefe two Sorts,
or Parts, or Adfcs, may not be at once#tranfaukd
at the lame Bar ? Muft there needs be one Court to
try whether I am a true Believer, or an Infidel, or
Hypocrite * and another to judg that being fuch, I
am to be juftified againft all Guilt and Curfe, by
vertue of Chrift's Merits and Interceflion ? Why
may not thefe two parts of one Man's Caufe be
judged at the fame Bar ? And why fnuft your Pu-
pils be (aught fo to conceive of fo great a bufinefs,in
itfelf fo plain?
§. 1 1. He proceedeth, £ The Vfe of this Evange-
lical Juftification is made to be, that vpe may be made
partakers of the Legal purification out of us, in
Chrifl : And fo our purification apply eth another Jw-
ftification, and our Remijjion of fins another.
Anfvp. No Sir \ buc our particular fubordinate
fort of Kighteoufnefs, confifting in the performance
of the Conditions of the free Gift, (viz. a belie-
ving fuitable Acceptance) is really our Vifpfitio
receptiva, being the Condition of our Title to that
Pardon and Glory, which for Chrift's Righteoufnefs
if freely given us. And our perfonal Faith and
Sincerity muft be juftified, and we in tantum, before
our Right toChrift, Pardon apd Life can be juftifi-
ed in for o.
M 4 2. Ar.d
% %
* i6* ;
'2. And to juftifie us as fincere Believers, when
others are condemned as Hypocrites, and Unbelie-
vers, and Impenitent, is not Pardon of Sin. Thefe
Matters (hould have been put into your (excellent)
Catechifm, and not made ftrange, much lefs ob-
fcured and oppofed, when laying by the quarrels
about mere words, I am confident you deny none
of this.
§. 12. Headdeth, [then Legal Juftification if
nothing but a bare word, feeing unapplyed j as to the
Matter it U nothingy as it is not called Healing by a
Medicine not applyed *, nor was it ever heard that one
Healing did Apply another ].
Anfw. Alas, alas, for the poor Church, if this
be the Academies beft ! forrow muft excufe my
Complaint ! If it be an Argument it muft tyn
thus : If Legal (or pro-legal) Righfeoufnefs (that
is, our pare in Chrift's Righteoufhefs) be none to
us (or none of our Juftification) when not- apply-
ed, than it is none alfo when it is applyed! But,
&c*
Anfw* It is none till applyed : Chrift's Merits,
or Legal Righteoufhefs -juliifie himfelf, but not us
till applyed : (Do you think otherwife, or do you
wrangle againft your felf ? ) But I deny your Con-
sequence : How prove you that it is none when ap~
plyed therefore ? Or the Cure is none when the Me-
dicine is applyed ?
Perhaps you 5 ] fay, Thac then our Perfonal Righ-
ieoufnefs-) and fubordinate J 'unification, is ours be-
fore Chrift's Righteoufnefs, and fo the greater de-
pendeth on, and followeth the lefs.
Anfw* i.
r Anfa* I. ChrifPs own Righteoufnefs is before
ours. 2. His Condition^ Pardon to fallen Man-
kind is before ours. 3. This Gift being Conditio-
nal, excepteth the non-performance of the Condi-
tion h And the nature of a Condition, is to fufyend
the ejfett of the Donation till performed. 4. There-
fore the performance goeth before the faid Effect
and our Title. 5. But it is not therefore any caufe
of it, bat a removal of the fujpenfwn ; nor hath the
Donation any other dependance on it. And is not
all this beyond denial with Ptrfons not ftudioufly
and learnedly milled ?
But you fay, It wm never beard that one Healing
apply ed another.
Anfiv. And fee you not that this is a lis de nomU
ne, and of a name of your own introdu&ion for
illuftration ? If we were playing at a Game of
Tropes, I" could tell you that the Healing of Mens
Vnbelief is applicatory for the healing of their
Guilt \ And the healing of Men's Ignorance , Pride,
and Wrangling about words, and frightning Men
into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death, is
applicatory as to the healing of the Churches
Wounds and Shame. But I rather chufe to ask
you, Whether it was never heard that a particular
Subordinates perfonal Right eoufne fi ( even Faith and
Repentance ) was made by God the Condition of
our Right to Pardon, and Life by Chrift's Righte-
oufnefs ? Did you never teach your Sholars this,
( in what words you thought beft ? ) And yet even
our Faith is a Fruit of Chrift's Righteoufnefs j but
neverthelefs the Condition of other Fruits.
If you fay that our Faith or Performance is not
to
to be called Rigbteoufnefs > I refer you to my An-
fwcr to Mr. Cartvprigbt > And if the word Rigbte-
oufnefs be not ofter ( ten to one ) ufed in Scripture
for fomewhat Perfonal, than for Chuffs Righte-
oufneft imputed, then think that you have faid
fomething.
If you fay, But it jujliftetb not as a Rigbteoufnefs,
but as an Inftrumenu I Anfwer, i. I have faid
dfewhere fo much of its Instrumentality, that I
am afhamed to repeat it. 2. It jujiifietb not at all,
(for that fignifieth efficiency) * but only maketh us
capable Recipients. 3. We are jujiified by-it as a
medium, and that is a Condition performed ( as
aforefaid ) : And when that Condition by a Law
is made both a Duty and a Condition of Like, the
performance is by neceflary refultancy T a Righte-
oufnefs J. But we are not juftified by it> as it is a
Rigbteoufnefs in genere i nor as a mere moral Virtue
or Obedience to the Law of Nature i but as it is
the performance of the Condition of the Law of
Grace > and fo as it is this -particular Rigbteoufnefs,
and no other.
§. 13. |£,fij Legal Juflificatim (faith he) ta-
tyn precifely^ either there ps Remiffion of fin, or not :.
If not. What Juflification is that ? |jf yea> then
Evangelical Jujiification is not neceffary to the appli-
cation of it \ becaufe the Application is fuppofed> &cf\
Anfvp. 1. What I ufually call \ Evangelical
Rigbteoufnefs ] he fuppofeth me to call purificati-
on \ which yet is true, and found, but fuch as is
before explained. t
2. This
( *7* )
2. This is but the fame again, and needeth no
new anfwer h The performance of the Condition is
flrangely here fuppofed to follow the Right or Be-
nefit of the Gift or Covenant : If he would have
the Reader think I faid fo, he may as ingenioufly
tell,that I deny all Juftification ; If not, what mean-
eth he ?
CHAP. VII.
Dr. Tullies (Quarrel about Imputation of
Ghrifts Righteoufnefi^ conjidered.
§. i. /^Ap. 8. pag. 79* he faith, £ Becaufe no
VJ Man out of Socinus School, hath by his
Dictates more Jharply exagitated this Imputation of
Right eoufnefs, than the Author of the Aphorifms ,
and it is in all mens hands, we thinly meet to bring
into a clearer Light, the things objefftd by him (or
more truly his Sophi(lical Cavils) whence the fitter
ProjpeEl may be taken pf almofl the whole Contro~
verfiel.
Atfrv. That the Reader may fee by what Wea-
pons Theological Warriours wound the Churches
Peace, and profligate brotherly Love *, let him con-
ifer how many palpable Untruths are in thefe few
Lines, even in matter of Fa£t.
i. Let him read Dr. Gell, Mr! Tbowdike, and
by his own confeffion* the Papifts ( a multitude of
them)
( *7* )
diem ) and tell me true, that [ No Man out of So-
cinus School hath, &c/]-- To fay nothing of many
late Writings near us.
. %. If I have, i . never written one word againft
[ Imputation of Rigbteeufnefs ~) there or elfewhere ;
2. Yea, have oft written for it > 3. And if thofe
very Pages be for it which he accufeth v 4. Yea, if
there and elfewhere I write more for it than Olevi-
An* Vrfine, Partus, Scultetus, Wendeline, Tifcator-,
and all the reft of thofe great Divines, who are for
the Imputation only of the Paffive Righteoufnefs of
Chrift, when I profefs there and often, to concur
with Mr. Bradjhaw, Grotim, and others that take
in the A&ivealfo, yea and the Habitual, yea and
iDivine refpe&ively, as advancing the Merits of the
Humane > If all this be notorioufly true, what
Epithets vill you give to this Academical Dodtors
notorious Untruth ?
3. When that Book of Aphorifms was fufpended
or retraced between twenty and thirty years ago
( publickly ), becaufe of many crude Paffages and
unapt Words, and many Books fince written by
roe purpofely, fully opening my mind of the fame
things > all which he paiTeth wholly by, fave a late
Epiitle > what credit is to be given to that Man's
ingenuity, who pretendeth that this being in all
mens hands, the anfwering it will fo far clear all
the Controverfie.
§. 2. Dr.jf- [He hence ajfauketh the Sentence of
the Reformed', becaufe it fuppofcth, M he faith, that
we were in Chrift, at leaft, legally before we believed^
or were bom. But what proof of the conference doth
he
( m )
he bring ?~] ( The reft are but his Reafons againft
the Confequences, and his talk againfi me , as
pouring out Oracles-, &c )
Anfw. i. Is this the mode of our prefcnt Aca-
demical Difputers, To pais by the ftating of the
Controveifie, yea, to filence the ftate of it, as laid
d8wn by the Author, whom he oppofeth in that ve-
ry place, (and more fully elfewhere often) ? Reader,
the Author of the Aphorifms, pag. 45. and for-
ward, diftinguifhingas Mr. Br'adjh aw doih, of the
feveral fenfes of Imputation, and how Chrift's
Righteoufnefs is made ours, 1. Beginneth with
their Opinion, who hold, £ That Cbrifi did fo obey
in our ftead, as that in God s ejicem, and in point of
Law vpe were in Chriji dying and fuffering, and fo in
him we did both perfeftly fulfil the Commands of the
Law by Obedience, and the "fhreatnings of it by bear*
ing the Penalty -, and thus (fay they ) is thrift's
Righteoufnejs imputed to us, viz. His Pajjtve Righ-
teoufnefs for the pardon of our fins, and deliverance
fiom the Penalty } His Attive Righteoufnefs for the
making of us Righteous, and giving us title to the
Kingdom h And fome fay the Habitual Righteoufnefs
of his Humane Nature, inftead of our own Habitual
Righteoufnefs > Tea, fome add the Righteoufnefs of
the Divine Nature ]•
The fecond Opinion which he rcciteth is this,
\jthat God the Father accepteth the fitffetings and
merits' of his Son, as a valuable confederation* on which
he will wholly forgive and acquit' the Offenders, and
receive them into h'tf favour, and give them the addi-
tion of a more excellent happinefs, fo they will but re-
cCive his Son on the terms expreffd in the GojpeL '
And
A m )
And as diftin& from theirs, who would thug
have the Paffivefiigbteoufnefs only imputed , he pro-
feffeth himfelfYo hold with Bradfhavp^ Grotius, 8cc.
that the A&ive alfo is fo imputed, being Jufiitia
Meritij as well as Perfont, and endeavoureth to
prove it : But not imputed in the firft rigid fenfe, as
if God efteemed us to have been, and done', and juf*
fered our felves in and by Chriji^ and merited bj>
him* Thus he ftates the Controverfie \ And doth
this Dodtor fight for Truth and Peace, by i. palling
by all this \ 2. Saying, I am againft Imputed Righ-
teoufiiefs \ 3. And againft the Reformed ? Were
iiot all the Divines before named Reformed ? Was
not Camero, Capellus^ Placeus-, Amyrald> Dalltus*
Blondel, &c Reformed? Were not Wotton, Brad-
Jhan>> Gatakgr, &c. Reformed ? Were not of late
Mr. Gibbons^ Mr. Truman, to pals many yet alive,
Reformed ? Mud that Name be (hamed, by appro*
priating it to fuch as this Dodtor only ?
2. And now let the Reader judg, with what
face he denieth the Confequence, ( that it fuppofeth
us to have been in Chrift legally, &c.) When as I put
it into the Opinion oppofed, and oppofed no other.
But I erred in faying, that [vnoft of our ordinary
Divines ] hold it *, But he more in fathering it in
common on the Reformed.
§. 2. Dr. !f. [2. Such Imputation of taghte-
oufnefs, he faith, agreeth not with Reafon or Scrip-
ture i But what Reason meaneth he ? Is it that vain y
blind, maimed, unmeafmably procacious and tumid
Reafon of the Cracevian Philofophers ? Next he
faithy
. ( i75 ;
faith j Scripture is fdent of the Imputed Ri?bteouf>
nefs of Cbrifi j what a faying is this of a Reformed
Divine ? fo alfo Bellarmine, &c.
Anfo. Is it not a doleful cafe that OrtbnJoxnefs
muft be thus defended ? Is this the way of vindica-
ting Truth ? i. Reader, my words were thefe,
( juft like Bradjbaws ) [It teacheth Imputation of
CbriJFs Rifhteoufneji in fo ftricl a fenfe, as will nei-
ther jiand with Reafon-, nor the Doctrine of the Scrip-
ture y much left with the and
the unfrund fenfe, but not the found ?
2. And as to the Phrafe, Doth this Do&or, or
can any living Man find that Phrafe in Scripture,
[_Chrift's Righteoufnefs is imputed to us~\} And
when heknoweth that it is not there, are not his
Exclamations > and his Bug- bears [CracovianRea-
fon> and Eellarmine] his dilhonour, that hath no
better Weapons to ufe againft the Churches Peace ?
To tell us that the fenfe or Dodhine is in Scripture,
when the queftion is of the Phrafe, or that Scrip-
ture fpeaketh in his rigid fenfe, and not in ours, is
but to lofe time, and abufe the Reader, the firft be-
ing impertinent, and the fecondthe begging of the
Queftion*
$• 3-
( *?o
§•3. Dr. % "the Gree\word anfwering to Im~
futation, it ten times in Rom. 4. And, what U impu~
ted but Rigbteoufneft ? we have then fome imputed
Righteoufnefs* Tthe Gjhtejiion is> only what or whofe
it vi** Chrifis or out own ? Not ours, therefore Chrijis :
If ours, either its the Righteoufnefs of Worlds, or of
Faith, &c > s
Anfw. 1. But what's all this to the tbrafe?
Could you have found that Phrafe [ ChrijPs Righ-
teoufnefs is imputed J , why did you not recite the
words, but Reafon as for the fenfe ?
2. Is that your way of Difputation, to prov£
that the Text fpeaketh of the Imputation of CbriJFs
Righteoufnefs, when the. Queftion was only, In
what fenfe ? What kind of Readers do you expeft,
that (hall take this for rational, candid, and a Plea
for Truth?
3. But to a Man that cometh unprejudiced, it is
moft plain, that Paul meaneth by [imputing it for
Righteoufnefs ~] that the Perfon was or is, accounted,
reckoned, or judged Righteous, where Righteouf-
nefs is mentioned as the formal Relation of the Be- |
liever : ib that what-ever be the matter of it (of
which next ) rhe formal Relation fure is our own,
and fo here faid : And if it be from the matter of
ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, yet that muft be* our own,
by your Opinion. And it muft be our own, in and
tathe proper Effetts, in mine. But fure it is not |(
the fame numerical formal Relation of |~ Rigbteouf- \%
nefs ^ that is in ChvilVs Perfon, and in ours : And
it's that formal Relation, as in Abraham, and not
in Chrifh that is called Abraham's Reputed Righte-
oufnefs
I
H77J .
oufnefs in the Text : I fcarce think you will fay the
contrary*
§. 4. Dr. jT. |~ But Faith U not imputed to us for
\Righteoufnefs.
Anfa* Exprefly againft the words of the Holy
Ghoft there oft repeated. Is this defending the
Scripture, exprefly to deny it ? Should not reve-
rence, and our fubfeription to the Scripture fuffici-
entiy rather teach us to diftinguifh, and tell in
what fenfe it it imputed, and in what not, than thus
to deny, without diftindtion, what it doth fo oft
affert ? Yea, the Text nameth nothing elfe as fo im-
futedy but Faith*
§• 5. If it be imputed, it U either as fome Virtue 7
or Humane IFor^ ( the to Credere ) or as it appre-
bendeth and applyetb ChrijFs Kighteoufnefs ? Not
\(the firft) . If Faith be imputed relatively only,
as it apply eth to a Sinner the Kighteoufnefs of Chrift,
Us manifeji that it's the Kighteoufnefs of Chrift only
that if imputed, and that Faith doth no more to Kigh-
teoufnefs, than an empty hand to receive an Alms.
Anfvp* 1. Sure it doth as a voluntarily receiving
hand, and not as a mere empty hand. And volun-
tary grateful Reception may be the Condition of
a Gift.
2. You and I (hall (hortly find that it will be the
Queftion on which we fhall be Juttified or Condem-
ned > not only whether we received ChrilVs Righ-
teoufnefs, but whether by Faith we received Chrift
in all the Eflentials of his Office, and to all the
tffential faving Ufes : Yea, whether according to
:he fenfe of the Baptifmal Covenant, we firft be-
N Ikviogty
(178)
licvingiy received,and gave up our felves to God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and after performed
fincerely that Covenant.
3. But kt me defend the Word of God : Faith
is imputed for Righteoufnefs, even this Faith now
defer ibed', 1> Remotely , ex materia aptitudine, for
its fi'tnefs to its formal Office ; And that fitnefs is,
j. Becaufe it is an Aft of Obedience to God, or mo-
rally goody (for a bad or indifferent AU doth not ju-
flifie). 2, More fpecially as it is the receiving,
tricing, and giving up our felves to God the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghoft, to the proper ends of Re-
demption, or a .fuitable Reception of the freely
offered Gift > and fo connoteth Chrift the Objed
( for the Objecft is effential to the Ad in jpecie >
2. But proximately Faith is fo reputed, or imputed,
as it is the performance of the Condition of the Jufti-
fying Covenant or Donation.
And to be imputed for Righteoufnefs, includefh,
That [ It is the part required of us by the Law of
Grace, to malleus partakers of the Benefits of Chrift* j
Right eoufnefs, which meriteth Salvation for us in-
ft e ad of a legal and perfeB Righteoufnefs of our own,
( which we have not ). Or, [_ Whereas we fell fhort
of a Righteoufnefs of Innocency, Chrift by fuch a
Righreoufnefs hath merited our Far don and Salvation,
and given title to them by a 'Revo Covenant of Grace,
which maketh thti Faith the Condition of our 'title ',
and if we do this ■> we (hall be judged evangelically
Righteous *•> thai {s, fuch as have done all that was ne~
ceffairy to their right in Chrift and the J aid Benefits,
and therefore have fuch a Right ]•
This is plain Englifli, and plain Truth, wrangle
110 more againft if 5 and againft the very Letter of
^ the-
( r 19 )
the Text, and againft your Brethren and the
Churches Concord, by making Men believe that
there are grievous Differences, where there are
none.
Reader, I was going on to Anfwer the reft, but
my time is fhort, Death is at the door : Thou feeft
What kind of Work I have of it, even to deteft a
Learned Man's Over fights, and temerarious Ascu-
fations. The wearinefs will be more to thee and
me, than the profit : I find little before, but what
I have before anfwered here, and oft elfewherei
And therefore I will here take up, only adding one
Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I
attempted in an Epiftle to Mr. W. Aliens Book of
the Two Covenants, and this Dodtor, like an Enc-
tny of Peace, aflaulteth*
N 2 CHAP*
( i8o )
CHAP. VIIL
Jhe Concord of Protefiants in the Matter of
Justification defended^ againft Dr.TuL
lies Oppojitions^ who would make Dif-
eord under pretence of proving it m
$.i.T IT TRite truth is pretended by moft, that
V V by envious firiving introduce Confufton^
and every evil Wor]^ it ufually falleth out by God's
juft Judgment, that fiich are almoft as oppofite to
Truth as to Charity and Peace* What more palpa-
ble inftances can there be, than fuch as pn fuch ac-
counts have lately affaulted me : Mr. Vanvers^
Mr. BagfbatV) See. and now this Learned Do6tor.
The very ftream of all his Oppofition againft me
about Imputation, is enforced by this oft repeated
Forgery, that I deny all Imputation of CbrijFs High-
teoufnefs : Yea, he neither by fear, modefiy^ or z«-
genuity, was reft rained from writing, pag. 1 17.
[_Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem~] [He deru
detb all Imputation ]. Judg by this what credit con-
tentious Men deferve.
§. 1. The conciliatory Propofitions which I
laid down in an Epiftle to Mr. W* Aliens Book, I
will here tranfcribe, that the Reader may fee what
it is that thefe Militant Do&ors war againft*
Lejl
.(x8i>
Left any who know not bow to flop in mediocrity,
l/hould be tempted by Socinians or Papifts, to think
that we countenance any of their Errors, or that
our Differences in the point of Juftification by Faith
or Works, are greater than indeed they are j and
left any weak Opinionative Perfons, (hould clamour
pnpeaceably againft their Brethren, and think to
raifea name to themfelves for their differing Noti-
ons > I (hall here give the Reader fuch evidences of
our real Concord, as (hall filence that Calumny.
Though fome few Lutherans did, upon peevifh
fufpicioufnefs againft George Major long ago, afTcrt,
That [ Good Works are not neceflary to Salvati-
on ] : And though fome few good Men, whofe
Zeal without Judgment doth better ferve their own
turn than the Churches, are jealous, left all the
good that is afcribed to Man, be a difhonour to
God 5 and therefore fpeak as if God were honoured
moil by faying the worft words of our felves > and
many have uncomely and irregular Notions about
chefe Matters ; And though fome that are addidxd
to tidings, do take it to be their Godly Zeal to cen-
fure and reproach the more underftanding fort,
when they moft grofly err themfelves : And though
too many of the People are carried about through
injudicioufnefs and temptations to falfe Dodrines
and evil Lives > yet is the Argument of Proteftants
thus manifefted.
i. They all affirm that Chrift's Sacrifice, with
his Holinefs and perfect Obedience, are the merito-
rious Caufe of the forgiving Covenants, and of
our Pardon and Juftirication thereby, and of our
Right to Life Eternal, which it giveth us. And
that this Price was not paid or given in it felf inri-
N 3 mediately
( IS* )
snediately to us, but to God for us i and fo,that qui
forefaid Benefits are its EfFe&s.
2. They agree that Chrift's Perfon and ours were
not really the fame i and therefore that the fame
Righteoufnefs, which is an Accident of one/ can-
not poffibly be an Accident of the other.
3. They all deteft the Conceit, that God fhould
aver, and repute a Man to have done that which he
never did.
4. They all agree that Chrift's Sacrifice and Me-
fits are really io effe&ual to procure our Pardon,
Juftification, Adoption, and right to the fealing
Gift of the Holy Ghoft, and to Glory, upon our
Faith and Repentance h that God giveth us all thefe
benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for thp
fake of Chrift and his Righteoufnefs, as if we had
fatisfied him, and merited them our felves : and
thkt thus far Chrift's Righteoufiiefs is ours in its
Eflfedts, and imputed to us, in that we are thus
ufed for it, "and (hall be judged accordingly.
5. They all agree, that we are juftified by none,
but a practical or working Faith.
<5. And that this Faith is the Condition of the
Promife, or Gift of Juftification and Adoption.
7. And that Repentance is a Condition alfo,
though (as it is not the fame with Faith, as Repen-
tance of Unbelief is) on another aptitudinaL ac-
count > even as a willingnefs to be cured, and a
willingnefs to take one for my Phyfician, and to
truft him in the ufe of his Remedies, are on feve-
ral accounts the Conditions en which that Phyfici-
an will undertake the Cure, or as willingnefs to re*
turn to fubje&ion and thankful acceptance of a
purchafed Pardon, and of the Purchasers Love and
future
( i8j )
future Authority, are the Conditions of a Rebel's
Pardon.
S. And they all agree, that in the firft inftant of
a Man's Converfion or Believing, he is entred inco
a ftate of Juffifkation, before he hath done any
outward Works : and that fo it is true, that good
Works follow the Juftified, and go not before his
initial Juftification : as alfo in the fenfe that Aujim
fpakeit, who took Juftification, for that which we
call Sandification or Converfion.
, p. And they all agree, that Juftifying Faith is
fuch a receiving affiance, as is both in the Intellect
and the Will \ and therefore as in the Will, parti-
cipateth of fome kind of Love to the juftifying Ob-
jedt, as well as to Juftification.
10. And that no Man can chufe or ufe Chrift as
a Means ({o called, in refpedl to his own intenti-
on ) to bring him to God the Father, who hath not
fo much love to God, as to take him for his end in
the ufe of that means.
1 1. And they agree, that we (hall be all judged
according to our Works, by the Fvule of the Cove-
nant of Grace, though not for our Works, byway
of commutative, or legal proper merit. And Judg-
ing is the Genus, whofe Species is Juftifying .and
Condemning : and to be judged according to our
Works, is nothing but to be juftiticd or condemned
according to them.
12. They all agrfce, that no Man can pofiibly
merit of God in point of Commutative Juilice, nor
yet in point of Diftributive or Governing Juliice,
according to the Liw of Nature or Innocency, as
Adam might have done, nor by the Works of the
Mofaical Law*
N 4 13. They
( 1 84 )
13. They all agree, that no Works of Mans arq
Co be trufted in, or pleaded, but all excluded, and
the Conceit of them abhorred,
1. As they are feigned to be againft, or inftead of
the free Mercy of God.
2. As they areagainft,or feigned, inftead of the
Sacrifice, Obedience, Merit, or Interceffion of
Chrift.
3. Or as fuppofed to be done of our felves,with-
out the (Grace of the Holy Ghoft.
4. Or as fuppofed falfly to be perfect.
$. Or as fuppofed to have any of the afore-dif-
claimed Merit.
6. Or as materially confiding iq Mofaical Obfer-
vances.
7. Much more in any fuperftitious Inventi-
ons.
8. Or in any Evil mifljaken to be Good*
p. Or as any way incotififtent with the Tenor of
the freely pardoning Covenant. In all thefe fenfes
Juftification by Works is difclaimed by all Prote-
ctants at leaft.
14. Yet all agree, that we are created to good
Works in Chrift Jefus, which God hath ordained,
that we (hould walk therein h and that he? that
nameth the Name of Chrift, muft depart from ini-
quity, or elfe he hath not the Seal of God ; and
that he that is born of God finneth not i that is,
predominantly. And that all Chrift's Members
are Holy, Purified, zealous of Good Works, clean-
ing themfelves from all filthinefs of Flefh and Spi-
rit, that they might perfedt Holinefsin God's fear,
doing good to all Men, as loving their Neighbours
as themfelves h and that if any Man have not the
' ; Sandi-
( i8 5 )
Sandifying Spirit of Chrift, he is none of his, nor
without Holinefs can fee God.
15. They all judg reverently and charitably of
the Ancients, that uftd the word £ Merit of Good
Works ], becaufe they meant but a moral aptitude
for the promifed Reward, according to the Law of
Grace through Chrift.
16. They confefs the thing thus defcribed them-
felves, however they like not che name of Merit,
left it (hould countenance proud and carnal Con-
ceits.
17. They judg no Man to be Heretical for the
bare ufe of that word, who agreeth with them in
the fenfe.
18. In this fenfe they agree, that our Gofpel-
Obedience is fuch a neceflary aptitude to our Glori-
fication, as that Glory ( though a free Gift ) is yet
truly a reward of this Obedience.
ip. And they agree ,that our final Juftification by
Sentence at the Day of Judgment doth pafs upon
the fame Caufes, Reafons, and Conditions, as our
Glorification doth.
20. They all agree, that all faithful Minifters
muft bend the labour of their Miniftry in publick
and private, for promoting of Holinefs and good
Works, and that they muft difference by Difcipline
between the Obedient and the Difobedicnt And
O ! thac the Papifts would as zealoufly promote
Holinefs and good Works in the World, as the true
ferious Proteftants do, whom they fa&ioufly and
peevishly accufe as Enemies to them > and that the
Opinion, Difputing, and name of good Works,
did not cheat many wicked Perfon into fe!f -flattery
and Perdition, while they are void of that which
they
1 1 85 ;
they difpute for. Then would not the Mahome-
tans and Heathens be deterred from Chriftiam-
ty by the wickednefs of theft nominal Chriftians,
that are near them : nor would the ferious pra6tice
of that Chriftianity, which themfelves in general
profefs, be hated, fcorned, and perfecuted by fo
many, both Proteftants and Papifts i nor would fo
many contend that they arc of the True Religion,
while they are really of no Religion at all any
further, than the Hypocrites Pi&ure and Carcafs
may be called Religion : Were Men but refolved
to be ferions Learners, ferious Lovers, ferious Pra-
&ifers according to their knowledge and did not
live like mockers of God, and fuch as look toward
the Life to come in jeft, or unbelief, God would
vouchfafe them better acquaintance with the True
Religion than moft Men have.
§. 3. One would think now that this (hould
meet with no (harp Oppofition, from any Learned
lover of Peace ^ and that it fhould anfwer for it
felf, and need no defence. But this Learned Man
for all that, among the reft of his Military Ex-
ploits, muft here find fome Matter for a Tri-
umph.
And 1. Pag* 18. he affaultcth the third Propof.
~ 'they all deteft the Conceit^ that God Jhould aver y
and refute a Man to have done that which he never
did ].
And is not this true ? Do any fober Men deny
If, and charge God with Error or Untruth ? Will
not this Man of Truth and Peace, give us leave
so be thus far agreed, when we are fo indeed ?
But
( 187 )
But faith he, \_lCea-, the Orthodox abhor the con*
trary, if [_ to have done it ^ be taken in fenfu forenfi,
(for in a Phyfical and Per final, they abhor it not, but
deride it) : T>oth the Afhorifi abhor thefe and fuch-
like fayings* £ We are dead, buried, rifen from the
Dead with Chriji ?~\
Anfvp. i. Take notice Header, that it is but the
Words, and not the Matter that he here aflaulteth >
fo that all herefeetneth but lis de nomine. He be-
fore, fag. 84. extolleth Chryfijlom for thus ex-
pounding, [He made him fin for us~] s that is, to
be condemned as an Offender^ and to die as a Blajpbe-
mer. And this fenfe of Imputation we all admit *
( But Cbryfollom in that place oft telleth us, That by
[ Sin ] he meaneth both one counted a wicked Man
by his Perfecutors, £ not by God ] and Qne that
fuifered that curfed Death,which was due to wicked
curfcd Men : And which of us deny not Juftifica-
tion by Works as Chryfoftom doth ? I fubfcribe to
his words, Q It U God's Righteoufnefs > feeing it is
not of Works (for in thorn it were necejfary that there
be found no blot) but of Grace, which blotteth out and
extinguijheth all fin : And this begetteth us a double
benefit, for it fuffereth us not to be lift up in mind, be-
caufe it it all the Gift of God, and it Jheweth the
greatnefs of the benefit ]. This is as apt an Exprefc
lion of my Judgment of Works and Grace as I
could chufe. But it's given to fome Men to extol
that in one Man, which they fervently revile
in others, How frequently is Chryfoftom by many
accufed as favouring free- Will, and Man's Merits,
and fmelling of Pclagianifm ? And he that is ac-
quainted with Cbryjojicm, muft know, That he in-
cludeth all thefe things in Juitificatian. I, Remif-
fion
wun ot inc oiui as tu inc riuuuuiiciu. 2. jx.emijjt"
on of it by Mortification, ( for fo he calleth it, in
Rom. %. p. (mibi) 63.) 3. Right to Life freely
given for Chrift's fake. 4. And Inherent Rigbte-
mfnefs through Faith : And he oft faith, That this
is called the Righteoufnefs of God,becaufe as God,who
is living, quicheneth the dead, and as he that is Jirong
giveth firength to the weahj fo he that is Righteous,
doth fuddenly make them Righteous that were lapfed
into fin ], as he there alfo fpeaketh. And he oft
tells us, It is Faith it ft 'If, and not only Chrift be-
lieved in, that is imputed for Righteoufnefs, orju-
iHfieth : And in Rom. 4. p. 80. he calleth the Re-
ward, Q the Retribution of Faith ]. And pag. 2p.
he thus conjoyneth [ Faith and Chrift'' s Death'] to
the Queftion, How Men obnoxious to fo much fin are
jufiified, £ he fheweth that he blotted out all fin, that
he might confirm what he faid, both from the Faith
of Abraham by which he wm jujiified, and from our
Saviours Death, by which we are delivered from fin ]•
But this is 011 the by.
2. But faith Dr. "f. the Orthodox abhor the con-
trary in fenfu forenfi.
Anfw. How eafie is it to challenge the Titles of
Orthodox, Wife, or good Men to ones felf ? And
who is not Orthodox, himfelf being Judg ? But it
feems with him, no Man muft pafs for Orthodox
that is not in fo grofs an error of his Mind, ( if
chefe words, and not many better that are contrary
muft be the difcovery of it ) viz. That will not
lay, that in fenfu forenfi, God efieemeth Men to have ,
done that which they never did* The beft you can
make of this is, that you cover the fame fenfe,
which I plainlier exprefs, with this illfavoured
Phrate
( IS? )
Phrafe of Man's inventing : But if indeed you
mean any more than I by your fenfus forenfis, viz.
that fuch a fuffering and meriting for us may, in the
lax improper way of fome Lawyers fpeaking, be
called, [ Our own Doing-, Meriting, Suffering, &c.^
I have proved, that the Dodfrine denied by me,fub-
verteth the Gofpel of Chrift.
Reader, I remember what Grotm ( then Ortho-
dox,- thirty years before his Death ) in that excel-
lent Letter of Church- Orders, Predeflination, Per-
feverance, and Magistrates, animadverting on
Molin&ws, faith, How great an injury tbofe Divines-,
who turn the Chriflian Doftrine into unintelligible
Notions and Contr over fie s^ do to Chriflian Magi-
strates > becaufe it is the duty of LMagiftrates to
difcern and preferve necejfary found Doftrine, which
theje Men would make them unable to difcern* The
fame I muft fay of their injury to all Chriftians,
becaufe all fhould hold faft that which is proved
True and Good, which this fort of Men would dis-
able them to difcern. We juftly blame the Papifts
for locking up the Scripture, and performing their
Worfhip in an unknown Tongue* And alas, what
abundance of well-meaning Divines do the fame
thing by undigefted Terms and Notions, and unin-
telligible Difiin&ions, not adapted to the Matter,
but cuftomarily ufed from fome Perfons reverenced
by them that led the way ? It is fo in their Tra-
ctates, both of Theology and other Sciences •> and
the great and ufeful Rule, Verba Rebus aptanda
funt> is laid afide : or rather, Men that underftand
not Matter, are like enough to be little skilful in
the exprefling of it : And as Mr. Pemble faith, A
cloudy unintelligible ftile, ufually Cgnifieth a clou-
dv
( 19° )
dy unintelligent Head, ( to that fenfc ) : And as
Mr. y. Unmfrey tells Dr/ Fullrvood^ ( in his unan-
fwerable late Plea for jhe Conformifts againft the
charge of Schifm) f^g.2^. ^So overly are men or-
dinarily wont to $e&\, at the firji fights againji that
which others have long thought upon ~]h that fome
Men think, that the very jingle of a diftindtion not
underftood is warrant enough for their reproach-
ing that Dodhine as dangerous and unfound,which
hath coft another perhaps twenty times as many
hard ftudies, as the Reproachers ever beftowed oa
that Subjed.
To deliver thee from thofe Learned Obfcurities,
read but the Scripture impartially, without their
Spedacles and ill-devifed Notions, and all the Do-
drine of Juftification that is neceffary, will be plain
to thee : And I will venture again to fly fofar
from flattering thofe, called Learned Men, who ex-
pedt it, as to profefs that I am perfwaded the com-
mon fort of honeft unlearned Chriftians, ( even
Plowmen and Women ) do better underftand the
Do&ririe of Juftification, than many great Difpu-
ters will fuffer themfelves or others to underftand it,
by reafonof their foreftalling ill-made Notions;
thefe unlearned Perfons commonly conceive, i. That
Chrift in his own Perfon, as a Mediator, did by his
perfect Righteoufnefs and Suffe rings, merit for us
the free pardon of all our fins, and the Gift of his
Spirit and Life Eternal, and hath promifed Pardon
to all that are Penitent Believers, and Heaven to al!
that fo continue, and fincerely obey him to the
end > and that all our after- failings, as well as our
former fins, are freely pardoned by the Sacrifice,
Merits* and Interceflion of Chrift, who alfo giveth
us
( ipi ;
us his Grace For the performance of his impcfecl
Conditions, and will judg us, as we have or have
not performed them 3« Believe but this plain Dc-
dhine, and you have a righter underftanding of
Juftirication, than many would let you quietly en-
joy, who tell you, |^ That Faith is not imputed for
Righteoufnefs ** that it juftifieth you only as an In-
ftrumental Caufe, and only as it is the reception of
ChrifFs Righteoufnefs, and that no other A& of
Faith is jutiifying, and that God efteemeth us to
have been perfectly Holy and Righteous, and ful-
filled all the Law, and died for our own fins, in or
by Chrift, and that he was politically the very Per-
fon of every Believing Sinner ] i with more fuch
like.
And as to thisdiftin&ion which this Do&orwill
make a Teft of the Orthodox, ( that is, Men of
of his Size and Judgment ) you need but this plain
explication of it.
i. In Law- fenfe, a Man is truly and fitly faid
himfelf to have done that} which the Law or hU Con-
tract alloweth him to do either by himfelf or another \
( as to do an Office, or pay a Debt by a Subflitute or
Vicar). For fo I do it by my Inftrument, and
the Law is fulfilled and not broken by me, becaufe
I was at liberty which way to do it. In this fenfe
I deny that we ever fulfilled all the Law by Chrift h
and that fo to hold fubverts all Religion as a per-
nicious Herefie.
2. But in a tropical improper fenfe, he may be
faid to [ be efteemed of God to have done what Chrift
did > who Jhall have the benefits of Pardon, Grace,
and Glory thereby merited, in the manner and mea-
sure given by the free Mediator, as certainly as if he
had
( *9* ) (
had done it himfelf~\. In this improper fenfe wc
agree to the Matter, but are forry that improper
words (hould be ufed as a fnare againft found Do-
ctrine, and the Churches Love and Concord. And
yet mull we not be allowed Peace ?
§. 4- But my free Speech here maketh me re-
member how lharply the Do&or expounded and
applyed one word in the retraced Aphorifms : I
faid (not of the Men, but of the wrong Opinion op-
pofed by me) [ It fondly fuppofeth a Medium be-
twixt one that is juji, and one that is no finner*} one
that hath his (in or guilt taken away, and one that
hath his unrighteoufnefs taken away : lis true in
bruits and injenfibles that are not fubjeSs capable of
Juftice, there is, &c. *ihere is a Negative Injuflice
which denominated the Subjett non-jufium, but not
in juftum, where Right eoufnejs is not due. But where
there is the debitum habendi, its privative* The
Do&or learnedly tranflateth firft the word [fond-
ly 1 ^ [ftolide~]\ and next he (fondly, though
not Jiolide) would pcrfwade the Reader, that it is
faid of the Men^ though himfelf tranflate it £ J)d-
ttrina ]•
And next he bloweth his Trumpet to the War,
with this exclamation, £ Stolide ! vocU mollitiem,
& modefliam ! ftolidos Ecclefts Reformat* Cla-
rijjimos Hero as I Aut ignoravit certe , aut fcire fe
dijjimulat, (quod affine eft calumnia) quid ifii jlatu-
ant, quos loquitur, jhlidi Theologi ].
Anfw. i. How blind are fome in their own
Caufe ? Why did not Confcience at the naming of
Calumnie fay, [I am now committing it ? ] It were
foetter write in Englifh, if Latin tranflations muft
needs
needs be fo falfe ! we ufe the word [fond ] in ouf
Country,in another fenfe than \_foolifh~\ h with us it
fignifieth any byaffed Inclination, which beyond
teafon propendeth to one fide : and fo we ufe to fay,
That Women are fond of their Children, or of any
thing over- loved : But perhaps he can ufe his Logick^
to gather by confequences the Title of the Perfon^
from the Title of his Opinion, and to gather [Joo-
lifljly~] byconfequence out of [_fondly\ To all
which I can but anfwer, That it he had made him-
felf the Tranflator of my Words, and the Judg of
my Opinions > if this be his beft, he (hould not be
chofen as fuch by me.But it may be he turned to Ri-
ders Dictionary ,8c found thtic\_ fondly, vide foolifhly].
2. The Stolidi Theologi then is his own phraie !
And in my Opinion, another Mans Pen might better
have called the Men of his own Opinion |[ Ecclepi
Reformat* dariffimos Heroas] compared with others!
I take Gataker, Bradfbavp, Wotton, Camero, and his
•followers ', Vrfvie, Olevian, Pifcator, Par£us, Wen-
deline, and multitudes fuch, to be as famous Heroes
as himfelf : But this alfo on the by.
§. 5. But I muft tell him whether I abhor the
Scripture Phraie, [_ We are dead, buried, and rifri
tvitb Cbrifi ].
I anfwer, No 5 nor will I abhor to fay, That iH
fenfn forenfi, I am one -political Perfon with Cbrift,
and am ferfettly holy and obedient by and in him,
and died and redeemed my felf by him, when he
fnall prove them to be Scripture Phrafes : But I de-
fire the Reader not to be lo fond, ( pardon the
•word ) as by this bare quefiion to be enticed to be-
lieve, that it is any of the meaning of thofe Texts
•that ufe that Phrafc which he mentioncth, that
O' [ Legally,
( XP4 )
[ Legally ,or in fenfu forenfi, every Believer is efteem-
ed by God to have himfelf perfonaliy died a violent
death on the Croft, and to have been buried, and to
have ri fen again-, and afcended into Heaven, nor
yet to be now there in Glory ,becaufe Chrift did and
doth all this in our very Legal Perfon. Let him
but i. confider the Text, 2. and Expositors,
3. and the Analogy of Faith, and he will find ano-
ther fenfe * viz- That we fo live by Faith on a dyings
buried, rifin and glorified Saviour, at that at fuch
he dweUeth objectively in our Hearts, and vpe partake
fo of the Fruits of his Death, Burial, and Refur-
reliion, and Glory, as that roe follow htm in a Holy
Communion, being dead and buried to the World and
Sin, andrifeu to newnefs of Life, believing that by
his Power we Jhall perfonaliy, after our death and
burial, rife alfo unto Glory. I will confefs that we
are perfectly holy And obedient by and in Chrift, as
far as we are now dead, buried, and rijen in
him,
§. <5« And here I will fo far look back, as to re-
member, That he (asfome others) confidently
telleth us, That £ the Law bound us both to perfeh
Obedience, and to punishment for our fin, and there-
fore pardon by our own fujfering in Cbrift, may ft and
with the reputation, that we "were perfectly Obedient
and Righteous in Chrift .~]
Anfw. And to what purpofe is it to difpute
long, where fo notorious a contradiction is not on-
ly not difcerned, but obtruded as taiitum ncn ne-
ctffary to our Orthodoxnefs, if ndtto our Salva-
tion ? I ask him,
1. Was not Chrift as our Mediator perfedly ho<
Jy habitually, and a&ually, without Original or
A dual Sin? 2> If
2. If all this be reputed to be in fe, bur own as
fitbjeSed in and done by o'nr f elves folttical, or in
J*
enfu forenfiy Are we not then reputed in foro, to
have no original or a&ual fin, but to have inno^
cently fulfilled all the Law, from the firft hour of
our lives to the laft > Are we reputed innocent in
Chrift, as to one part only of our lives, (if fo>
which is it ? ) or as to all >
3. If as to all, is it riot a contradiction that in
Law-fenfe, we are reputed perfe&ly Holy and In-
nocent, and yet finners.
4- And can he have need of Sacrifice or Pardon *
that is reputed never to have finned ( legally ) ?
5. If he will fay that in Law-fenfe, we have or
are two Perfons, let him expound the word Perfons
only, as of Qualities and Relations, (nothing to
Cur Cafe in hand) > or elfe fay alfo, That as we
are holy and perfeft in one of out own Perfons, and
pnfuly unrighteous, or ungodly in anbther, fo a Man
may be in Heaven in one of his own Perfons, and
on Eahh, yea and in Hell in the other t And if he
mean that the fame Man is juftified in his Perfon in
Chirift, and condemned in his bther Perfon h confi-
der which of thcfe is the Pbyfical Perfon; for I
think its that which is like to fuffer.
§.7. fag. 224. He hath another touch at m^
Epiftle, but gently forbeareth contradidion as to
Num. 8. And he faith fo little to the i i*£,as need-
eth no anfwer.
§.8. fag. 127. He afTaulreth the firft Num. 0$
N. 13. That vpe all agree againft any conceit of
Works that are againft or inflead of the free Mercy of
God].
And what hath he againft this ? Why that
O 2 whicfi
which taketh up many pages of his Book, and
feemeth his chief Strength in moft of his Conteft,
viz. [the Papifts fay the fame] and [To faith BeL
larminf]* It's ftrange that the fame kind of Mea
that deride Fanatic}^ Sectaries, for crying out in
Church-Controverfks , [ O Antichriftian Popery^
Bellarmine, &c. ] fhould be of the fame Spirit, and
take the fame courfe in greater Matters, and not
perceive it, nor acknowledg their agreement with"
them ! But as Mr. J. Humjrey faith in the forefaid
Eook of the word [ Schifm, Scbifm ~] oft canted
out againft them, that will not facrilegioufly fur-
render their Consciences, or defert their Miniftry,
[ "the great Bear hath been fo oft led through the
fireets, that now the Boys lay by all fear, and laugh
or m?ke $ort at him] fo fay I of this Sectarian Bug-
bear, £ Popery, Antichriftian, BeUarmine] either
the Papifts really fay as we do, or they do not. If
not, is this Do&or more to be blamed for making
them better than they are, or for making us vporfe ?
which ever it btffruth (hould defend 'truth* If they
do, I heartily rejoyce, and it fhall be none of my
labour any more (whatever t did in my Confjfion
of Faith) to prove that they do not* Let who
will manage fuch ungrateful Work. For my.part,
I take it for a better Charader of any Opinion, that
Papifts and Proteftants agree in it, than, that the
Proteftants hold it alone. And. fo.much for £ Pa-
pifts and Betiarmine] though I think I know bet-
ter what they teach, than his Book will truly tell
'me.
§. p. But he addeth, \Jiumane Jfftifying JForkf
are in reality adverf* to the free. Mercy of God, ihere~
fore to be accounted of no value to Kighteoufnefs ]]•
Avfm
( w )
Anfw* r. But whofe phrafe is Justifying Works?
2. Doth not the Holy Ghoji fay, That a Ma«is
jtiftified by Worlds, *md w* by Faith only ? Jam«2..
3 . Doth not Chrirt fay, By thy, words tbonjtah
he jnftified ? fa
4. Do not I over and over tell rf# World, That
J hold Juitification by Works in jno fenfe, byt as
ii'gnifying the fame as [According to JFork/] yyhich
you own ? And Co both Name and Thing ace eon-
fefled by you to be Scriptural.
5. I have before dedred the Reader to turn to
the words, [Righteous, Right em fiefs, Jujlijicati-
0# 3 &c J in his Concordance. And it there he
find Right eonfnefi mentioned a5 confifung in Tome
Ads of Man, many hundred times,. Jet him next
fay if he dare, that they are to be had in no price
to Right eoufiffs : Or let him read the Texts cited
by me in my ConfiJJion of Faith.
6. Becaufe, Faith, Repentance, Love, Obedi-
ence, are-that whofe fincerity is to be judged in or-
der to our Life or Death ere long* I will not fay
that they are to be vilified as to fuch a Righteouf-
nefsor Juftification, as confifteth in our vindicati-
on from the charge of Impenirency, Infidelity,
Unholinefs, Hypocrifie, &c. The reading of Mat.
25. refolved me for this Opinion.
§. 10. Next he noteth our detefting fuch Works
as are againft or inftead of Chritt's Sacrifice, Righ-
teoufnefs, Merits, &c. To this wc have the old
Cant, The Papifts faytheli\e*
Reader, I proved that the generality of Piote-
ftants are agreed in all thofe twenty Particulars,
even in all the material Doctrines about Man's
Wosks and Juftification, while this warlike Dodror
O 3 would
( i>8 )
would fet us all together by the ears ftill, he is
over-ruled fo aflert that the Papifts alfo are agreed
with us. The more the better, I am glad if it be
fo, and will here end with fo welcome a Conclufi-
on, that maketh us all herein to be Friends : only
adding, That when he faith that £ fuch are all Worfy
whatever^ ( even Faith it felf ) which are called info
the very leaft part of Jujlification 3 » even as a Condi*
tion or fiibordinate -perfonal Evangelical Rigbteouf-
nefl, fuch as Chrift and James^ and a hundred
Texts of Scripture aflert v lanfwer, I cannot be-
lieve him, till I ceafe believing the Scriptures to be
true i which I hope will never be : And am forry
that fo worthy a Man can believe fo grofs an Opi-
nion, upon no better reafons thanhegiveth : And
yet imagine, that had I the opportunity of free
conference with him, I could force him to manifeft,
That he himfelf diiFereth from us but in meer words
or fecbnd Notions, while he hotly proclaimeth a
greater difcord.
A N
ANSWER
T O
Dr. TULLIES
Angry Letter.
LONDON,
Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinfcn, at
the Princes- Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Pauls
Church-yard, 1675.
( I)
e^ Anfyper to Dr. Tullies
^gry Lette^
Reverend Sir y
F I had not before perceived and
lamented the great £*# 0/ Conten-
ders^ the dangerous /^v /or fg-
»0r*«* Chriftians, and the gmz*
Calamity of the Church, by mar
king Verbal Differences fecm A/ir-
rVr/4/5 and variety of fomc Arbi-
trary Logical Notions 5 to feem tantum Hon-, a va-
riety of Religions > and by frightning Men out of
their Charity, Peace, and Communion, by Bug-
bear-Names, of this or that Herefie or dangerous
Opinion^ which is indeed but a Spedfrum or Fan-
tafm of a dreaming or melancholy Brain, your Ju-
flificatio Paulina, and your Letter to me, might be
fufficient means of my full Convi&ion. And if
once reading of your Writings do not yet more in-
creafe my love of the Chrijiian fimplicity, and plain
old Divinity, and the amicable Communion of
practical Chriftians upon thofe terms, and not med-
ling with Controversies in a militant way, till by
long impartial ftudies they are well understood, I
mull
\ * )
muft confefsmy non-proficience is very unexcu-
fablc.
With your felf I have no great buGnefs ; I am
not fo vain as to think my felf able to underftand
you, or to be underfiood by you : and I muft not be
fo bold as to tell you why, much lefs will I be fo
in juiious to the Reader, ashy z particular examin-
ing all your words, to extort a confeflion th^t their
fenfe is lejl or worfe than I could wi(h : For cui bono ?
What would this do but more offend you ? And
idle words are^b great a fault in writing as in talk ;
If I have been guilty of too many, I muft not fo
much add to my fault, as a too particular exami-
nation of fuch Books would be. But for the fake
of your Academical Touth, whom you thought meet
to allarm by your Caution, I have anfwered fo
much of your Treatife as I thought neceffary to
help even Novices to anfwer the reft themfelves.
for their fakes (though I delight not to offend
you) I muft fay, That if they would not be decei-
ved by fuch Books as yours, it is not an Anfwer to
them that muft be their prefervative, but an order-
ly ftudying of the Do&rines handled > Let them
but learn truly the feveral fenfes of the word \Ju-
ftifica'ion], and the feveral forts, and what they
are, and ttill conftrain ambiguous words to confels
their fenfe, and they will need no other Anfwer to
fuch Writings.
And as to your Letfer (paffing by the fjpume and
paffion) I think thefe few Animadversions may
fuffice.
§. I. Between twenty and thirty years ago, I
did in a private Pifputation prove our guilt of the
fins of our nearer Parents > and becaufe many
doubted
( 3>
doubted of it, I have ott fince in other writings
mentioned it : About three years ago, having two
Books of Mr. William Aliens in my hand to perufe,
in order to a Publication, ( a Perfaafwe to Vnity^
and a I'reatife of the 'two Covenants) \ in a Preface
to the latter, I faid, [ that mod Writers, if not
mofi Chrijiians, do greatly darken the Sacred Votlrine^
by overlooking the Imereji of Children in the Attions
of their nearer Parents, and thinly that they partici-
pate of no guilt, and fuffer for no original fin, hut
Adam 3 / only, &c. ] You fattened on this, and war*
ned ferioufly the Juniors, not rajhly to believe one that
brings forth fuch Paradoxes of his ( or that ) Theo-
logie , which you added to your £ c£cos ante
*Xheologos quicunque unquam fuijiis ^ : The charge
was exprefled by Q aliud inveniffe peccatum Origin
nale, multo citerim quam quod ah Adamo traduSutn
e\i\. Hereupon I thought it enough to publifh that
old private Difputation* which many before had
feen with various Cenfures : Now you fend me in
your Letter the ftrange tidings of the fuccefs : You
that deterred your Juniors by fo frighful a warning,
feem now not only to agree with me, that we are
guilty of our nearer Parents fin, and contract addi-
tional pravity from them as fuch, ( which was my
AflTertion ) but over-do all others, and Truth it
fclf in your Agreement ! Now you take it for an
injury to be reported to think otherwife herein than
I do: yea, and add, [^ Which neither I, nor any Bo-
dy elfe Ikjtorv of, denies as to the thing, though in the
extent, anc{ other circumfiances, all are not agreed,
and you may in that enjoy your Opinion for me 3-
This is too kind : I am loth to tell you how many
that
( 4 )
that I know, and have read, deny it, left I tempt
you to repent of your Agreement.
But doth the World yet need a fuller evidence,
that fome Men are de materia agreed with them,
whom they raife the Country againft by their Accu-
sations and Sufpicions ?
But furely what paflion or fpatling foever it hath
occafioned from you, I reckon that my labour is not
loft : I may tell your Juniors, that I have (ped ex-
traordinary well, when I have procured the pub-
lished confent of fuch a Do&or, Either you were
of this mind before or not : If not, it's well you
are brought to confefs the Truth, though not to
confefs a former Error. If yea, then it's well that
lb loud and wide a feeming difagreement is confef-
fed to be none, that your Juniors may take war-
ning, and not be frightned from Love and Con-
cord by every melancholy Allarm.
Yea, you declare your conformity to the Litany,
\Remember not our Offences^ nor the Offences of our
Fore fathers^ and many words of indignation
you ufefor my queftioning it. All this I like very
well as to the Caufe h And I matter it not much
how it looks at me : If you agree more angrily than
others difagree, the Cauje hath fome advantage by
the Agreement. Though me-thinks it argueth
Ibmewhat unufual, that feeming Diifenters fhouid
clofe by fo vehement a Coilifion.
But yet you will not agree when you cannot cbufe
but agree, and you carry it ftill as if your Allarm
had not been given without caufe : Muft we agree y
and not agree? What yet is the Matter ? Why it is
la new original fm']. My ordinary exprellions of
f 5 ;
it may be fully fcen in the Difputation : The phrafe
you laid hold on in a Preface is cited before, [Tfbat
vpe participate of no guilty and fujftr for no original
(in but Adam 5 / only ~], I denied. And what's the
dangerous Errour here ? That our nearer Parents
fin was Adams, I may prefume that you hold not.
That we are guilty of f uch, you deny not : That
it U fin, I find you not denying : fure then all the
difference mull be in the word [ ORIGINAL ].
And if fo, you that fo hardly believe your loud-
noifed difagreements to be but verbal, mud pati-
ently give me leave here to try it. Is it any more
than the Name ORIGINAL that you are fo hei-
noufly offended at ? Sure it is not : Elfe in this
Letter purpofely written about it, you would have
told your Reader what it U. Suffer me then to fum-
mon your Allarm'd Juniors to come and fee what a
Spttrum it is that muft affright them > and what a
Poppet- Play cr dreaming War it is,that the Church
is to be engaged in, as if it were a matter of Life
and Death ? Audite juvenes ! I took the word
[ORIGINAL] in this bufinefs to have feveral fig-
nifications. Firft, That is called I ORIGINAL']
Sin, which was the ORIGO of all other fins in the
Humane World : And that was. not Adams fin, but
Eves.
2. That which was the ORIGO of fin to all the
World, fave Adam and Eve, communicated by the
way of Generation : And that was Adams and
Eves conjunft, viz. i. Their firft iinful Acts h
2. Their Guilt* 3. And their habitual pravity
(making it full, though in Nature following the
Aft;. This Sin, Faft, Guilt, and Kabit, as Ac-
cidents
(<5)
adents of the Perfbns of Adam and Eve, are not
Accidents of bur Perfons;
3, Our pr final participation* i. In the guilt of
the fin of Adam and Eve i 2. And of a vicious
privation and habit from them, as fbon as we are
Perfons. Which is called Original fin, bn three
accounts conjun£t * t* Becaufe it is a participation
bf their Original Aft that we are guilty of > 2. Be-
caufe it is in us ah Origine, from our firft Being *
3. And becaufe it is the Origo of all bur Atiual
4.. I call that alfo [ ORIGINAL] (or />*r* of
Original Sin) which hath but the two late* only i
viz. 1. Which is in us AB ORIGINE, from our
firft perfonal being > 2. Which is the R00* or
ORIGO in our felves of all our Attual Sins : And
thus our Guilt and Fzce derived from our neater
Parents* and not from Adam* is our Original Sin >
That is, 1. Both Guilt and Htf&it are in us from
bur Original, or firft Being > 2. And all our Actu-
al Sin fpringeth from it as a partial Caufe : For I
may prefume that this Revererd Dodtor doth not
hold that Adam's fin derived to us is in one part of
the Soul* ( which is not partible ) and out nearer
Parent's itianother * but will grant that it is one vi*
tiofity that is derived from both, the latter being a
Degree added to the former * though the Ream
having more than one fundamentum* may be called
diverfe. That Origo & Atiive & pajjive dicitur*
1 fuppofe we are agreed. No\V I call the vicious
Habits contraded froin out nearer Parents by fpe-
cial reafon ot their own fins> fuperadded to the de-
gree, which elfe we fhould have derived frbm
Adam y
C7)
Adam, a part of our original frnful Pravity, even
a fecondary part. And I call cur guilt of the fins
of our nearer parents ( not Adam's ) which you
will, either a fecondary Original Guilt, or Sin, or
a fecondary part of our Original Guilt. See then
our dangerous difagreement : I call that ORIGI-
NAL, which is in us ab Origine, when we are firft
Perfons, and is partly the Root or Origo in us of all
our following Aftual Sin : though it was not the
Original Sin of Mankind, or the firft of Sins. The
Doctor thinks this an Expreflion, which all Juni-
ors muft be warned to take heed of,and to take heed
of the Do&rine of him that ufeth it. The Allarm
is againft this dangerous word [ ORIGINAL ].
And let a Man awake tell us what is the dan-
ger.
But I would bring him yet to agreement even de
nomine, though it anger him. i. Let him read
the Artie, p. of the Church of England, and feeing
there Original Sin is faid to be that corruption of Na*
ture whereby we are far gone from Original Righte-
oufnefs, and are of our own Nature inclined to eviU
fo that theflejh lufleth againji the Spirit.Tbe lufi of the
flejh called (p£pvv(jLa oztpxxK, which fome do ex-
pound the Wifdom, fome Senfuality, fome the AffeBi-
0#, fome the deftre tif the Flejh, not fubjett to the
Law of God ] ; Seing a degree of all this fame Lult
is in Men from the fpecial fins of their Fore- fathers,
as well as from Adanfs ■> Is not this Degree here
called Original Sin ? ( why the Churc h emitted the
Imputed Guilt aforefaid, I enquire not ) .
"^2. If this will notierve, it he wilFffnd me any
Text of Scripture, which ufeth the Phrafe, [ORI-
GINAL Sin ], I will promtfe him hercatcer to
ufe
ufe it in no other fenfe, than the Scripture ufeth
it.
3. If that will not ferve, if the Matters of Lan-
guage will agree, ( yea, to pafs by our Lexicons,
if the Doftors of that Univerfity will give it us un-
ag. 4, 5 v &c. You invite toe to, [ a full
entire retractation of my Vottrineof purification (yqta
add, By Werks) and the fecondary Original Sin ].
.. . i. Will you take it well if I retradt that which
you profefsnow tohold, and know none that de-
fcyeth, then there is no pleafing you : If I muft
be thought to wjrong you for feeming to differ from
you, and yet muft retrad all : What, yours and
all Mens ?
2. Do you mean the words or the fenfe of JuflU
ficatinn[as you call it) by Works ?F ox the words,! take
you for a fubferiber to the 39 Articles h and there-
fore that you rejedt not the Epiftleof St. James:
And for the fenfe, I confefs it is a motion fuit3b!e
to the Intereft of your 'freatife, (though not of
the Truth ) ; He that cannoc confute the Truth,
would
would more eafily do his Work, if he could pcr^
fwade the Defenders of it to an Entire Retratlati-
m* Hereupon, pag* ■$• you recite my words, of
the difficulty of bringing fome Militant Divines to
yield : Your Admonition for Self-Application of
them is ufeful, and I thank you for it : But is it.
not a (height that fuch as I am in, between two
contrary forts of Accufcrs? When Mr. Vanvers^
and Multitudes on that fide,. Reproach me daily
for Retrattations&nd you for want of them ? How
natural is it now to Mankind, to defiie to be thd
Oracles of the, World, and that all fhould be Si-
lenced, or RetraQed> . which is againft their Minds ?
How many call on me for Retra&ation ? Mr*
Ttombeij and Mr. Vanvers, for what I have Writ-
ten for Infants-Eaptifm : The Papijis for what I
have Written againft them : And how many more ?
And as to what, J have RetraUedfine reproached me
for it, and another either knoweth not of it, or
perfwadeth others that it is not done.
You fay, p ag* <5. \_A great out-cry you have made
of m§> as charging yon with things you have Retra*
bed — — And pag. 7. What's the reafon you have
not hitherto direUed us to the particulars of your Re-
captation-) what, when, where i — -. Ton direft one
indeed^ to a fmall Boo^ above "twenty years a-gc
retraced. ■ All I can pick^ up of any feeming
Retractation, is that you fay, that Worlds are necej-
fary at leaft to the continuation of our Jujiification.
Anfw. Either this is Written by a Wilful, or
a Heedlefs miftaking of my words. The firft I
will not JlifpeCh it muft therefore be the fecond,
(for I miift not judg you Vnable to ur.deiftand
plain Englifh). And is it any wonder if you have
jp many
many fuch Miftakes in your difputes of Juftificati-
on, when you arc fo heedlefs about a matter of
Fad ? Where did I ever fay, that I had Recanted ?
Or that I Retraced any of the Dodtaine of Juftifi-
cation, which I had laid down? Cannot you di-
ftinguifh between Sufp endings or Revoking* or Re-
tracing a particular Boo]^* for the fake of feveral
Crude and Incongruous Expreflions, and Retracing
or Recanting that Vottrine of Justification? Or
can you not understand words, that plainly thus
Diftinguifh? Why talk you of what* and when*
and where, and conjecture at the words* as if you
would make the Reader believe, that indeed it is
fome confeffed Errors of mine, which you Con-
futed ? and that I take it for an Injury, becaufe I
Retraced them? And fo you think you falve your
Confutation, whatever you do by your Candour
and Juftice : But you have not fo much as Fig-
leaves for either* It was the Aphorifms* or Boo\ ,
that I faid was above Twenty years a go Revoked :
When in my Treatife of Infant-Baptifm , I had
craved Animadverfions on it, and promifed abet*
ter Edition, if I Published it any more* I forbad
the Reprinting it,till I had time to Corredfc it * and
when many called for it, I flill deny'd them. And
when the Cambridg Printer Printed it a fecond
time, he did it by Stealth, pretending it was done
beyond Sea. In my ConfeQion Twenty years ago,
I gave the Reafons, Preface, fag. 3$. [I find that
there are fome Incautelous Pajfages in my Aphorifms*
wot fitted to their Reading, that come to fuc\ Poyjon*'
and feel^for a Word to he Matter of Accufation and
Food for their Cenfuring opinionative Zeal* . And
pag. 42. If any Brother underjiand not any word in
my
toy Aphrifms which is here Interpreted, or miftafa
rnyfenfe about the Matter of that Book^ which is here
more fully opened h I mull expett , that they inter-
pret that by this. Andij any one have fa little to do
as to write againft that Book^ (which is not unlikely)
if he take the Senfe Contrary to what I have here and
elfe where (mce then Fubiijhed, I jbail but neglctt
him as a Conttnthus^ Vain Wrangler, if not a Ca-
lumniator]. I Wrote this Amply, to fo; warn the
Contentious, not knowing then that above Twen-
ty years after Dr. "fully would be the Man. Pag. 43.
[If any will needs ta\e any thing in this Bool^ to be
rather a RetraHatio^ than an Explication, of what
1 have before faid, though I (hould beji k>iow my own
Meaning ', yet dofuch commend me. while they f^m
to blame me : I never lot\ to write that which fhall
have no need of Correction* Aud Cap. 1 pag.2,
[Left J Jhould prove a further Offence to my Brethren^
and a Wrong to the Churchy I de fired thoje who thought
it worth their Labour, to vouchfafe me their Ammad-
verfwns, # which I have fpent much of tbefe "three la(i
years in considering, that I might Correft what-ever
was difcovered to be Erroneous , and give them an
account of my Reafons of the reft. I have not only
fince SVPPRESSEV that BooJ^ which did offend
them, but alfo laid by thofe Papers of Vniverfal Re-
demption, which I had written, lei I Jhould be fur-
ther offenfive, &c] In my Apjlogie elfe- where
I have fuch like Paflages , ever telling Men that
[It was the firji Booi^ I wrote in my Unexperienced
Touth '<, that I ta^e the Do8rine; of it to be found
and needful, fave that in divers places thy are un-
skilfully and incauteloufly worded. (As the Word
[Covenant'] is oft put tor [Law,] &c,) And that
P2 X
r I* )
I wrote my Confefjion, and Difputes of Juftifica*
to/j, as an ExpoGtionof it h and that I RetraUed^
or Sufpended, or Revoked , not the Vottrine^ but
the Bwj^, till I had Corrected it, and did difown
it as too unmeet an Expteffion of my Mind,
which I had more fully expreft in other Bookj.
And is not this plain Englifh ? Doth this war-
rant a Wife and Righteous Man, to intimate that I
accufe him of writing againft that Doctrine of
Jufiification w{iich I Recanted, and to call for the
What, and Where, arid When ? Yea, and tell me,
that I [refer you to afmall BookJ\ when inftead of
referring you to it, I only blame you for referring
to that alone, when I hadfaid as before ?
When many Divines have publifhed the firft
Edition of their Works imperfectly, and greatly
cor reded and enlarged them in a Second ( as
Beza his Annotations •> Polanus his Syntagma , and
many fuch) all Men take it for an Injury for a
Neighbour twenty years after , to feledt the firft
Edition to confute as the Author's Judgment :
Much more might I , when I publifhed to the
World, that I Sufpended the whole BooJ^ y znAhave
thefe twenty four years hindred the Printing of it >
profeffing that I have in many larger Books, more
intelligibly and fully opened the fame things.
Yea, you fear not pag. 23. to fay, That I tell
you of about $0 Bookj of Retractations, in part at
lea\l which I have Written] > when never fuch a
word fell from me* If I fay, That one that hath
publifhed his Sufpeitfion of a fmall Boo\ written in
Youth not for the VoUrine of it-, but feme unfit
Expre/Iions , and hath fince in aJ-moft thirty
Years time, writteivabout fixty Eooks* in many or
moft
( *? )
moft of which is fomewhat of the fame Subjeft,
and in fome of them he fullier openeth his Mind i
fhould be dealt with by an Adverfary, according
to fome of his later and larger Explications, and
not according to the Mode and Wording of that
one Sufpended Book alone : Shall fuch a Man as
you fay, that I [tel you of about fixty Bookj of
Retradations']? Or will it not abate Mens reve-
rence of your difputing Accuratenefs,to find you fo
untrufiy in the Recitation of a Man's words ? The
truth is, it is this great Defeft of Heed and Accu-
ratenefs, by hafly Temerity, which alfo fpoileth
your Difputations.
But, pag. 7. the Aphorifms muft be, [The moft
Schollar*like , and Elaborate ( though Erroneous)
Boohjn Controverted you ever Compofed~]> Anfw. 1.
Your Memory is faulty ; Why fay you in the next,
that I appeal to my Difputation of Juttification
and fome others i but you cannot "frudg up and down*-
to every place 1 would fend you? your Legs are too
vpeakj Either you had read all the fixty Books
which you mention (the Cent rover fal at lead) or
not: If not, How can you tell that the Aphorifms
is the moft Elaborate ? If yea, Why do you excufe
your Trudging, and why would you feledt a Suf-
pended Book, and touch none that were Written
at large on the fame Subjedt ? 2. By this (I fur-
pofe to make your Nibble to feem a Triumph) you
tell your Reader again, how to value your Judg-
ment. Is it like that any Dunce that is diligent,
fhould Write no more Scbollar-likg at Sixty years
of Age than at Thirty ? And do you think you
know better what of mine is Elaborate, than I
do ? Sure that Word might bave been fpared v
P 3 When
( i4 )
When I know that one printed Leaf of Paper hath
co(t me mor Labour than all that Book > and per-
haps one Scheme of the Diftindiions of Juftifica-
tion, which you deride* If indeed you are a corn-
parent Judg of vour own Writings, Experience
alfureth me, that you are not fo of mine. An4
T a &* *5» ' y° u &Y> You de fire not to be preferred be-
fore your Betters, leafl of all when yon are fingulari
as here I think you are.
§. III. Pag. p. You are offended for being put
%n the Cub-, with divers mean and contemptible Ma*
lefattors.']
Anfa. O for Juftjce ! i. Was not Bellarmin-> or
fome of the Tapifis and the Socinians, as great
Malefactors , with whom (as you phrafe it) you
{>ut me in the Cub > 2. Are they MalcfaBors fo
ar as they agree with you in Vo£irine, and axe yon
Innocent i 'What is the Difference between your,
Treatife, in the part that toucheth me, and that
of Mr. Eyres, Mx.Crandon, and fome others fuch ?
Dr. Owen, and Dr. K endale, indeed differed from
you i the latter feeking (by Biftiop Vfher) an ami-
cable Clofure, and the former (if I underftand his
Book on the Hebrews) lefs differing from me in
Doctrine, than once he either did, or feemed to
do. (And if any of us all grow no Wifer in thir-
ty years Study, we may be alhamed). But to give
you your due Honour, I will name you with your
Equals, as far as I can judg, viz. Maccovius^
Cluto, Coccejus, and Cloppenburgius, ( I mean but
in the Point in Queftion *, it's no Difhonour to^you
to give fome of them Precedencie in other things)?
it may be alfo Spanhem'm^ was near you. But
( 1 5 )
(if I may prefume to liken my Betters) no Men
feem tome to have been Co J ike you, as Guilielmus
Rivet, fnot Andrew), Mr. George Walker, and Mr.
Roborougb. (I hope this Company is no Difhonour
to you). And very unlike you are Le Blani^, Ca-
mero, Vavenant, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Gataker, Mr.
Anthony Wotton, ar«d in Complexion Scans and
Ock^m, and fuch as they : If yet I have not Chofrn
you pleafing Company, I pray you choo fefo
your felf.
But you fay on, [Had you not {in your Memory
many Scores of greateft Eminence and Repute in
the Cbrijiian World, of the fame Judgment with
me Know you not J fpeak the fame thing with all
the Reformed Churches, &c. For foame let it be
the Church of England, with all the reji of the Re-
formed, &c»]
Anfw. i. I know not what you hold , even
when I read what you write : (I muft hope as well
as I can, that you know your felf): How then
(hould I know who are of the fame Judgment with
you?
2. Yet I am very confident, that all they whom
you mention, are cf the fame in fome thing or
other > and in particular^ that we are Jujlified by
Faith, and not- by the Works of the haw, or any
Works in the fence denied by St. Paul, &c.
3. Do not I, with as great Confidence as you,
lay Claim to the fame Company and Concord ? And
if one of us be miftaken, muft your bare Word de-
termine which it is? Which of us hath brought
the fuller Proofs ? I jubferibe to the Do drine o f
the Church of En gland, as well as you h and my
Condition thefe thirteen or fourteen years, giveth
P 4 *5
v 15 J
•as' much Evidence, that I am loth to fubfcribe to
what I believe not, as yours doth of you. And
you that know which of my Books is the moft
Elaborate, fureknow, that in that Book which I
Wrote to explain thofe Aphorifms (called my
ConfeJJion) I cite the Words of above an Hundred
Troteftant Witneffes* that give as much to Wor\s as
I do ; And that; of this Hundred, one is the Au-
guftine Confeffion, one the Wtftminfter Synod, one
the Synod of Don, one the Church of England*
each one of which being Colle&ives, contain ma-
ny. (And here I tell you of more). And have
you brought more Witneffes ? Or any to the con-
trary > Did you Confute* or once take Notice of
any of thefe ?
4. Do yoii not here before yon are aware, let
your Reader know that it was, and ftill" is, in the
Dark, that you Alarm the World about our dan-
gerous Differences* and run to your Arms undreft,
before your Eyes are open ? Qui conveniunt in ali-
quo tertio* &c. They that agree with the Church
of England* in the Dodfrine of Juftification by
Faith,do fo far agree between themfelves : But Dr.
T'ullie* and R. B* do agree with the Church of
England^ in the Do&rine of Juftification by Faith.
Ergo. — - The Article referreth to the Homilies,
where it is more fully Explained.
5. May not I then retort your Argument, and
bid you {For fbame let it be no longer Bellarnine, and
R. B. hut the Church of England, and all the Re>*
formed, and R. B.^) ? Difprove the Witneffes twenty
years ago, produced by me in this very Caufe \ or
clfe fpeak out, and fay, \jthe Church of England,
and the reft of the Reformed, bold Juftification by
Wor\s*
( 17 )
tFcrks, jufi as Bellarmine and the Papijis do] which
is it which you would fallen on me, who agree
with them fas if you had never there read my
Anfwer to Mr. Crandon y obje&ing the fame
thin^). .
§. IV. Your Cenfure, pag. jo, n. of my
Windings* Clouds of Novel ViftinUions ', Preambles,
Limitations, &c. is juir fuch as your Treatife did
bid me exped : Till you become guilty of the fame
Crime, and fall out with Cstifufidp, and take not
. equivocal ambiguous Words unexplained, inftead
of Univocals, in the ftating of your Queftions,
I (hall never the more believe that Hannibal is at the
Gates, or the City on Fire, for your Allarms.
§. V. Pag* ii. Where you tell me, that [Xott
have no Profit by my Preface : I fhall not deny it, nor
wonder at it > you are the fitteft Judge : Where
you fay, that [I have no Credit,'] You do but tell
the World at what Rates you write. Honor eft in
bonorante. And have all my Readers already told
you their Judgment ? Alas ! How few ? In all
London, not a Man hath yet given me Notice of
his Diflike, or DifTent. And fure your own Pen
is a good Confuter of you. It is fome Credit, that
fuch a Man as you, is forced to profefs a full Con-
fent to the Doftrine, though with paffionate In-
dignation.
You tell me of [Nothing to the Queftion]. But
will you not be angry if I fhould but tell you,
how little you did to ft ate any Queftion,and in Rea-
fon muft be fuppofed , when you aflaulted my
Dodtrine,
Do6frine, to take it as I jtated it i which I have
fully (hewed you?
You tell me, that Tou Charged me only with new
Original Sin , underived from Adam , unknown*
unheard of before, in the Christian World.
Anfw. Ve re, is not our Guilt of nearer "Parent's
Sins fuch which you and all that you know (now
atlaft) confefs? Ve nomine, i. Tell the World if
you can, when I called it [New Original Sin, or
underived from Adam, or unknown, or unheard of ']•
There are more ways than one of Derivation
from Adam. It is not derived from him by fuch
Imputation as his fijrft Sin* but it is derived from
him as a -partial Caufa Caufe, by many Gradations.
AllSinisfome-way from him. Either you mean
that I faid, that it was not Derived from Adam, or
you gather it by fome Confequence from what I
faid. If the Firft, (hew the Words, and the Shame
(hall be mine. If not, you know the old Law,
that to falfe Accufers , it muft be done as they
would have done to the Accufed. But if it be
your Confequence, prove it, and tell the Worlds
what are the Premifes that infer it.
§. VI. Tag. 12. You friendly help me to pro-
fit by my felf, however you profefs that you profit
not by me ! What I have faid to you againft [Ha-
fty Judging]* I have firft faid to my (elf, and the
more you warn me of it, the more friendly you
are : If it be not againft fuch as you but my felf
it is againft my felf that I have a Treatife on
that Sub je£b but I begin to think my felf in this
more Seeing than you > for I fee it both in my felf
and you, and you fecm to fee it in me, and not in
your
(19)
yoyrfelf. But with all Men, I find, that to fee
the Spots in our own Face immediately is hard,
and to love the Glafs which fheweth them, is not
eafie i efpecially to fomc Men that neither are low,
nor can endure to be fo, till there is no Remedy.
But, Sir, how eafie a Way of Difputing have
you happily light on, Who inftead of Examining
the hundred Witneifes which I brought, and my
elfe-where oft proving the Dodhine oppofed by
jne to be Novell and Singular , do in few words
talk of your holding the VoRrine delivered to the
Saints^ and of the many Worthies that concur with
you , and of my pelting at their Heads-, and dragg-
ing them by the Hoary-heads, as a Speftacle and By-
rvord to all \ (by proving their confent by exprefs
Citations ) what Armies, and of what Strength
appear againfl me> whofe Names I defie and womd>
through yours ?
Anfxv, And is not he a weak Man that cannot
talk thus upon almoft any Subject ? But who be
thefe Men, and what he their Names > Or rather,
firft, rub your Eyes, and tell us what is the Con*
troverfie ? tully fometimes talkt at this rate in his
Orations, but verily much better in his Philofo-
phy.
And you fee no caufe to repent, but you blefs
Cod that you can again and again call to all Xouth y
that as they love the Knowledg of truth, they take
me not for an Oracle in my hold dividing Singula*
Titles'].
Anfo. That the Name of "truth is thus abufed,
is no News *, I would the Name of God were not ;
And I am forry, that you fee no Caufe to repent.
I am obliged to love you the better, for being
againlt
againft dividin£ Singularities in the general N0-
*fe/T, I hope if you kpew it, you would not be
for them , as in fingular Exigents* But; fure,
none at Oxford are in danger of taking me for an
Oracle ? This is another needlefs Work. So Span-,
hemius took that for a Singularity, which ValUus
in a large Catalogue, hath proved the Common
Judgment of the Church, till Contention of late
caufed fome Diflenters.
Will you ceafe thefe empty general Oftentations,
and choofe out any one Point of real;' Difference
between you and me about Juftification, and come
to a fair Trial , on whofe fide the Churches of
Chrift have been for 1500 years after Chrift i yea,
bring me but any two or one confiderable Per-?
(on, that was for a thoufand years for your Caufe
againft mine, and I will fay, that you have done
more to copfute me by far, than yet you have done*
and if two only be againft me, I will pardon you
for calling me Singular.
§. VII. Tag. 13, 14, 15. You again do keep up
the Dividing Fear? are offended that I perfwade
you, that by Melancholy Thantafms you fee not the
Churches together by the Ears, and make People be**
lieve that they differ, where they do not ; And you
ask, Who began the Fray ?
Anfop. 1. Do you mean that I began with you?
You do not fure : But is it that I began with the
Churches, and you were necejjitated to defend them ?
Yes, if G alius, Ambfdorfius, Schluffelburgius, and
Dr. Crijpe&nd his Followers, be the Church ? But,
Sir, I provoke you to try it by the juft Teftimony
of Antiquity* who began to differ from the Churches.
In
^ 21 )
In this Treatife I have given you fome Account,
and Vojjius hath given you more, which you can
never anfwer : But if my Dodtrine put you upon
this Neceffity, what hindred you from perceiving it
thefe twenty years and more, till now ? O Sir,
had you no other wort^ to do, but to Vindicate the
Church and Truth ? I doubt you had.
§. VIII. But pag. 15. You are again incredu-
lous, that I All the Difference betwixt yon and me^
or others of the fame Judgment in the Point of Jujli-
fication^ is meerly Verbal s and that in the Main we
are agreed^. And again you complain of your
ma\ Legs.
Anfa. 1. I do agree with very many againft
their mils in Judgment (becaule the Judgment may
be confirained)) but with none in Affetiion, as on
their part. Did I ever fay , that I differed not
from you ? I tell you, I know not what your Judg-
ment is, nor know I who U of your Mind > But
I have not barely faid, but oft proved, that
(though not the Antinomians) the Protectants are
moftly here agreed in the Main. If you could not
have time to read my larger Proof, that fhort Epi-
file to Mr. Alletfs Book of the Covenant, in which
I proved it , might have ftopt your Mouth from
calling for more Proof, till you had better con-
futed what was given.
But you fay , [Are perfett Contradictions no
more than a difference in Words ? Faith alone > and not
Faith alone ? Faith with and without Works f Ex-
cufe our Vulnefs here"]*
Anfw. 1. Truly, Sir, it is a tedious thing,
when a Man hath over and over Anfwered fuch
Ob-
( 22 )
Objections* yea, when the full Anfwers have beett
twenty years in Print, to be put ftill to fay oveir
all again, to every Man that will come in and fay,
that his Legs are too wea\ to go fee what was an*
fwered before : How many fcore times then, or
hundreds, may I be called to repeat.
2. If I mult pardon your Vitlnefs, you muft
pardon my Chr'iftianity (or chufe) who believe
that there is no fuch [jperfeB Contradictions'] be-
tween Chrift's, [By thy Words thoujhalt be Jufti-
fied] zndPauFs, [Juftified by Faith, without the
Works of the Law] or [not of Workj] > and James's
[We are juftified by Works , and not by Faitb
only]* Muft we needs proclaim War here, or cry
but, Here fie, ox Popery ? Are not all thefe Recon-
cileable? Yea, and Pauls too, Rom. 2. 'Ihe'Doeri
of the Law fh all be juftified.
3. But did I ever deny that it is [by Faith alone
and without Works] ? Where , and when ? But
may it not be, by Faith alone in one fenfe, and not
by Faith alone in another fenfe ?
4* But even where you are fpeaking of it, you
cannot be drawn to diftinguifh of Verbal and Real
Differences 6 , Is it here the Words, or Senfe, which
yoa accufe * The Wcrds you dare not deny to be
Gods own in Scripture, fpoken by Ghrift, Paul, and
James* My Senfe I have opened to you at large,
and you take no Notice of it* but as if you abhor-
red Explication and Viftinftion 7 fpeak ftill againft
the Scripture Words*
§.. IX. Pag- 16. But you fay, [Let any difcern**
ing Reader compare the 48 §• of this Preface with
the Words in pag* 5. of your Appeal to the Light j
and
1*3)
and *tislihglybe will concur with me, in thatAfc-
lancholy Phantafm , or Fear : For 'tis worth the
noting , bow in that dar\ Appeal where you diftin-
guifh of Popijb Points, i. e. fome-where the Difference
is reconcile able , others in effeCt but in words > we
have no Direction upon which Kank^we muft befiow
J unification, nothing of it at all from you, Name or
Thing : But why, next te the All-feeing God, you
fhould kyow befl your fe if\
Anfvp. Alas, Sir, that God (hould be in fuch a
manner mentioned ! I anfvvered this fame Cafe at
large in my Confcflion.Apologie, Difputeof Juftifi-
cation, &c. Twenty years ago, or near* I have
at large Opened it in a Folio (Cathol. Theol.) which
you faw, yea, in the very part which you take
Notice of * and now you publilh it [worth the No-
ting, that I did not aljo in one Jheet of *Paper, Printed
the other day againft a Calumnieof fotne Sectarian
Hearers, who gave me no Occafion for fuch a work.
Had it not been a Van:'/ of me, Should I in that
fheet again have repeated, how I and the Papifls
differ about Juftification ? Were you bound to have
read it in that fheet,any more than in many former
Volumns ? It's no matter for me S But I ferioufly
befeechyou, be hereafter more fober arid juft, than
to deal with your Brethren, the Church snd
Truth, in fuch a manner as this ! But by this Talk
I fufpedt, that you will accufe me more for open-
ing no more of the Difference in this Book. Bur,
I. It is enough for to open my own Meaning, and
I am not obliged to open cuier Mens : And my
own I have opened by (b many Repetitions, info
many Books, as nothing but fuch Mens Importuni-
ty and objtruGcd Minds , could have Excuftd.
2. The
by their own Writings, than by mine : The Coun-
cil of irenty telleth it you: What need I recite it?
g. I tell you again, as I did in my Confeflion, that
I had rather all the Papifts in the World agreed
with us, than difagreed : I like a Dodhine the
better, and not the worfe, becaufe all the Chrifti-
an World confenteth to it. I am not ambitious
to have a Religion to my felf, which a Papift doth
not own. Where they differ, I am forry for it :
And it pleafeth me better, to find in any Point
that we are agreed , than that we differ. Nei-
ther you, nor any fuch as you, by crying [0 Po*
fifh! Antichriftim]'] (hall tempt me to do by the
Papifts, as the Vominicans,znd Janfenifis, and fome
Oratorians, do by the Calvinifts: I will "not with
Alvarez, Arnoldus, Gibieuf, &c. make the World
believe, that my Ad verfaries are much further from
me than they are,for fear of being cenfured by Fafti-
bn, to be one of them. If I would have been of
a Church-Fadtion, and fold my Soul to pleafe a
party, I would have begun before now, and ta-
ken a bigger Price for it, than you can offer me
if you would.
Pag, 17. You fay, [Pile one Difthttion or Eva-
sion on another ■, as long as you fleafes as rtiany fe-
ver al Faiths, andWorkj) and J unifications, as you-
can name all this will never make two Poles
meei\.
Anfo. And do you cry out for War in the Dark-
nefs of Confufion, as long as you will, youfhall
never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptifm*
and Lift my felf under the grand Enemy of Love
and Gmcord) nor to Preach up Hatred and Vivifion,
fox
lor nocning,as in me iName or ^nrut. it you will
handle fuch Controverfies, without Viftinguijhing
of Faiths, Worlds, and Juftifications^ I will never
perfwadeany Friend of mine to Be your Pupil, or
Difciple. Then Simon Magufs faith, and the De-
vils faith, and Peters faith muft all pafs tor the
fame, and juftifie accordingly. Then indeed, Be-
lieving in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoft,
yea, and Chrift, as our Teacher, King and Judg,
&c muft pafs for the Works by which no Man is
Juftified ! If Viflinftion btunfound, detedt the Er-
ror of it ; If not, it is no Honour to a difputhig
Dodlor to reproach it.
§• X. But/wg.17. you fet upon your great unde-
ceiving Work, to (hew the evil of ill ufwg Words :
[Words (you fay) as they are enfranchised into Law*
guage, are but the Agents and Fafiors of things, far
which they continually negotiate with our Minds,
conveying Errands on all occafions, &c. (Let them
mark, that charge the vanity and bombaft of Meta-
phors on others, one word \Signa] fhould have
ferved our turn inftead of all this). [Whence it
follow /-> that their ufe and Signification is Unaltera-
ble, hut by the ft amp of the like publick^ nfage and
impofition from whence at firft they received their be-
ing, &C.3
Anfa* JuniorsJN'iW not fuch deceiving Words
fave you from my Deceits ? But, 1. Is there a L#»>,
and unalterable Law for the fenfe of Words? In-
deed, the Words of the facred Text muft have no
new Senfe put upon them. 2. Are you fure that
it was Fublicl^ ufage, and Impofnim from whence
they firft received their being ? How (hall we know
Q^ that
\iiai iwcy grew uui miu puuuiiv uit uuui uuc mans
fir ft Invention, except thofe that (not Publicly ufe^
but) God Himfelf made? 3. Are you fure that
all or moft Words now, Latine or Englijh, have
the fame, and only the fame ufe or fenfe, as was
put upon them at the firft ? Is the change of the
fenfe of Words a Orange thing to us ? 4, But
that which concerneth our Cafe moft, is, Whether
there be many Words either of Hebrew and Greeks
in the Scripture , or . of Latine , Englijh, or any
common Language, which have no,t many Signifi-
cations ? Your Reputation forbids you to deny it.
And fhould not thofe many Significations be di-
ftinguiflied as there is Caufe? Are not Faith,
Workg, Juft , Juftice, Jujhfication^ words of di-
vers fenfes in the Scripture ? and do not common
Writers and Speakers ufe them yet more varioufly >
And (hall a pifputer take on him, that thearpor
figpification of each is but one % ottrpoy or is £o fixed
that there needcth no diftin&ion > 5, Is the change
that is made in all Languages in the World, made
by the fame publick ufage and impofition,
from which at firft they received their be-
ing? 6* If fas you fay) the fame thing can be re-
frefented by different words, only vphenthey are Sy*
nonymout, ihould we not avoid feeming to repre-
sent the fame by Equivocals, which unexplained are
unfit for it ?
Pag* 20. You tell me what fadwor\ you are do-
ing* and no wonder, Sin and Paflions are felf.
troubling things : And it's well if it be fad to your
(elf alone, and net to fuch as you tempt into Mis-
takes, Hatred, and Divifion. It fhould be fad to
every Chriftian, to fee and hear thofe whom they
are
are bound to Love , reprefented as odious : And
you are ftill, pag. 19. feigning, that [Every eye
may jee Men dealing Blows and Deaths about, and
therefore we are not wife if we thinkjhem agreed*
But doubtlefs, many that feem killed by fuch
Blows as fome of yours, are dill alive ? And ma-
ny a one is in Heaven, that by Divines pretending
to be Orthodox* were damned on Earth! And
many Men are more agreed than they were aware
of. I have known a Knavifh Fellow let two Per-
fons of quality on Fighting, before they fpake a
word to one another, by telling them fecretly and
falily what one faid againft the other. Many dif-
fer, even to perfecutingand bloodshed, by fl^i/Zand
Paffion and PraUice, upon a falfly fuppofed great-
difference in Judgment. I will not fo fuddenly re-
peat what Proof I have given ot fome of this in
the place you noted, Cath TheoU Confer, n, 12,
& 13. There is more skill required to narrow
differences, than to widen them > and to reconcile*
than to divide \ as there is to quench a Fire, than
to kindle it j to build , than to full down * to
heal-, than to wound.
I prefume therefore to repeat aloud my contrary
Cautions to your Juniors.
Young-Men, after long fad Experience of the fin-
ful and miferable Contentions of the Clergie , and
confequently of the Chrifiian florid , that you may
efcape the Guilt, J befeech you, whoever coutradi-
Seth it, co-nfider and believe thefe following Notices :
I. That all Words are but arbitrary Signs, and are
changed as Men pleafe '> and through the Penury of
them* and Mans imperjeftion in the Art of Speak;
Q^2 i%,
.(*8)
ing, *kr? <*r£ zwj> few at all, that have not various
Significations.
2. "that this Speakjng-Art requirethfo much time
andfiudy y and all Men are fo defective in it, and the
variety of Mens skill in it is fo very great, that no
Men in the World do perfeSly agree in their inter-
pretation and uje of Words. The doleful plague of
the Confufion of Tongues, doth (till hinder our
full Communication, and maketh it hard for us to
underftand Words our felves, or to be underftood
by others^ Sox Words muft have a three- fold apti-
tude of Signification, i. To fignifie the Matter,
2. And the Speakers conceptions of it. 3. And this
as adapted to the hearers Mind, to make a true
Impre/Iion there.
3. That God in Mercy hath not made Words fo
neceflary as Things, nor neceffary but for the fake
of the Things : If God, Chrift, Grace, and Heaven,
be known, believed, and duly accepted, you {hall
be faved by what Words foever it be brought to
pafs.
4. Therefore Real Fundamentals, or Necejfaries
to Salvation, are more eafily defined than Verbal
met: For more ox fewer Words, thefe or other
Words are needful to help fome Perfons, to Faith,
and Love , and Holinefs , as their Capacities are
different.
5. But as he that truly believeth in, and giveth
up himfelf to God the Father , Son , and Holy
Ghoft, according to the fenfe of the Baptifinal
Covenant* is a true Chriftian, to be loved, and
ftall be faved) fo he that underftandeth fuch\
Words, \% help him to that true Faith and Confent,\
doth know fo much of the Verbal part, as is of ne-
ceflity
ceflity to his Chriftianity and Salvation.
6* And be that is fitch, holdeth no Hetefie or Er-
ror inconfijlent with it : If he truly love God, it's a
contradiction to fay, that he holdeth an Error incon-
fijlent with the Love of God.
7. "therefore fee that you Love all fuch as Cbrifti-
ans, till fome proved or notorious inconfiftents nulli-
fying his ProfeJJion difoblige you.
8. Take your felves to be neither of Roman, or
any other Church as Vniverfal, which is lefs than
the Vniverfality of all Chrijlians headed by Chriji
alone.
9. Make this Love of all Chrijiians the fecond
fart of your Religion, and the Love of God, of Chrifi,
of Holinefs and Heaven, the firjl > and live thus i n
the ferious practice of your Covenant, even of Simple
Chrijtianity : For it's this that will be your Peace,
in Life and at Death.
io # And if Men of various degrees of Learning
(or Speaking- skill) and of various degrees of Holt-
nefs , Humility , and Love , fliall quarrel about
Words, and forms of Speech , and fit all bereticate,
and revile, and damn each other, while the Effentials
are beldfa(t and pradifed, difcern Right from Wrong
as well as you cans but take heed that none of them
make Words a fnare , to draw you irjurioujly to
thinly hatefully of your Brother, or to divide the
Churches, or Servants of Chriji : And fufpett fuch a
Snare becaufe of the great ambiguity of Words, and
imperfettion rf Mans Skill and Honejiy in all Mat-
ters of debate: And never difpute ferioufy, with-
out firji agreeing of the Senfe of every doubtful term
with him that you Difpute witlf] %
Q^3 Dr.
( $o)
Dr. 2W/ji's Allarm , and other Mens militant
Courfe, perfwaded me as a Prefervative, to com-
mend this Counfel to you.
§. XT. fag. 19. You next very jufty commend
tMethod, ordering^ and exprejjing our Conceptions,
of which f you fay) I feem to make little account
in Comparifon]*
Anfw. 1. Had you faid, that I had been unhap-
py in my Endeavours, your Authority might have
gone for Proof with many : But you could fcarce
have fpokjen a more incredible word of me , than
that I feem to make little account of Method, I
look for no fharper Cenfure from the Theological
Tribe, than that I Over-do in my 'Endeavours after
Method* You fhall not tempt me here unfeafbna-
bly, to anticipate what Evidence I have to pro-
duce for my acquittance from this Accufation.
2. But yet I willftill fay, that it isnotfone-
ceflary either to Salvation , or to the Churches
Peace, that we all agree in Methods and Exprejjions,
as that we agree in the hearty reception of Chrift,
and obedience to His Commands ? So much Me-
thod all muft know, as to know the Beginning and
the End, from the EffeBs and Means, God from
the Creature, and as our true confent to the Bap-
tifmal Covenant doth require > and I will thank-
fully ufe all the help which you give me to go fur-
ther : But I never yet faw that Scheme of Theolo-
gie, or of any of its Heads, which was any whit
large, (and I have feen many) which was fo exa<3:
in Order, as that it was dangerous in any thing
to forfake it. But I cannot think meet to talk
much of Method, with a Man that talketh as you
do
do oi'DijlinguiJhing^ and handieth the bodirine,
of juftification no more Methodically than you
do/
>
«
§. XII. Btit/ug. ip. youinftance in the differ-'
ence between Proteftants and Papifts , about the
NeceJJity of Good works, which is voids in refpeU of.
the placing or ranking of them > viz. T^hs one ftr etch-
ing it to the firfl Juftification, the other not, but con*
fining it to its. proper ranh^ and province of Inherent
Holinefs^ where it ought to keep~] t
Anfxv. Wonderful ! Have you that have fo loud-
ly called to me to tell how I differ about Juftifica-
tion, brought your own, and as you fay, the Pro-
teftants difference to this > Will none of your
Readers fee now, who cometh nearer them, yon
or I >
i. Is this diftin&ion our proof of your accu-
ratenefs in Method, and Order , and Exprejjion ?
What meaneth a diflindiion between £ Firft-Ju-
ftification,"] and [Inherent Hvlinefs"]? Do you dif-
ference them §htoad ordinem, as Firft and Second f
But here is no Second mentioned : Is it in the na-
ture of the things [Juftification, and Inherent Ho-
linefs']? What figniheth the [Firft'] then? But
Sir, how many Readers doycuexpedi who know
not, I. That it is not to the Firft Juftification at
all, but to that which they call the Second or In-
creafe^ that the Church of Rome afferteth the ne-
ceijity or ufe of Mans meritorious Works? Sec
what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath.
*tbeol. Lib. 2. Confer* 13. pag. 267. &c* faving
that fome of them are for fuch Preparatives as
fome call Merit of Congruity, and as our Englifh
Q^4 Divines
( It )
Divines do conftantly preach for, and the Synod
of Don at large affert \ though they difown the
name of Merits as many of the Papifls do. They
ordinarily fay with Aufline, Bona opera fequuntur
JujiificatHm, non pr&cedunt Juftificandum.
2. But, I hope, the word [FirjV] here over-
flipt your your Pen, inftead of [Second] : But fup-
pofeitdid fo : What's the difference between the
Papijis firjl or fecond Jujiification, and the Prote-
ctants Inherent Holinefs ? None that ever I heard
or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papijis take
Jujiification for Inherent Holinefs ? And is this the
great difference between Papijis and Protejiants,
which I amfo loudly accufed for not acknowledg-
ing ? viz. Tthe Tapijis place Good-Worty before Ju-
ftification-i that is, Inherent Holinefs '» and the Pro-
teftants more rightly place them before Inherent Holt*
nefs ? Are you fcrious, or do you prevaricate ?
The Papijis and Protectants hold, that there are
fame Duties and common Grace, ufpally preparatory
to Conversion ( or SandHfication ) i which fome
Papifts (de nomine) call Merit of Congruity, and
fome will not. The Papijis and Protejiants fay,
that Faith is in order of nature, at leaft, before that
Habitual Love, which is called Holinefs, and be-
fore the Works thereof. The Papijis and Protejiants
fay, that Worlds of Love and Obedience, follow our
Firft San&ification, and make up but the Second
part of it, which confifteth in the Work/ ef Holi-
n?fs. If you fpeak not of Workj in the fame fenfe
in each part of your AiUgnation, the Equivocation
would be toogrofs, viz. If youfhould mean [Pa-
pijis ra?i\ the necejjity of preparatory Common Works,
or the Internal ah of Faith, or Love, ftr etching it
to
( 33)
to the Firft Justification » and Proteftants ran\ other
Worlds, viz. 'the fruits of Faith and Love , with
Inherent Holinefr. All agree, i. That Common
JVor^s go before Sanftification. 2. That Internal
Love, and other Grace, do conftitute Sandification
in the Firft part of it. 3. That Special Worlds
proceeding from Inward Grace, are theeffedte of
the Firft Part, and the conftitutive Caufes of the
Second Part of San<5tification > as the word ex-
tendeth alfoto Holinefs of Life: And whilft Pa-
pifts take Juftification for Sanfiification, in all this
there is Ve re no difference. (But your accurate
Explications by fuch terms, as [Stretching, Con-
firming, Province, &c]] are fitter for 7»//y, than
for Arijlotle).
And is this it in the Application that your Zeal
will warn Men of, that we muft in this take heed
of joyning with the Papifts ? Do you mean [Ran^
Good-Workj with Inherent Holinefs, and not with
the Firjl SanBification, and youthen do widely dif-
fer from the Papi(ls~\? Will not your Reader fay,
i. What doth Inherent Holinefs differ from the Firft
S anUiftcation ? 2. Do you not invite me thws herein
to be a Papift , when they rank them no where
but, as you fay, the Proteftants do? 3. Do not
you here proclaim, that Papifts and Proteftants dif-
fer not about the neceflity of Good-works to Ju-
ftification ? But yet I that would make no Differ-
ences wider than they are, can find fome greater
than you have mentioned.
Truly Sir, I am grieved and afhamed, to fore-
fee how Learned Papifts will make merry with
fuch Paffages \ and fay, See here how we differ from
the Proteftants I See what it is for, that the Prote-
ctant
(34)
ft ant TkUors feparate from the Church ef Rome J
viz. Becaufe we make Good-Works necejfary to the
Firji Juftification y wbicb unlefs equivocally Spoken,
irfalfe i and becdufe the Protectants ran\ them with
Inherent Holinefs, as we d be-
fides the ftnfulnefs-, of pretending that any dif-
ferences among Chriftians, are greater than indeed
they are.
But may not I think that you take the word
[Juftification] here in the Proteftant Senfe , and
not in the fapifts , when you fay that they ranj^
Good- worths -necejfity as firetcht to the Firfi Juftifi-
cation? No fure : For, i. Protectants u(e notto
diftingnifhof a Firfi and S^cW Justification, which
Papiftsdo, but of Juftification as Begun*, Continu-
ed, and Confummate. 2. If it were fo, it were not
true: For the Firft Juftification in the Proteftant
Senfe, is our firfi right to Impunity and Life Eter-
naU freely given to Believer j, for the Merits of Cbrifts
perfett Rigbteovfnefs and Satisfaction* And Papifts
do not make Good-works ( unlefs Equivocally fo
called) neceffary to this i but as a Fruit to fol-
low it*
As
(an
As for Remiflton of Sin y I have elfe- where pro-
ved, i. That moft commonly by that word the
Papifts mean nothing , but that which we call
Mortification^ or Putting away, or deftroying the
Sin it fellas to the habit and ceafing the A&.2.Thac
moft of them are not refolved, where the Remifji-
on of the Punijhment (which Proteftants call Re
mijjion of Sin , or Forgivenefs) (hall be placed;
They differ not much as to its time, but whether
it be to be called any part of Jujiification : Some
fay, yea > feme make it a di\i intt thing. Moft de-
fcribe Jujiification by it felf, as confining in our/
Remiffion of, or Deliverance from Sin it felf, and
the infufed habit of Love or Righteoufnefs
(all which we call San&ification), and the forgive-
nefs of the Penalty by it felf, not medling with the
Queftion, whether the latter be any part of the
former * fo much are they at a lofs in the Notional
part among themfelves. But they (and we) di-
ftinguifh of Forgivenefs, as we diitinguifh of Pe-
nalties : We have a right to Impunity as to ever-
lafting Damnation, upon our firft being Juftified >
but our Right becometh afterward more fully and
many other Penalties are after to be remitted.
§. XIII. Pag. 20. In my 4.2. Direff. for the Cure
of Church-divifions, telling the Weak whom they
muft follow, I concluded, 1. that the neceffary
Articles of Faith muji be made our own, and not
taken meerly on the authority of any \ and we muji
in all fuch things of abfolute necefuy kfep company
with the Vniverfal Church* 2. that in Matters of
Peace and Concord the greater part muji be our
Guide. 3. that in Matters of humane Obedience^
eur
( 3* )
our Governours tnuft be our Guides* And, 4. Ju
Matters of high and difficult Speculation, the judg-
ment of one Man of extraordinary Undemanding and
Cleamefs, is to be preferred before the Rulers and the
major Vote. I inftanced in Law, Philofophy, Phyfick^
Languages,- &rc and in the Controverts of the Ob-
jeft of Predefttnation, the nature of the WilPs Li-
berty > Divine Concourfe, the determining way of
Grace-, of the definition of Justification, Faith, &o^
Here I was intreated before God and my Consciences
to feafch myfelf, with what Defign or Intent I wrote
this, and to tell you, Who that One is, that we
may kpow whom to prefer, and to whom, in the Do-
Urine of Jujiification, &c.
Anfxv. How greatly do you diftionour your felf,
(ind then you will impute it tome) byinfifting
on fuch palpably abufive Paflages ? Had you not
been better, havefilently paft it by > 1. Doth not
the World know , that Heathens and Chriftians,
Papifts and Proteftants, are Agreed on this gene-
ral Rule ? 2. And will you make any believe that
Definition of J unification \$ none of thefe Wor\s
of Art, which depend on humane Skill ? How
then came you to be fo much better at it than I ?
I find not that you afcribe it to any fpecial Reve-
lation which you have. And if you fhould afcribe
it to Piety y and fay, Hoc non eft Artis, fed Pietatis
opus : I would go to many a good Woman before
you. Nor do you plead general Councils, nor the
Authority of the Church. 3. And what fobex
Scholar will you make believe , that by laying
down this common Rule, I fignifie fome One fin-
gular Perfon , as an Individuum determinatum .
whom'
< 37)
whom therefore I muft acquaint you with?
Thefe things are below a Grave Divine.
Pag* 21. Where you called me to ferioufnefs or
diligence in my feat ch y and I told you by what, and
how many Writings, I havemanifefted my almoft
thirty years Diligence in this Controverfie, and that
I am now grown paft more ferious and diligent
Studies y that I might (hew you what a trifling
way it is, for a Man to wrangle with him that
hath written fo many things, to tell the World
what his ftudiesof this Point have been, and never
to touch them, but to call him z-neu> to ferious di-
ligence : You now expoftulate with me, whether
you accufed me for want of diligence 2 I talk not of
Accnfing, but I tell you, that I have done my beft s
and that it were a poor kind of dealing with your
felf , if you had written againft many, as you
have done againft me twenty five years ago, and
very often, if inftead of taking any notice of your
Labours , I fhould call you now to diligent
Studies,
As for your Leffon, pag. 22. that tumbling over
many Books without meditation^ may breed but Cru*
dities &c. It is very true, and the calamity of
too many of the literate Tribe, who think that
they have deferved Credit and Reverence , when
they fay the words which others, whom they
would be joyned with, have faid before them :
Want of good Digeftion is a common Difcafe of
many that never complain of it, nor fed any pre-
fent trouble by it.
Pag. 22, 23. You infinuate that about Retrafta*
thn, which I before detedted ; I told you when,
and where , I Sufpended or Retraced the Book,
and
r 3» )
and for what Reafbns, and you prefently feign a
Retractation of the Do&rine , and of about fixty
Books of Retra&ions.
It's well that pag. 23. you had the juftice not
to juftifie your [Nee dubito quin imputatam Chri[\i
juftitiam incluferit] i But to confefs your In juftice,
was too much : It is not your own Retraftation that
you are for, itfeems.
§. XIV. Tag. 23,24. You talk as if my fup-
polingthat both [Jttfiice] and [Imputation"], are
capable of Definitions which are not the Things,
were a Fallacy, becaufe [or] is a disjunctive* viz*
When I fay that the Definition of the one, or the
other, is not the 'Thing. Do you grant it of them
Disjunctively , and yet maintain the contrary of
them Conjunct? Yes, you fay, [Imputed Juftice
cannot differ from its true definition^ unlefs you will
have it to differ really from itfelf]. And, pag. 34.
you fay, [I am ajhamedyou (hotild thus over and
over expofe your felf as if fappofing (Definiti-
ons) true, they were not the fame Re, with the De-
finitum.- — . Good Sir, talj^what you pleafe in pri-
vate, tofucb as underftand not what you fay, and let
them give you a grand 2o but
you may do well to ufe more Civility to the reafon of a
Scholar , though he hath not yet worn out his Frejh-
mans Gown].
Anfo. This is no light or jefting Matter : The
comfort of Souls dependeth on iu I fee feme Men
expect that Reverence of their Scholarship Ihould
give them great advantage : But if one argued
thus with me for Tranfubftantiation, I would not
rum to him, to efcape the Guilt of Incivility.
If
^ 39 J
If the Definition, and the Definitum, as in que-
ftion now, be the fame "thing , wo to all the Un-
learned World, and wo to all Frcthmen, that yet
have not learnt well to define ; and wo to all
Divines that differ in their Definitions, except thofe
that are in the right.
I know that a Word and a Mental Conception,
are not Nothing: They may be called things, but
when we diftinguifh the things from their Signs,
Names , or Definitions , we take not the word
[things'] fo laxly, as to comprehend the faid Signs,
Names, &c. When we fay, that the thing defined
is neceffary, but to be able to Define it, cr a&ually
to Define it, is not necelTary (to Salvation) it is
notorious that we take Definition (as Defining)
actively, as it is Attus definientis ; and Definire fare
is not the fame with the thing defined. I have
heard before your Letter told me, that Definitum
& definitio idem funt : But, I pray you, let us not
quibble almoft all the World under a fentence of
Damnation, As long ago as it is fince I read fuch
words, I remember our Matters told us, (I think
Schibler in his topickj for one ) that when they
are taken Pro ter minis Logicis definitio & definitum
non funt idem ', but only when they are taken Pro
rebus per eos terminos [ignificatis\ and that there
they differ in {JModo fignificandi efientiam, the defi-
nitum fignifying the EJfence confufedly, and theZ>-
finition difiinUly. If you will take the Res definita,
for that which is fhi&ly nothing but Rei concepts
inad which our
Cafe diftinguiflieth.
But Sir, I crave your leave, to diftinguifh #£•
al objeftive Beings , from, I. The Knowledg.
2, and the Names, and other Logical Organs, by
which we know them, and exprefs our knowledg
of them : God , Chrift , Grace , Glory , Pardon,
Juftification, Sandlification, the Gofpel-Dodfrine,
Precept , Promifes, Faith, Hope , Love , Obedi-
ence, Humility, Patience, &c. are the Res definite
in
(40
in our Cafe, not as they are in effe ccgnito, of iri
the notion or idea of them, but in effe reali. To
Define ptoperly, is either, i. ^Mentally to con
ceive of thefe things, 2. or Exprefpvely, to fig-
nifie fueh Conceptions agreeably to the nature of the
things known, or Expreffively defined : Which is,
if the Definition be perfed, under the notions of a
Genus 9 and Differentia* The Definition as in
IVords, is but a Logical Organ* (as Names are alio
; Notifying figns) : Mental defining, is but the faid di-
fiinh tyovpledg of the thing defined, and is neither
really the "thing it J elf \ nor ufually of neceflity to
the Thing : Which two, I fnall prove diftindtly as
t© the fenfe of pur. Cafe.
1. The Definition of Juftification, is either oue
Diftinti knowledge ox Ex predion of it : Juftificati-
on is not our Vijlinfit kgorvledg, or Exprefiion of its
Therefore the Definition of Juftification, and Ju-
ftification, are not the fame.
. Juftification In fenfu aUivo , is not an A& of
God, and In fenfu pajjivo^ is the Relative ftate o£
Man thereby effe&ed : But the Definition of Jufti-
fication is neither*
The Definition of Juftification, is a work of
Art i but juftification is a Work of Grace.
A wicked damnable Man, or a damned Devil,
may define Juftification, and fo have the Definition
of it 5 but not Juftification it felf.
The Definition of Juftification , Faith , Love,
&c* is Quid Logicum? but Jutlificatiori , Faith,
Love, &c\ are things Phyfical and Moral..
A Man is Juftified (or hath Chrilts Righteoufne(s
imputed to him) in his fleep, and when he think-
R ttti
( 4* )
cth not of it \ but he hath not the Aftive defi-
nition o( Juftitication in his deep, &c.
Other things be not the fame Really &ith their
Definition, therefore neither is Juftification> Faith,
&c.
The Sun is not really the fame thing with a De-
finition of the Sun*, nor Light, Heat, MotioDj
&c* A Brute can fee, talk, feel , fenjp , that
cannot define them. If you have a Bifhoprick,
becaufe you define a Eifhopiick , or have a Lord-
ihip, a Kingdom, Health, &c. becaufe you can
define them, your Axiome hath flood you in good
Head.
The Definition is but Explicatio rei : But Rei
explicatio mn eji ipja res.
individuals (fay moft) are not Definable: But
nothing is truly Res, but Individuals. Vniverfals
as they are in the Mind, are exijlent Individual ABs^
Cogitations ■, Nations: As they zttout of the Mind^
they arc nothing but Individuorum quid intelli-
gibile.
The Definition of Learning, of a Dodtor, &c.
may be got in a day : If Learning and Do&orfhip
may be fo, what ufelefs things are Univerfities and
Eooks >
Perfwade a hungry Scholar, that he hath Meat
and Drink * or the Ambitious, that he hath Pre-
ferment j or the Covetous, or Poor, that he hath
Money, becaufe he hath in his Mind, or Mouth,
the Definition of it j and quibble him into fatisfa-
drion by telling him,that Vefinitio & definitmnfunt
id°m re. We know and exfrejs things narrowly by
Names, and largely and dijiin&ly by Definitions :
The Definition here, is Explicatio nominiiy (as Ani-
mal
v 43 ;
tftal rationale, of the name Homo) \ and both Nam*
and Definition, as they aire Verha mentU vel crii,
or Verborum figmficatio, are Tardy clivers from the
things named and defined, known and exprtfTed - y
unlets by the thing you mean only the Knowledge
or Notion of the Thing.
Therefore though Cui comment defimtio eidem
quoq* competit definitum, & contra, & quod convenit
definitioni convenit definito : Yet fay not that Im-
puted Righteoufnefs in Re , is the fame with the
^Definition, as it is the Defineirj z&.
By this time you have helpt Men to underftand
by an Inftance, why St. Paul fo much warncth
Chriftiaus to take heed left any deceive them by
vain Philosophy, even by Sophiftry, and abufed ar-
bitrary Notiorts.
Remember, Sir, that our Cafe is of grand Im-
portance j As it is (fated in my Dirett. 42. which
you aflfeulted ', it is \jVhether if the ghtefiion were
of the ObjeU of Predestination, of the nature of the
WilVs liberty , Divine conconrfe, and determining
way of Grace, of the Definition of Justification,
Faithy &c. a few well ftudied Divines are not here
to be preferred before Authority, and the major Vote-*
Such are my. words. 1 aifcrt, 1. That the Defi-
ning of JujVtfication, Faith, &c. is a work of Art.
2. And I have many and many times told the
World (which you feem to .ftr'ike at) that Chrr-
ftians do not differ fo much in their Real concepti-
ons of the Matter, as they do in their Definitions.
1. Becaufe Definitions are made itp of Ambiguous
irords, whofe Explication they are not agreed in :
and almoft all Words arc ambiguous till explained >
and atnbiguous Words are not fit to dctine , or
R 2 be
H.
( 44 )
be defined!, till explained. And, 2. Becaufeboth
fclcdlng fit terms, and explaining them, and Or-
dering them, are works of Art , in which Men
are unequal h and there is as great variety of In-
telle6Uial Conceptions , as of Faces. 3. And I
have often faid, That a Knoxvledg intuitive y or a
Simple apprehension of a thing as Senfate, or an
Internal experience, or Refleft aft , and a general
notion of fomc thi.ngs,may prove the truth of Grace,
and fave Souls, and make us capable of Chriftian
Love and Communion, as being true faving Know-
ledg. 4. And confequently I have often faid y
that many a thoufand Chriftians have Faith ,
Hope , Vefire, Love, Humility, Obedience, Judi-
cation, Adoption, Union with Chriji, who c4n de-
fine none of thefe : Unlefs you willTpeak equivo-
cally of Definition it felf, and fay as good Melan-
Uhon, and as Gutberleth, and fome other Romifts,
that Not it i a intuitiva eft definitio , who yet fay
but what I am fiyitfg, when they add, \_Vel fd-
tem inftar defiwionis^. If all are without Faith,
Love, Jufiification, Adoption , who cannot give a
true Definition of them, how few will be faved ?
How much more then doth Learning to Mens fal-
vation, than Grace ? And Ariftotle then is not fo
far below Paul , or the Spirit of Chrift , as we
Quftly) believe, :
The Cafe is fo weighty and palpable, that you
have nothing to fay> but as you did about the Guilt
of our nearer Parents fins, to yield all the
Caufe, raid with a paffionate clamour to tell Men
that I miftake you, or wreft your words ; of which
I fhall appeal to every fobcr Reader, that will pe-
>ufc the words of mine which you affault, and yours
as
C 45T )
as they are an Arivver to mine.
In a word, you go about by the abufc of a tri-
vial Axiome of Definitions, i. To fentence molt
Chrillians to Hell, and call them into Dtfperation,
as wanting the Grace which they cannot define.
2. And to defiroy Chriitian Love and Concord,
and tear the Church into as many Shreds, as there
be diveriities of Definitions ufed by theip. 3. And
you would tempt us to think much hardlier of your
(elf, than we muft or will do i as if yom Fait h>
Juftification, &c. were unfound, becauie your De-
finitions are fo.
I know that Vnim rei una tanturn eft Vefimih %
(peaking, 1. Not of the "terms , but the Senfo
2. And fuppofingthat Definition to be perfectly tiuej
that is, the truth oi Intellection and Expreffivt con-
(ifting in their congvuuy to the Thing i> while the
thing is one a;nd the fame , the conception and ex-
predion which is perfectly true, muit be fo too.
But, 1. Our understandings are all imperfed, and
we know nothing perfectly but Secundum quxdam >
and Zanckez faith truly, that Nihil fcitur, if we
call that only Knowledg which is perftU: And con-
(equently no Mental Definition is perfed. 2. And
Imperfedions have many degrees. 3. And our
Terms, which make up that which ycu know I
called a Definition in my Dir. +2. (as it is in words)
are as aforefaid, var'mis, mutable, and variouily
underftood and ufed.
§. XV. Yag m 24. Again you are at it, [iVhom
do you mem by that one rare Tcrfon, vrhfe fwgle
Judgment U to be preferred in tfye point of Jvjhfica-
tion } and to wbomy
R 3 M™>
( 4 and that thefe
words [One Man of extraordinary underjianding and
clearnefs), (is to be -preferred before the Rulers and
major Vote, in difficult fpeculations) do fignifie one
individuum determination in the World,and that the
Speaker is bound to name the Man. No one that
thinketh that Pemble^ho in his Vind.GratJnzxh al-
npft the very fame words, faid well, and that I
who repeat them, am as criminal as you pretend :
$o one who either knoweth not, that almoft all
the World (even Papifts) agree in this Rule, or
that thinketh his judgment fit herein to bear them
all down : No one who , when his abufes are
brought into the open Sun-fhine, will rather accufe
the Light than repent.
5ut, pag. 25. After fome words to jeer away
Conyidion, you cell me, \jVt mnji have fome bet-
ter account of you , quern quibus , than what
you have given us yet. I Jhall take leave to prefent
cur indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and
truer ; ]late cf the Queffion,' far more fuit able both to
my -plain meaning" and the clear purport of your Di~
region. ' Let the Cafe be this \ 'there is One who of
late hath raifed much duft among us, about the grand
Article of Juftification '•> ' Whether it be by Faith
without Works, or by Faith andlFuPkj too ? All our
old Remwned Divines on this fide and btyond the
$eas are unanimoujly agreed, that purification is by
fdt u dotted i. e. without Worbj. %his one Perfon
hath
hath often publijhed bis Judgment to the contrary — -
Jo that a poor Academical Uocior may very rationally
enquire cf you, Who in this caje is to be frefrred I
that one, or tbofe many ?
Anfvp. There was a Difputant who would un-
dertake to conquer any Aclverfary : When he was
asked, How f He Gid he would pour out upon
him fomany and fo grofs untruths, as ihould leave
him nothing to anfwer congruoufty, but a Mentirii>
and then all the World would judg him uncivil,
and condemn him for giving fiich an unrcverent
anfwer. But you fhall not jfo prevail with me, but
I will call your Reader to anfwer thefe Oueliions :
1. Whether it be any truer, that [ 77;j* i< the
clear purport of my Virefiionjl than it is that I fiy,
'there u hut one Star in the Firmament, becaufe I fay
iTici one Star a more Luminous ihan many Candles i
2. Whether if a difeafed Reader will put fuch
a Senfe upon my words, his Forgery be a true
fiating of the Queflion between him and me, with
out my content ?
3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is ei-
ther Vnicus, or Frimus, or Singular, in the defi-
nition of Jnflitication , or the intereft of Works,
be any truer, than that he is the only cjedted Mi-
Hifter in England, While the writings of Bucer^
Ludov. Cronus. Job. Bergiw, Conrad- Bergtus, Calix-
tU6,?laceut, leBlanl^ Dave Gatak. M&U. PrefK Ball-,
and multitudes fuch are vifible ftill among us ?
4. Whether he deals truly, mfely , or friendly
with the holy Scripures, au«i the Praftftants, who
would perfwade the Ignorant, that this is the true
lb.te of the Controverfie , [Whether it be by Fabb
witbo.it JForksy or by Faith and jfvrkj w> that we
K 4 are
( 48 )
m juftified"] While the Scripture {peaketh both,
and all Proteftants hold both in feveral fenfes ?
And whether this estfie ftating of Controverfies,
Without more Explication or Diftindion, be wor-
thy an Academical Difputant ?
5. Whether it be true or notorioufly falfc, that
\All our Renowned Divines on this fide, and beyond
the Seas, are agreed"], of that in this Queftion of
the intereft of Works, which this one contra-
diacth?
6. Whether this Do&ors naked Affirmation here-
of be better proof, than that one Mans citation of
the words of above an Hundred (yea many Hun-
dred) as giving as much to Works as he doth, is
of the contrary ? ^
7. Whether it be an ingenuous way befeerrting
Academics, to talk at this rate, and affcrt fuch a
ftating of the Queftion and fuch content, without
one word of notice or mention of the Books, in
which I ftate the Queftion, and bring all this evn
denceof confent ?
8. If fuch a Doftor will needs enquire, whether
the fecret thoughts of the Writer meant not kim-
filfi when 4ie pretendeth but to accufe the Rule
there given, and (hould enquire but of the mean-
ing of the words , whether it favour more of
Rationality, or a prefumptuous ufurping the Pre-
rogative of God ?
§. XVI. Pag. 27. Though your approach be
wrathful, you areconftrained to come nearer yet,
and you cannot deny my Rule of Diredfc. in other
Points, but only thofe of [High and difficult ff>e-
mlation] 1 And do you 4 en y H there * ^ ou
Will
( 4P )
will deal with it but as the application of that
Rule ro the Definition of Jujiification ? (And Chall
we lofe your favour, by forcing you to lay by you?
Oppofition as to all the reft?) But here you fay
you [exceedingly differ from me] \ Or elfe you
would be afhamed of fo much Combating in the
dark : Exceeding oft fignifieth fome extream.
Your Reafons are, i. Ton hold not the VoBrine
ef Jujiification to be properly of Speculative concert?,
hit wholly Practical : Where yet you confefs, that
in all Practical kitowledg, there be fome antecedent
contemplations of the Nature-, Properties^ End, Ob-
)eU, and that to know the certain number of Paces
J bcmc-ward } is a Speculative nicety].
•Anfw % And can you rind no fairer a fhift for
difagrecment ? I would fuch as you made not the
Doihine of JuftiHcation too little PtaUical? I
am far from thinking that it is not Practical : But
is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature,
Properties, End , Obje£i , or fome of thefe which
you call ConteRiplarions ? Make not plain things
dark. Sir: The ufe of Art is not to (hut the Win-
dows , and confound Mens Minds. I take all
*Xheologie to be together, Scientia-affcftiva-prafiicai
for our IntelleU-i Will, and Prattice, mull be pof-
feft or ruled by it : But it is firft Scientia, and we
muft know before we can will and praUife. And
though all right knowledg tend to Practice, yet
forgive me for telling you, that I think that many
holy Perfons in Scripture and Primitive times, lo-
ved and pradti fed more than you or I, who knew
not how to form ah exadi Logical Definition. And
that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit fpi-
fitually* by Scripture Notions; may pra&ife them
as
as fully, as he that knoweth and (peaketh them in
the Notions of A%iftotle\ ox elfe the School-Men
excel the A pottles. Though ambling be an ealie
Pace, which Horfes are taught by Gives and Fet-
ters, it followeth not that a Horfe cannot travel
as far in his 'natural pace. When you have faid
all, Logical defining (hall be a work' of Art, and
the Church Jhould not be torn , and Souls (hall not
he damned* for want of it. He that Loveth* Be-
lievethj Hopeth, Obeyetb, and by doing them hath
a retk&ing perception what they are, and hath
but fuch a knowledg of the Gofpel as may be had
without a proper Definition, (lull be faved.
2. Pag. 28, 2$. you fay, [Norte the VoUrine of
Justification fi high and difficult , but that the mean-
eft Chriftian may underjiand it Efficiently to Salva-
tion* jo far as words can make it intelligible^
AMw. Your own blows feem not to hurt you*
I thank you for granting fo much hope to the mean-
eft Chriftians* But what's this to your Ca(e ?
i* Do the rneaneft Chriftians know how to define
Juftification, and all the Grace which they have ?
2. Are they acquainted with all the [Words that
Jhould make it intelligible .?]
Pag. 2£>. you add, [Ton have done little fervice
to your weaker Chriftians to perfwade them otherwife
{as well as to the great blejjed Charter of Salvation J
and to lead them out of the plain road into Woods
and Mazes >) to that one Man of extraordinary Judg-
ment and^Clearnefs't no body muft know what his
Njme if) or where he dwells^ and fo to whirle them
about til! you have made them giddy ].
Anfw. How ealle is it to talk at this rate for
any Caufe in the World I Is this Difputing or Rea-
son-
(JO
toning? Cannot I aseafilyfay thus againft yau >
But the queftion is of things vifible : I willingly
appeal to any intelligent impartial Divine, who
will read what you and I have written of Juftifi-
fication, which of us it is that hath done more to
bring Men out of Woods and Mazes , into the plain-
eliRoad? Let them, that have leifure for no more,
read but my Preface to my Difput. of Jujlif. and
inark which fide wrongeth wea\Chriftians, and the
Charter of Salvation*^
§♦ XVII. Pag*2p. you add, [5zV, I under (I and
fmething at thefe years, without your 'tutorage, of
the duty both of Pajiors and People : But I fyton> not
what you mean to make the way to Heaven (revealed
fuffciently to all, &c.) to he a matter of high ab-
Jlrufe Speculation , as if none but great Scholars,
and Men of extraordinary Judgment , could by the
right ufe of Scriptures, and other ordinary common
means, be able to find it out, till they have met with
that. Eli as., &c.*]
Anfw* Still I fee w r e (hall agree whether you
.will or not: O, Sir, iris juft the contrary that I
.wrote for : And T need but repeat your words to
anfvver you. I am not difparaging your under-
landing, otherwile than you may fo call the vin-
dicating of needful truth : Nor did I ever prcfmri-
to offer you my Tutorage : You fpeakall this with
too much tendernefs. But that which I have wiit-
Xen almoft all my Books of ControverGe 3gainit, is
this making the Way to Heaven more difficult and
bewildring, than the Scriptures make it. There-
fore it is that I have perfwaded Men to la) 7 lefs
-ftrefs on arbitrary humane Notions : But the que-
stion
( a )
ftion is now, whether it be your Courje or mine.
that is guilty of this ? Are Logical Definitions the
necejjary Way to Heaven ? Doth the Scripture diffi-
dently reveal fuch Definitions to all ? Do all ordi-
nary Believers by the ufi of the Scripture? know
how to define ? Do not Logicians make true de-
fining one of the fureft figns of clear and accuratt
knowledg? Why fhould you and I difpute thus
about Matters of Fad ? I know by the principles
of Conformity, that your Judgment is not like
to be narrower than mine about the ftate of deter-
minate Individuals : I fuppofe ybu would take as
many to the Lords Sapper as Believers, as I would,
and abfolve as many, and pronounce as many favea
at Buryat. Let you and I call but a dozen of the
next Families together, and defire every Man and
Woman of them, to give you a Definition of Ju-
ftification, (out of the hearing of the reft) and ii
they all give you a true definition? and one definition^
I will write a Retractation. I know^you notj
but by your now telling me, of your undemanding
of the duties of Pafiors and People? I may fuppofe
that you have been a Pajlour? ("elfe — — ). And if
fb, that you have had perfonal conference with
tnoft (if not all) of your Flock. If you have
found them all fuch able concordant Definers of Ju-
stification? you have had a more learned Flock than
I had. I doubt your Learned Scholars could not
doit, till they met with fome fuch Elias or Ari-
fiotle? as you ! Yea, let us take only fuch as by their
Lives we commonly judg truly Godly Christians :
And if aWtbefe give you one and a true definition
of Justification, then do you tell them that Defi-
ning is no fuch difficult work, but ordinary Chri-
stians
( ®)
flians may and do attain if, and I that make it diffi-
cult, make the way to Heaven difficult, for De-
fining is the way to Heaven : But if not one of
many Score or Hundred (till you teach them a-
new) do give you a true and the fame Definiti-
on 5 I will go on and ftill fay, that They wrong
Souls, the Go$el, and the Churchy who pretend fuch
neceffjty and facility of defining, and mil cenfure,
reproach, or damn all that agree not with them in
a Definition, when they have as real though Ids
diftintl a knowledg of the thing.
I doubt not but you know how much difference
there is among Learned Men about Definitions
themfelves in general : Whether they belong to
Metaphyficks, Logicks, or Phyficks ? Whether De-
finitio Phyfica (as Man is defined per Animam, Cor-
pus &Vnionem) be a proper Definition? Whether
a true Logical and Thyfical definition fhould not be
the fame ? Whether Definitio obje&iva be properly
called Definitio, or only Formal^? Whether Ac-
cidents may be properly defined ? An Genus defi-
niripoflit? An pars Logica definiri pojjit ? Anindi-
vidua pofjint definiri ? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non
potefl Individuis definitio fubfiantialis h & quidem
ejftntialis Phyfice > eft enim de ejfentia hu)m bominii
h£c anima cum hoc Corpore h Imo & effentialis Me-
taphyfice fi indhidua reSe pojfentpenetrari, ilio-
rum definitio eflet omnium perfefiijfima ) An ea qu£
dijferunt defimtione diftinguantur realiter ? With a
multitude fuch. And is th As you'do
by adding,
jr. For
( $\)
I. [For the Jingle Verfon (that Monarch in Divi-
nity) to whom we are upon differences to make our
Appeals, &c]
Anfw. If you hold on thus to talk as in your
deep, and will no^ (hut your Ch3mber~door, but
commiffion the Prefs to report your words to the
World, how can your belt Friends (ecu re your
reputation ? Is not all this talk of fmgle Perfon,
and Monarch in Divinity, and Appeals, the effefts
of a Dream, or fomewhat worfe ? Thefe Fitlions
will ferve no honeft ends. But you next come
indeed to the true difficulty of the Cafe, and ask :
\Ihefeechyou Sir, how jhali your ignorant or weak-
er Chrijiian be able to )ttdg of ' fitnefs ? . He had
need to have a very competent meafure of Abilities
him] elf , who is to give his verdict of another s >
&c]
This is very true and rational : But it concem-
eth you as much as me to anfwer it, unlefs you wiil
renounce the Rule. And feeing you grant it in
other Inftances, if you pleafe to anfwer ycur own
queftion as to thofe other, you have anfwered it as
to this : And if you will not learn of your feif, I
am not fo vain as to think, that you will learn of
me.
In cafe of Subtilties which depend upon Wit,
and Art, and Industry, in that proportion which
few, even faithful Men attain, I remember but
one of thefe ways that can be taken *, Either whol-
ly to fufpeud our Judgments, and not to meddle
with them, till we can reach them our fclvcs ', Or
to take them /We kumana, or as probabilities on the
Credit of fome Men, rather than others : As to
the firft, I am for as much fnfpenfion of Judgment,
as
I 5*> )
as will ftand with the part of a Learner (where we
mull learn \ and in qfelefs things for a total ftt£
penfion). But where Learning is a duty, all Men
come to Knowledg by degrees, and things ufually
appear to them in their probability, before they ap-
pear in afcertaining evidence. ^Therefore here the
Queftion is, Whole judgment I (hall take as mo{l
probable? (Were the cafe only^ how far we fhould
Preach our judgment to others, there Rulers muft
more determine h or if it were, How to manage
our judgment fo as to keep Unity and Concord, the
Church* or major Vott muft over-rule us). But it
being the meer. Judgment ox Opinion that is in que-
ftion, either we muft adhere to the Judgment*
i> Of Rulers zs fitch, 2. Or the major Vote as fitch y
3 . Or to thofe that are moft Excellent in that part of
Knowledg : Why fhould I w 7 afte time to give you
the Reafons againft thetwoiirft, which are com-
monly received ? When even the Papijis, who go
as far as any I know living in afcribing to One
Man, and to major Votes, yet all agree, that a few
fubtile DoBors, yea one in the things in which he
excelleth, is to be preferred before Pope or Council :
And therefore the Scotifts prefer one Scottis, Lyche-
ius, Memiffe, Rada, &c. before a Pope or Multi-
tude •> and fo do the Nominals, one Oc^am, Gre-
gory , Gabriel , Hurtado , &c. and fo the other
Serfs.
The thing then being fuch as neither you, nor
any Man can deny, the difficulty which you urge*
doth prefs you and all Men : And it is indeed one
grand calamity of Mankind, and not the leaft hin-
derance of Knowledg in the World i that he that
hath it not, hfiomthnot what another hath, but by
dark
A 57/
clark Conje&ure?. 4. And therefore Parents ar4
Pupils know not r who is their beft Tutor : The
hearers that are to chufe a Teacher, hardly know
whom to chufe*, for, as you fay truly, he mult
know much that muft judg of a knowing Man.
I God hath in all Arts and Sciences given (bm$
few Men an excellency of ff^it and Reach above the
generality of their Profeffion , and they have a,
more clear and folid Judgment: If all Men could
but know whothefe be, the World would. in one
Age Be more recovered from Ignorance than it hatty
been in ten> , But the power of the Proud, and the
confidence of the Ignorant , arid the number of all
ibefe , and the Slanders and Scorn , and pecvifh
Wnnglings of the common Fride and Ignorance
againilthofe fere that know what they know not^ is
the Devils great meins to frUftrate their endeavours
and keep the World from having knowledg. Tl is
is certain ajid weighty Truth, and fuch.as you
(hould m^ke no Malignant applications of, nor
jftrive againlh Mankind muft needs acknowledg it.
Your urgent queftion'hg here, [poyou not mean your
felff\ doth but expofe you to pity, by opening that
which you might have concealed.^
And to your Queftion, f (ay, could I enable
&11 Ignorant Men to kntiw, who are the beft Teach-
ers, I (hould be the grand Benefa&or 9f the World:
But both the hieing of excellent teachers? and alfo
of acquaintance with tbem and their worthy is given
by God, partly as it pleafcth Him, freely^ even ro
the unworthy, and partly as a Reward, to thofe
that have been faithful in a little , and obeyed low-
er helps o (for there is a Worthiness robe found in
fome Houfes, where the Preacher comcth with the
S voice
v?3 .-■ ■ •
voice of Peace, and unwQrthiriefs, which oft depri-
veth Men of fuch Mercies.) Both abfolutely free*
Grace , and alfo Rewarding-Grace, do here (hew
themfelves.
But yet I add, i. That Light is a [elf-demon-
fir Ming thing* and will not eafily be hid. 2. And
thofe that are the Children of Light, /and have been
true id former helps .and convictions^ and are, wil-
ling to fell all for the. Pearl, and fear not being lo-
fers by the price of Kjtotvledg, but would have it
whatever Labour or Suffering it rnuft coft, and
whcj fearch for it impartially and diligently, and
forfeit it not by Sloth, or a fkfhly., proud, oi
worldly Mind, thefe, I fay, are prepared to difcerr
the Light \ when others fall. under the. heavy Judg-
ment of being deceived by the Wr anglings, Scorns
'Clamours, and threatnings of PROUD IGNO-
RANGE. And thus one dugujlirnxvas a LIgh'j
in his time, and though fuch as Profpcr^ fulgen*
im^'Scc. knew Him, Pelagius and the MaJJilienJej
Wrangled .againft him : And I^uther^ Melantthoth.
T5ucer\thagiMs-> Z^milm^Cdlvin^Mt^c^lus^ Zanchm
were fuch in their times \ and foincdifcernfd them
to be fo, and more did not : If Men rnuft have
gone by the judgment of Rulers ,,pr the m?joi
Vote of Teachers, what had become of the Re«
formation > If you can better dire£V Men how to
'difcern Gcds Gifts and Graces in His Servants, do
it, and? dp hot.cavjl againft it.
As for vour { 0\&e Jingle Proteffani in fuch a caft
t JuJiificatioH]^ ana your [Irpijh h be not your
^ning] Pag- 31 . they deferve no further knfwer 3
I dl the anger y >^:-3 1, 32.3.33.
§. XIX,
9. ^wvv. cm fag. 3^. inotc -^ain, i. mat :r
is not ObjeUive Definitions, (as fome cj// thtrrij
but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] fuppofed to
be Mens needful Ads, which you fay are 21^ the
fame with the Definitum. 2. And that yet j
itiuil have it [fitppofed that ibefe Definitions are
true]. And I iuppoie that few Good Christians
comparatively know a true one, no, norrtrhiti a
Definition, (or the Genus and Differentia which con-
fijtute ?0 * ? *
You fay, £/ abfolutely deny what you fo rajhly
avow, that the Definition of Justification is controver-
ted by the great eft Divines : "this is cm of your libe-
ral Didates i The Reformed Divines are all, I tkznk^
before you, agreed about the nature of Jttfiification^
its'CaufeS) &c. and confequently cannot differ about
the Definition"]*
Anfrv. 1. But what if all Divines were fo ft-
jrreed? So are not all honeji Men and 'Women thar
inuft have Communion with us : Therefore m
not Definitions more necefiary than they are, nor as
fceceffary as the Thing.
2. You muft be confirained for the defending
of thefe words, to come off by faying, that jbxi
meant, That though they agree not in the WjstTs,
or Logical terms of the Definition i but one fiirb,
This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and
another that it is not this but that\ one faith;
and another that is the Formal, or Material Caxjh
&c. yet de re, they mean the* fame thing , WjSc
they fo happy as to agree in their Logical defining
terms and notions I And if you will do in this,
as you have done in your other QVuml", corr.cQif
by fcyin'2 as I fay, and (hewing Men ibt .
S 2
IW)
of Truth, thbugh you do it with never fo mfoeTi
anger, that you waft agree, I (hall be fatisrted, that
the Reader is delivered from your fnare, and that
Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or fay of
me.
3. But becaufe I mud now anfwer what you fay,
and not what I fore fee you will or mttjl fay, I mutt
add, that this paffage fecmech to fuppofe that your
Reader Jiveth in the dark, and hath read very little
of Juftiticafion. 1. Do all thofe great Divines,
who deny the Imputation of Chrijls aftive Rigbte-
enfnefs, and take it to be but Jujiitia Perfon£ y mn
Meriti, and that we are Juftified by the Pajjive only,
agree with their Adversaries, who have written
againft them, about the Definition and Caufes of
Jujlification ? Will any Man believe you> who hath
read OlevianJUrfme, Parens, Scuhetus, Pifcator, Ca-
rolus Molin
What abundance of Protejlants do place Juftifi-
:ation only in Foghmfs of Sins ? And yet as ma-
ny ( I know not which is the greater fide) do
make that Forghenefs but one part, and Imputation
f Righteoufnefs another. And how many make
Forgivenefs no part of Justification, but a Concomi-
rant? And many inftcad of [Imputation of Rigb-
y toufnefs~] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the
r akf* or merit of Cbrijis Right eoufntfs imputed"]
viz. as the Meritorious Caufe). And Par£M tells
as, that they are of four Opinions, who are for
Zhrifis Right eouj nefs imputed', fome for the PaJJiie
pnlys fome for the Pa{JjvemdA8tvc% fume for the
Fajjive, Afiive y and Habitual > fome for thefe three
ind the Divine. And who knowcth not that fome
Krefodiftinguiih Caufcs and Erllds, as that cur
Original Sin tor Habitual f. When ma-
ly others, reje&ing ch3t Divilion, fay > That both
Freedom from Pnnilhment, and right to Glory are
:he conjunct erfedis of His Habitual, AdHve, and
PaiTive Righteoufnefs, as an entire Caufe (in lis
kind)* as GuiL Forbes , Groiius , Bradjharp , and
others truly fay : Betides that many conclude with
jataker, thai theft are indeed but one thing ar.d
S 3 tCdj
( 62,)
effe
{ion, fee fcim . de PredejU pag. 405. Col 2. which
Perkins and feme others alfo follow.
Olevian (as all others that grofly miftake not
herein) did hold, that God did not judg us to have
fulfilled all the Law in Chrifi *, and that our righ-
teoufnefs confifteth only in the Remillionof $ia>
and right to Life as freely given lis for anothers
Merits : But Beza inilfteth full, on the contrary, and
jn his Epiille to Olevian, (pag^^S.Epiji^sO Caith,
Quid vanius ejl quam Jujlum arbitrariy qui Legem
non impleverit ? Atqui lex non tantum probibet fieri
quodvetat^ verumpr&dpit quodjubet. \ Er-
go qui pro non peccatore cenjetur~in Chrijio, mortem
quidem ejfttgerit > fed quo jure vitam J>r id eil, eoufque perfect,
integri , ctfA,
( 94 )
fofftt,verttm etiam in nos comperiatur qutkquid in hac
humans natters ufque adeo poteft enm delegare, ut
iHud vita £t ems pro bona fits voluntate coronet].
Yet (as in his Annou in %om. 8. 30. & alibi) he
confefftth that Justification in Scripture, fometime
is taken for Santtificafion> (or as including it) fo
hctzkcth our Sarittification to contain the Impu-
tation of Ghrifts Sancflity to us. (Qu. & Refp.
pag. 6ji>) i. Vko noftras Perfonst* imputatsip-
fmsperfeUafanUitate& integritate-> plene fanUas &
integras, acp'rbinde Pdtri acceptas^ non in nobis fed
in'Chrifto cenfemur. • 2. And next the Spirits San-
dHficration Vand thus Chrift is made SanUiftcation
to us. "
• Dr. 'Twifte, and Mr. Femble, Vind. Grat. diftin-
gurlhof Juftiiicatibn as an Immanent Ad in God
from Eternity^ and as it is the notice of the former
irt oijr Conferences : But doubtkfs the commoiiefl:
Definitions of Juftification agr^e with neither of
thefe: And Pemble of Juftification other wife de-
fineth it (*s Mrijeffop faith Dr. fmjfe did).
Lud. Crocks Syntag. pag. iixp'i thus defineth
it, '[faftificdiio Evangelica eft aUus Divih* grati£ y
quaVeus adopt atpecdatotem per ' approbationem obe-
diemi* hegts in fpfflfort toque interceftore Cbrifto y
& per Remijjionerh' ptccatorum ac Juftitia imptttaii-
*nem in eo qui perftdem Chrtfio eft infitHs']. Arid
faith, pag. 1223. [Fides fold juftificat quatenus no-
tat Obediential quandam expeSantem promijjionem
ut dwuMgratHitum-— '& appbnitur illi Obedientia
qu£ non expedat premijjionetn ut donum ommnograiu-
itum fed ut merdedem propofitamfubConditione opens
alicu uz ff&ter acceptations & gratitudinem debit am^
qutfasNatttra in ottini donation* quamvis gratuita
V - ■■ - : ' l ' requiri
( 6% )
reqitirl folet. Et ejufinodi Obedientis peculiariter
opus abApoftolo, & Latiw proprie Meritum dicitur \
& quifub bac condixione obediunt Qperantes vocantnr y
Rom. 4.. 4. & 11. 6* This is the truth which I
aifert.
Conrad. Bergius Prax. CathoL dif 7. pag. £83.
tells us that the Breme Cat chifm thus openeth the
Matter : £Qu. ^nomodo Juftificatur Homo coram
J)e9 ? R. Accipit Homo Remifiionem peccatorum
& Juftificatur^ hoc eft, Gratut fit coram Deo in vera
Converfione, per flam fidenij per Chrijium^ fine pro-
prio Merito & dignitate.
Cocceius difp. de via falut. de Juft. pag. 189.
Original^ Cbrifli Juftitia correfpondtt nojiro Originali
peccato, &c. vid. ccet. plnra lid* de feeder*
Macovw Colleg. de Juftif. diftinguifheth Justifi-
cation into Aftive and Pajjive^ and kith, JujUfica-
tio Attiva fignificat abfolunoncm Dei^ qvtz Hominem
reum a reatu abfohit : And he would prove this
to be before Faich, and citeth for it (abufively)
Par&ws and c f(ffanus > and thinketh that we wero
abfolved from Guilt from Chiifts undertaking our
Debt, Thef. 12. thus arguing, \Cu)us debit* apud
Creditorem aliquis recepit exjuhenda* & Creditor
iiiius fpotffionem ita acceptat, ut in ea acqniefcat y
"ille jam ex parte Creditor]* liber eft adelitU: At que
Eleflorum omnium in fingulari debita apud Deunt
Patrem Cbriftm, ex quo faUut eft Mediator* recepit
exolvenda, & Veus Pater illam Jponfionem acceptavit^
&c. Paflive Juftihcation^which he fuppofeth to be
our application of Chrifis Righteoufnefs to our
felves daily as oft as we offend, fk 5. (And
Part 4. difp. 22. he maintaineth, that 'There are no
Vif
I pafs by.
Spa*berniut Vifput. de Jufiif. faith, that £The
Form of Pajjive Juftificatiou confifteth in the appre-
henfion zndfenfe of RemifTion of Sin and Imputa-
tion of Chrifts Righteoufnefs in capable Subjects]
groily : Whereas Adtive Juftificatiqn (Juftifican-
tit) ever immediately caufeth PaJJive (JuiHficatio-
nem jufiificati) which is nothing but the effedt of
the A&ive, (or as mod call it, AUio ut inpatiente):
And if this were the Apprehenfion and Senfe (as
aforefaid ) of Pardon and imputed Right eoufnefs,
then a Man in his ileep were unjuftified, and fo of
Infants, &c. For hethat is not Paffively juftified,
is not at all juftified*
I told you elfe-where, that the Synopf Leidevf.
de Jujlif. pag. 41 5. fy. 23* faith, That Chrifts
Righteoufnefs is both the Meritorious , Material,
and Formal Caufe of our Ju unification.
What Fayus, and Vavenant, and others fay of
the Formal Caufe, viz. Chrifts Righteoufnefs impu-
ted, I there (hewed: And how Partus, Job.&ro-
dm, and many others, deny Chrifts Righteoufnefs
to be the Formal Caufe.
Wendeline defineth ]uftification thus ( Thepl.
Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603.) Juftificatio eji aftio Vet gra-
tuita , qua peccatores JLletli , maledt&ioni legti cb-
noxii*, propter jujlitiam feu fatisfa&ionem Chrijii fide
applicatam & a Deo imputatam, coram tribunali DzV
vino, remflis peccatis, a maledtWtone Legis abfolvun~
iur & jufti cenfentur. And pag. 615, 616. He
maintaineth that \jObedientia adiva , fi proprie &
accurate loquamur, non eft materia nojlr£ Juftifica-
tionh, nee imputatur nobis> it a ut nofira cenfeatur,
&
^ ®1 )
& nobis propter earn peccata remiiianiur, & debiiur% f
\rgis pro nobis folvatur \ quemadmodum Pafliva per
imputationem cenfetur mftra, &c Etpoft QSi dicws
Chriftum faVxum effe hominem pro nobis, hoc eft, no-
flro bono % conceditur : Si pro nobis, hoc eft, noftro'loco*
negatur : Quod enim Chrijius noliro loco fecit , &
faftus eft, idnos non tenemur facer e & fieri, &c.
Rob. Abbot approver h of Tfbpmpfins Definition
of Evangelical JuitiHcation, (pag. 153.) that it is,
§hta pozuitenn & Credenti remittuntur peccata> &
jus vita <£t.ertt£ concjjkur per & propter Chrifti obe~
dientiamilii impttHmm : (Which is found) taking
Impuiatam foundly, as he doth).
'job. Credits, Difp. 1. p. 5. thus defineth it,
[Actio Dei qua ex gratia propter fatisfaaionem Chrifti
peccatoribus in Chriftum iotius M*ndi redtmptorem
nmcutfUy vere credenilbus gratis fine opcribus aut
meritis propriis omnia peccata remittit, & juftitiam
Chrifti imputat ad fui nominis gloriam & thrum fa-
Intern £ternam. And he maketh only [Cbriftsfullfa-
wfaUion for Sin,to be the Itnpulfive-External, Meri-
torious, and Material Caufe, as being that which is
imputed to us j and the Form of Justification to
be the Remifiion of Sin, Original and Actual, or the
Imputation of Chrifts Righteoufnefs (which he ma-
keth to be all one) cr the Imputation of Faith fit
Righteoufnefs^].
Saith Bi{hopDavenants and Dr. Yields
words I have cited at large in my Covfef. faying
the fame in fubftance as I do > as alfo Mr. Scuddcrs,
and an hundred more, asisjbeforefaid.
And let any fober Reader decide this Controycrfie
between us, upon thefe two further Confederations.
i. Perufe all the Corpus Confeffionum^ and fee
whether all the Reformed Caches give us a De-
finition of Juftification , and agree in that Defi-
nition : Yea, whether the Church of England in
its Catechifm, or its Articles, have any proper De r
finition : Or if you will call their words a T>efi*
nitioity I am fure it's none but what I do con&nt
to. And if a Logical Definition were by the Church
of England and other Churches held necejfary to
Salvation, it would be in their Catechifms (it not
in the Creed) : Or if it were held neccifaiy to
Church-Concord, and Peace^and Love, it would be
in their Articles of Religion, which they fubferibe.
i 2. How can all Proteftants agree of the Logical
^Definition of Juftification , when i. They agree
not of the fenfe of the word [Jufiifie^"] and of the
fpecies of that Juftification which Paul and James
fpeakof? Some make Juftification to include Par-
don and San&ification, (fee their woids in G.
ForbeSy and Le Blanl^) \ many fay otherwife. Moft
fey that fanl fpeaketh moft ufually of Juftification
in feafu foren% but whether it include [Making
jtiff] as fome fay, or only [Judging juji] as others,
or Nolle punire, be the ad as Dr. 2W/J>, they agree
not. And fome hold that in James Juftification is
that
< *9 )
that which is cflnzra hominibusy when faid Co be bf
War\^\ but others (m*/y) fay, it is that coram
Veo.
2. They are not agreed in their very Logical
Rules, and Notions, to which their Definitions
are reduced > no not fo much as of the number
and nature of Caufes, nor of Definitionr (as is
aforefaid) : And as I will not undertake ro prove
that all the Apoftles, Evangelifb and Primitive
Patfours, knew how to define Efficient > Material*
Formal and Final Caufes in general, fo I am fort
that all good ChrifHans do not.
3. And when Jujiification is defined by Divines,
is either the A&ns Jufiificantis, and this being in
the predicament of Adion, what wonder if they
difagree about the Material and Formal Ctmftf
ofit>
Nay, it being an Adt of God, there are few Di-
vines that tell us what that Aft is : Ueus operatur
per eJfcHtiam : And Ex parte agentis, his A£s arc
his Efftnee, and all but one. And who will thus
difpute of the Definition and Caufes of them,
Efficient, Materia], Formal , Final ? when I pre-
fumed to declare, that this A& of Justifying is
not an immanent Adc in God, nor without a Me-
dium, but Gods Ad by the Inftrumentality of his
G°fpel-Covcnant or Tromife , many read it as a new
thing* and if that hold true tfoait the Firft Juliifi-
cation by Faith, is that which Gods Gofpei- Dona-
tion is thelnftrumentof, as the Titulus feu Funda-
ntentum Jurti, being but a Virtual and not an A£h>
al Sentence, then the Definition of it , as to the
Caufes, muft differ much from the moil common
Definitions.
But
( 7° )
But moftlProfeftants fay that JujUfcaiion is SVtf-
ientia Judicti. (And no doubt but there are thred
feveral/tfrfj, or Ads called Juftification, i. Condi-
tutive by the. Vouative Covenant ^2. Sentential^. Ex-
ecutive.) And here they are greatly at a Jofs, for the
decifion of ihcCa'Ccfvbai Att of God ihkSententiaJu-
di is. What it will be after death,we do not much dis-
agree ; But what it is immediately upon our believ-
ing. Itmuft bean A£i as in patiente^ or the Di-
vine effence denominated from fuch an effiett. And
what judgment and Sentence God hath upon our
believing, few open, and fewer agreee. Mr. Tomhes
'faith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the An-
gels : But that is not alitor the chief; fome xun back
to an Immanent Ad ; moft leave it undetermined i
A$& Cure the Name of Sentence in general, fignifkth
' ho true Conception ofit at all., in him that know-
eth not what thit Sentence is, feeing Univerfals are
Nothing (out of us) but as they exift in individuals*
TS&r/Latbfon hath faid that wihch Would Reconcile
Proteftants,and fome Papifts, as to the Name, iijs*
that Gods Execution is his Sentence \ He Judgetb by
Executing : And fo as the chief punifhment is the Pri-
vation of the Spirit^ Co the Juftifying Ad:, is the exe-
cutive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we disagreed
about AUive Jufijficaiion (which I have oft eiidea-
Voured Cbnciliatprily fullier to open.)
And as to Tafjive Justification (ox as it is Status.
yujiijicati) which is indeed that Which it co'ncevn-
eth'us in this Controverfie to ope«v I have told you
)iow grotty fome defcribe it here before. And all a-
gree not what Predicament it is in : fome take it to
be in that of AUion\ ut recipitur in pajfo h and fome
in that of Quality and Relation ConjundrBut moft
place
. . . . < 71 ;
place it in Relation *, And will you wonder it all
Chriftian Women,yca or Divines^cannot define that
Relation aright. And if they agree not in the notions
of the Efficient, Material, Formal and Fin J CaufeJ,
of that which muft be defined fas it iscapablej by
its fubjeBum, fundamentum and terminw.
I would not wifh that the Salvation of any Friend
of mine (or any one) fhould be laid on the true Lo-
gical Definition ofjuftification," A&ive or Paffive,
Conftitutive, Sentential or Executive*
And now the Judicious will fee, whether the
Church and Souls of Men be well ufed by this
pretence, that all Proteftants are agreed in th£ Na-
ture, Caufes and Definition of Juftification i and
that to depart from that one Definition (where is
it?)is Co dangerous as the Do&or pretendeth.becaufc
the Definition and the Vefinitum are the fame.
§ XX. P. 34. You fay [Ton tremble not in the cm-
dience of God andMan tofuggeji again that hard-jren-
tedCxilumny^ viz. that I prefer a Majority of Ignorant*
before a Learned man in his own profejjion*
Anfvp. I laid it down as a Rule-, that 'they are not
to T)e preferred : You aflault that Rule with bitter ac-
cufatibns, asifitwere unfound- (orelfc to this day
I underftand you not.) Is it then [a hard-fronttd
Calumny'] to defend it, and to tell you what is con-
tained in the denying of it. 'fhe audience of -God rnuli
be fo dreadful to(you and)rne, that (without calling
you to confider whether theCalumny be not noton-
oufly yours) I heartily defire any judicious per feu
to help me to fee 5 that I am here guiky 3 if k be i"u
you add,
" [Tm
r r J '
, u [Ton knot? not what the Event of all this may be s
** Forfuppofe now.bsing drag*d in my Scarlet^ (a habit
whofe Book
hath the Patronage of one of the greateft Eps« of En-
gland writeth againfiorie of no Academical degree ,
who hath theft 13. years and more been judged
imworthy to preach to the moil: ignorant Congrega-
tion in the Land, and by th£ (Contrived) diftin-
& ion of Nonconformijis from Conformi/is r goeth un-
der the /corn and hatred of fitch, as yoii pretend to
be in danger of, and hath himfelf n6 fecurity for his
liberty in the open Air \ that this Learned man in
his honour ,fhould conceit that an Anfwer from this
hated perfon might endanger his degradation and
turning
turning out of his place, is fo ftrarige a fanciers will
make your Readers wonder.
4. But whether you are MelanchoIIy or no I
know noti but if you are not unrighteous, I know-
not what untighteoufnefs is. Will you bear with the
diver fion of a'ftory ?
When the Moors were fenteiiced to ruin iti Spain,
oneoftheDifciplesof Vdidejfo fa Scholar) fell into
the difpleafure of the Bp. of Toledo: A Neighbour
Dodlor knowing that the Bps. favour might beflead
him . (whether accidentally or contrivedly I
know net) hit upon this happy courfe : The Scho-
lar and he being together inafolemn Convention*
the Scholar was taking Tobacco, and the Dr. feeing
the fmok threw firft a Glafs of Beer in his face* and
eryed Fire, Fire<> The Scholar wiped his face, and
went onjThe Dodor next threw an Ink-bottle in bis
Face, crying ftill Fire, Fireh The Scholar being
thusblackt, perceived that he was like to betaken
for a Moor, and ruined, and he went out and care-
fully wafh'd his face: the Doftbr charged him open-
ly for affronting him fyea and injurkufly calum-
niating him) by the fad: For faith he, there was
neceflary Caufe for what I did : There is no fnloaJ*
without fome fire: that which fired you might next
have fired the Houfe, and that the next Houfe, and
fo have burnt down all the City : and your a&ioit
intimateth as if I had done caufekfly what J i
and done you wrong : The Scholar anfwered hitni
I knew notjSi^thayt was unlawful to wafh mt,but
I will take no more Tobacco that I may no more
erfend you ^ But if in this frofty weather the thick;
ttefs o( my breath (ho\i\& be called fmoal^ may I not
Wafh my face, if vou again call: your Ink upon it I
T No,
( 74)
No, faith theDo&or, It is not you, nor any private
man that muft be judg whether you are on Fire or
not,in a publick danger;Muft theCity be hazard ed,i(
you fay that it is not Fire > The Scholar asketh,
may I not refer the cafe to the ftanders-by, and wafli
my face if they fay, It was no Fire? No, faith the
Dr. that is but to call in your AfTociates to your
help, and to add Rebellion and Schifm to your difo-
bedience; I perceive what principles you are of.
Why then, faith the Scholar, if I muft needs be a
Moor? my face and I are at your mercy.
But pardon this digreffion,and let you and I ftand
to the judgment of any righteous and competent
Judge, whether you deal not with me in notorious
injuffice, fo be ic the Cafe be truly ftated.
The perfon whom you affaulted is one, that at-
tempted (with fuccefs) the fubverfion of Antino-
mianHm and the clearing of truth ; their Ignorance
of which was the Caufe of their other Errours But
having let fall, (for want of ufe in writing) fome
incongruous words ("as Covenant for Law-> &c.)
and that fomewhat often, and fome excepting a-
gainft the Book, he craved their animaverfions,and
promifed to fufpend the Book till it were correded j
and purpofely wrote a far greater Volumn in expli-
cation of what was dark, and defence of what was
wrongfully accufed,and many other Volumns of full
defence : No man arifwereth any of thefe ; but after
twenty years, or thereabout, (though I protefted in
print againft any that would write againft the A-
phorifrns, without regard to the faid Explications)
you publish your Confutation of part of thofe Apho-
v ifms, and that with moft notorious untruth, charg
ing me to deny all Imputation ofCbrijlsRigbtecvfnefsj
when
(75)
when I had there profeft the Contrary, and taking
no notice of any after-explication or defence, ana
parallelling me with Bellarmine^ if not with Here-
ticks or Infidels (for I fuppofc you take the denyers
of all Imputation to belittle better.) This Book you
publifh without the leaft provocation with other
quarrels,dedicating it to that R. Rd. B. who firft fi-
lencedmes (as if I muftgo write over again all
the Explications and Defences I had before written,
becaufeyou (that are bound to accufe me) are not
bound to read them :) and this you do againft one
that at that time had been about 13 years filenced,
ejected, and deprived of all Ministerial maintenance^
andofalmoft all his own perfonal Eftate, defiring
Ho greater preferment than leave to have preached
for nothing, where is notorious neceflity, could I
have obtained it, fometimes laid in the common
Jail among Malefadtors, for preaching in my own
houfe, and dwelling within five miles if it : after fi«
ned at forty pound a Sermon for preaching for no-
thing s looking when my Books and Bed are taken
from me by diftrefs, though I live in conitant pain
and langour, the Constable but yefterday coming
to have diftrained for fixty pound for two Sermons *,
hunted and hurryed about to Jufiices at the will of
any ignorant Agent of that will be an In-
former, and even fain to keep my doors daily lockt,
if it may be to fave my Books a while : Yet the ex-
citing of wroth by public}^ Calumny againUonefo
low already, and under the perfecuting wrath of
your friends^ was no fault, no injustice in you at all !
(nor indeed did I much feel it. )
But for me who am thus publickly by vifibte Ca-
lumny traduced>tru!y to tell you where you miftake,
T 2 and
( 70
and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more
than me,' and if alfo I offer peaceably to wafti my
own face, this is hard fronted Calumny, dragging a
Dodlor in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot-, which
might occafion hti degrading and turning out, &c*
This over- tendernefs of your honour as to other
mens words, (and too little care of the means of it,
as to your own) hath a caufe that it concerneth you
to find out. Had you the tenth part as many Books
written againft you,as are againft me ( by Quakers,
Seekers, Infidels, Antinomians, Millenaries, Ana-
baptifts, Separatifts, Semi-feparatifts,Papifts, Pfeu-
do-Tilenus, Diocefans, Conformifts, and many E-
ncmies of Peace, (to whom it was not I, but your
felf that joyned you) it would have hardened you
into fome more patience. If you will needs be
militant you muft exped replies : And he that will
injuriously fpeak to the World what he (hould not
fpeak, muft look to hear what he would not hear.
But you add.
Sir, the Name and Quality of a V OCT! OK and
Mafter of a Literate Society, might have been treated
more civilly by you*
Anfw. i. I am ready to ask you forgivenefs for
any word that any impartial man (yea or your
Reverend Brethren of that Academy themfelves,
whom I will allow to be fomewbat "partial for you)
fhall notifie to me to be uncivil or any way injuri-
ous. 2. But to be free with you, neither Doftor-
foip, Mafterfhip nor Scarlet will Priviledg you to
fight againft 'truth, Right, and Peace, and to vent
grofs miftakes,and by grofs untruths in matter offaB*
fuch as is yox\x[Omnein ludibrio habet imputationem\
to abufe your poor Brethren, and keep the long-
con*
( 77 )
confuming flames ftill burning, byfalfe reprefenting
thofeas Popi(h,andI know not what, who fpcak
not as unaptly as your (elf, and all this without con-
tradiction. Were you a Bp. my Body and Eft ate
might be in your power, but Truth, Juftice and the
LoveofChrijiians, and the Churches pace, fhould
not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretenfe of re-
verence to your Name and Quality. I am heartily
defirous that for O R D E R-fake the Name and
Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently u-
fed. But if they will think that Errour Jh)ufliee'&xi&
Confuftou muft take fandtuary under bare Ecclefia-
ftical or Academical Names and robes, they will find
theinfelves miftaken : Truth and Honefty will con-
quer when they pafs through Smithfield flames :
Prifons confine them not *, Death kills them not y
No fiege will force an honeft Confcience by fan/
to gjve up. He that cannot endure the fight of his
own excrements muft not difh them up to another
mans Table, left they be fent him back again. And
more freedom is allowed againft Peace-Breaktrs in
Frays and TFars ^thm towards men that are in a qui*
eter fort of Controverfie.
§ XX. P. 36. 37. You fay \Y or your various r
finitions of Justification, Qonftituthe, Sententia
ecutive, inForo Dei, iriforoGopfcivniiJt, &c-
IVhat need this heap of dlftinUions here y when yon
tytow the queftion betwixt us is of no other JujjtificatU
on, but the Constitutive in fro Vei.th.it which ma'--
us righteous in the Court of Heaven ? 1 have nothuf\
do with you yet in anyelje, as your oivn Confcience
tell you when you plea fe : If 'you have not more J*
and civility for your intelligent Readers, 1 wi(h you
X 2 would
<7$)
WQuldjhen? more Gompaffion to your Ignorant Homai,
gets, and not thus abufe them with your palpable Eva^
pons.
Anfw- Doth the gueftion, Whether the feveral forts
of JujUHcation will bear one and the fame Definition*
deferveall thisang^r (and the much greater that
folio wcth)>
i. Seeing I am turned to my Reader, I will crave
his impartial judgment : I nt ver received and agreed
on a iiace of thequeftjor* with this Do&or : He
writeth againft my books : Id thofe Books I over
and over and pver ditiinguifh of Juftification, Con*
jiitutive, Sentential, and Executive (befides thofe
Subordinate fores,by JFitnefs, Evidence, Apologyfoc.)
I oft open their differences: He writeth againft
rne 5 as denying all Imputation of Chrifts Right eoufnefs*
and holding Popifh fufiification byworks^ and never
tells me whether he take the word iJuftification]
in the fame fenfe that I do, or in which of thofe that
I hadopened : And now he paffionately appealeth
to my Confcience that I kpew bis fence : What he
faith [my Confcience will tell me"] it is not true : It
will tell me no fuch thing ; but the clean contrary,
that even after all his Difputes and Anger* and thefe
words, I profefs I know not what he meaneth by
\_Juftification.~]
2. What [Conjlitutive inforo Veijhat which ma-
heth us Righteous in the Court of Heaven] meaneth
with him, I cannot conje^ure. He denyeth not my
Difjin&ions., but faith, what need they : I ever di^
ftingnifhed Making Righteous y Judging Righteous.
Executively ufeing as Righteous : The firft is in our
fives j The fecond is by Divines faid to be inforo
peiy an a 51 of Judgment* the third is upon us after
both:
(79)
both; now he feemeth to confound the twofirfi,
and yet denyeth not their difference*, and faith, he
meaneth [Confiitutive inforo : J He that h.made
Righteous is fuch in fe *, and as fuch is Juflifiable
inforo :] Wc are CMade 'Righteous by God as free
Donor and Imfuter, antecedently to judgment ;
We are in for ofentenced Righteous by God as Judg:
fo that this by fentence prtfuppofeth the forjtoer :
God never Judgethus Righteous and Juftifieth us a-
gainrt Accufation, till he have firit Made us Righteous
and Juftified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and
Donation. Which of thefe meaneth he ? I ask not
my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I,
but his httellizent Reader. He taketh on him to
go the Commoneft way of Proteftants : And the
Commoneft way is to acknowledg that a Conjiitutive
Jujiification, or making the man Jujl, (antecedent
to the Adusforenfis) muff need go firft : but that it
is the fecond which Paul ufiuWy meaneth , which is
the alius forenfis, the fentence of the Judg inforo ,
contrary to Condemnation : And doth the Doctor
think that to make Righteous and to fentence as Righ-
teous are all one ? and that we are made Righteous in
foro otherwife than to bejuft in cur fives ,and To Ju-
ftifiable inforofrtfore the Sentence ? or do Proteftants
take the Sentence to be Confiiiuting or Making us
Righteous ? All this is fuch talk as had I read it in
lAx.Bunnyan of the C6venants\or any of my Ignorant
Homagers, I ihould have fa id, the Author is a fir an-
ger to the Controverfiefinto which he hath rajhly f lunged
himfelf : but I have more reverence to lo learned a
man, and therefore blame my dull undemanding.
3. But what if I had known fas I do not yet)
■what fort of Jufhfication he meaneth ? Doth he not
X 4. know
( 8o )
ktfow ttat I was then debating the Cafe with him^
whether the Logical Definitions of Jujlificationy
Faith, 8cc. are not a work of Art , in which a
few wellftndied judicious Divines ( theie were my
words) are to be preferred before Authority^ or Ma~
jority of Votes. And Reader, what Reafon bound
me to confine this Cafe, to one onlyjm of Ju(lifi~
cation ? And why, (I fay, why) muft I confine it
to z fort which Dr. 'fully meaneth^ ivhenmy Rule
and Book^ was written before hti^ and when to this
day I know not what he meaneth ? Though he
at once chide at my Diftinguifhing, and tell me that
All Proteftants agree in the Nature, Caufes, and
Definition, (and if all agreed, I might know by
other Mens words what he meaneth) yet to all be-
fore-faid, I will add but one contrary Inftancc of
many.
ClutOy in his very Methodical but unfound Idea
*fheoL (fignalized in Voetii Biblioth.) defineth Ju-
ilification fo, as I fuppofe, beft pleafeth the Do-
ctor, viz* [Eft AUio Dei Judiciality quaredemptos
-propter pajfiones juftitU Divina fatifaUorias a Chrifto
fuftenfatM) redemptifque imputatasj a peccatis puros^
& confequenter a points liber os, itemque propter Obe-
diential a Chrifto Legi Divina praftitam redemptif"
queimputatamy jttftitia prtditos-, & confequenter vita
sterna dignos-y ex miferecordta pronunciat\. In the
opening of ^vhkh he telleth us, pag. 243. (a-
gainft multitudes of the greateft Proteilants Defi-
nitions.) [Male alteram fuftificationis partem, ip~
fjm Juftiti'£ Imputationem ftatui , cum Juftificatio
non fit ipfa Imputation fed Pronunciatio qu$ Impu*
Utione-) tanqtiam fmdamento fefto, nititun
["*' ' And
( 8i )
And he knew nofenfeof Juftification, but [Vel-
ipfiim ftntenti& Jnflificatort£ in mekte Vivina pro*
lationem^ five Conjiitutionem, vel ejus in Cordibus
redemptorum manifefiantemRevelationem : And faith,
Priori modo fafium ejlautem omnemfidem, cum Veus
omnes^quibus paffiones & juftitiam Chrijii imputabat*
innocentcs & jujios reputaret, cum ejus inimici^ ade-
oque fine fide ejjent, (To that here is a JuOihcaiion of
Inficiels^as innocent for Chrifts Righteoufnefs impu-
ted to them) : Quare etiam ut jam fafta fide appre-
hendenda eft* The fecond which follows Faith,
is Faith, ingenerating a firm perfwafion of it. Is
not here fad defining, when neither of thefe are the
Scripture- J unification by Cbrifl and Faith ?
And fo §. 32. the time of Juftification by Faith
he maketh to be the time when we receive the feel-
ing of the former : And the time of the former
is prefently after the Fall i of all at once : And
hence gathereth that \JLx eo quod Jujlificatio did-
fur fieri propter paffiones & obedientiam Chrijii. 2 qui*
bus ad perfettionem nihil deeji 3 nobis imputatas
(before Faith or Birth) confequitur innocentiam &
jujlitiam in Kedemptis quam prirnum pcrfeaas & ab
omni macula puras ejfe ] and fo that neither the
pronunciation in mente Vivina , or imputation
ullii gradibus ad perfeciionem exfurgat*
Eut what is this pronunciation in mmte Vivina ?
He well and truly noteth, §. 29. that [Omnes
aUiones Vivim-i fi ex eo quia
ex noftra parte nihil ad Jnflificationem conferendum
jpeus requirit, quant ut Juftificationem in Chrijio fun-
iatam credamus % & fide non producamus* fed red"
jpiamus.
If yet you would fee whether all Proteftants
agree in the Definition of Justification, read the
multitude of Definitions of it in feveral fenfes >
in Learnrd Alftedim his Veftniu "tbeol. c.i^. §.2.
pag. 97. &c. [Juftificatio bominis coram Deo eft qua
homo in foro Vivino abjolvitur, feu jujius effe evinci-
tur contra quemvis aUorem, Veo ipfo judice^ & pro
eo fcntentiam ferente~\> But what is this Forum ?
Forum Vivinum efi ubi Veus ipfe judicis partes
agitj & fen fententiam fecundum leges afe I at as ?
But where is that Eft internum vel externum ? Fo-
rum divinnm internum eft in ipfa bominis Confcientia,
in qua Veus "thronum juftiti* erigit in hac vita ibi
agendo partes aVtoris & judicis : Forum Conf dentin
(•But it is not tbvs that is meant by the Juftification
by Faith). Forum divinum externum eft % in qua
Veus poft banc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium*
1. Particular, .2. Vniverfale. This is true and
well : But are we no where Juftified by Faith but
in Confcience-y till after Death > This is by not confi-
dering, 1, The Jus ad impunhatem & vitam do-
natum
vatum per fxdus Evangelicum upon our Bdieving >
which fuppofing Faith and Repentance is our Coh-
fiitutive JujUfication, ( virtually only fentential ).
2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life,
pronounced fpecially by Execution. Abundance
of ufeful Definitions fubordinate you may further
there fee in Alftedius, and fome wrong, and the
chief omitted.
The vehement paflfages of the Do&ors Conclu-
fion I pafs over * his deep fenfe of unfufferable Pro-
vocations, I mud leavoitohimfelf^ his warning of
the dreadful tribunal which I am near, it greatly
concerns me to regard : And Reader, I (hall think
yet that his Conteit (though troublefome tome
that was falily affaulted, and more to him whofc
detedted Mifcarriages are fo painful to him) hath
yet been Profitable be\ ond the Charges of it to him
or me, if I have but convinced thee, that i. Sound
mental Conceptions of fo much as is neceffary to our
oven Jujiification , much differ from proper Logical
Definitions : And that, 2 . Many mil liens are Jujii-
fied that cannot define it : 3. And that Logical De-
finitions are Workj of Art more than of Grace, which
require fo much Acutenefs and Slqll, that even worthy
and excellent teachers may be , and are difagreed
about them, efpecially through the great ambiguity of
Words* which all underhand not in the fame fence \
and few are fufficicntly fnfpicious of, and diligent
to explain. 4. And therefore that our Christian
Love, Peace, and Concord, Jhould not be laid upon
fuch Artificial things. 5. And that really the Ge-
nerality of Protectants are agreed moftly in the Mat-
ter, when they quarrel fharply about many Arti-
ficial Notions and Terms in the point of Juitifica-
( B4)
tion. (And yet after all this, I (hall as earnefiljr
as this Dodtor, defire and labour for accuratenefs
in Dillmguifhwg, Defining and ^Method , though
I will not have fuch things to be Engins of Church-
Divilion.)
And laftly, Becaufe he Co oft and earneftly pret
feth me with his Quern quibus, who is the Man>
I profefs I dreamed not of any 'particular CMan i
But I will again teU you whom my Judgment mag-
nifies in this Controverfie above all others , and
who truly tell you how faPPapifis and Proteftants
agree, viz. Vine, le Blaq^, and Guil. Forbes, (I
meddle not with his other Subjetts), Placeus (in
Thef. Salmur.) *Davenant, Dr. Field, Mr. Scud-
der (his daily Walk,fit for all families) Mt.JPbtton,
Mr. Bradfbaw, and- Mr. Gataker, Dr. Prefton, Dr.
Hammond, (Tratt. Cat.) and Mr. L^wp/* (in the
main) Abundance of the French and Breme Divines
are alfo very clear. And though I muft not provoke
him again by naming fome late Englijh men, to re-
proach them by calling them my difciples, I will
venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our
wrangling tedioufnefs,thzt Mr* "trumans Great Profit.
and Mr. Gibbons ferm. ofjujlif. may ferve him well
without any more.
And while this worthy Do&or and I do both
concord with fuch as Vavenant and Field as to Ju-
fiificationby Faith or J^j^,judg whether we differ
between our felves as far as he would perfwade the
World, who agree in tertio ? And whether as he
hath angrily profeft his concord in the two other
Controverfies which he raifed (our Guilt of nearer
Parents fin, and our preferring the judgment of the
wifeft, Sec.) it be not likely that he will do fo alfo
in
(85)
in this>when he hath leifure to read and know what
it is that I fay and hold, and when we both under*
fiand our felves and one another. And whether it
be a work worthy of Good and Learned men, to al-
larm Chriftians againft one another for the fake of
arbitrary words and notionsfwhich one partly ufeth
lefs aptly and skilfully than the other) in matters
wherein they really agree.
2 Tim. 2.14. Charging them before the Lord that
they ftrive not about words Jo no profit , but to thefub-
verting of the Hearers (yet) ftudy tojhew thyfelf ap-
proved unto God j a workman that need not be a]hamed 3
rightly dividing the word of Truth
Two
(%6)
Two Sparks wore quenched^
which fled after the reU
from the Forge of Dr. Tho*
Tully.
Did I not find that fottie Mens Tgno^
ranee and factious ^edoufie is
great enough to make them com-,
buftible Recipients of fuch Wild-
fire as thofe Strictures are 5 and did not
Charity oblige me to do what I have here
done, to fave the afTauked Charity of fuch
Perfons, more than to fave any Reputati-
on of my own* I fhould repent that I had
written^ one Line in anfwer to fuch Wri-
tings as I have here had to do with : I have
been fo wearied with the haunts of the like
Spirit, in Mr, Crandon^ Mr. Bag(haw 7 Mr.
Darners^ and others, chat it is a work I
have
(8 7 j
have not patience to be much longer in, uri-
lefs it were more necefTary.
Two fheets more tell us that the Doftor
is yet angry • And little that's better that
I can find. In the firft, he faith again,
that {J am bujie in fmoothing my way where
none can ftumble in^ a thing never quefti-
oned by him>> nor by any Man elfe 7 he thinks^
who ovens the Authority of the fecond Com-
mandmenf]. And have I not then good
Company and Encouragement not to
change my Mind ?
But, i . He feigneth a Cafe ftated be-
tween him and me, who never had to do
with him before, but as with others in my
Writings, where I ftate my Cafe my felf #
2. He never fo much as toucheth either
of my Difputations of Original Sin , in
which I ftate my Cafe and defend it#
3. And he falfly feigneth the Cafe itated,
in words ( and he fuppofeth in a fenfe) that
I never had do do with : Saying, \l charge
you with a new fecondary Original Sin y
whofe Pe degree is not from Adam : / engage
not a fj liable further^. And pag. 8. | Tom
have averted that this Novel Original Sin
is not derived from our Original Father 5
no line of Communication between them; a
fin be fides that which is derived from Adam,
as
( 88 )
m you plainly and positively affirm]* I ne-
ver faid chat it had no Pedegree^ no line of
Communication^ no kind of derivation from
Adam. 4. Yea 5 if he would not touch
the Difputation where I ftate my Gafe^ he
ihould have noted it as ftated in the very
Preface which he writeth againft 5 and yet
there alfo he totally overlooketh it, though
opened in divers Propofitions. 5. And
the words in an Epiftle to another Mans
Book) which he fafteneth ftill on were thefe 5
[Over- looking the Inter eft of Children in the
Actions of their nearer Parents^ and think
that they participate of no Guilt 7 and fuffef
for no Original Sin, but Adams only]. And
after, [They had more Original Sin than
what they had from Adam]. 6. He tells
me, that \l feem not to under ft and my own
(^ueftion, nor to know well how to fet about
my Work]* and he will teach me hoW (
to manage the Bujinefs that I have un~
der taken , and fo he tells me how I
MUST ftate the Queftion hereafter, (fee
his words). Reader, fome Reafons may
put a better Title on this Learned Do&ors
actions ; but if ever I write at this rate,
I heartily defire thee to caft it away as
utter DISHONESTY and IM-
PUDENCE/
M
It troubleth me to trouble thee with Re-
petitions. 1^ hold, I. That Adams Sin
is imputed (as I opened) to hR Po;ierity.
2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains
nature received from Adam, was the dif-
pofitive endining Caufe of all his Adual
Sin : 3. But not a neceffitating Caufe of
all thofe AdS 5 for he might poffibly have
donelefs evil and more good than he did.
4. Therefore not the total principal Caufe *
for Cains free-rviil was fart of that. 5 . Caws
actual Jin increased the pravity of his na-
ture. 6. And Cains Poferity were (as I
opened it) guilty of Cains actual Jin • and
their Natures were the more depraved by
his additional pravity 5 than they would
have been by Adams (in alone (unlefs Grace
preserved or healed any of them).
The Dodtor in this Paper, would make
his Reader believe that he is [for no meet.
Logomachies'] and that the difference is not
in words only^ but the thing. And do you
think that he differeth from me in any of
thefe Propofitions, or how this fin is deri-
ved from Adam i Yet this now muft be the
Controverfie de re.
Do you think (fori muft go by thirihin
that he holdeth any other Derivation than
this i Or did I ever deny any of this >
( 90 )
But it is vain to ftate the Cafe to him :
He will over- look it, and tell me what I
jhould have held;, that he* may not be
thought to make all this Noife for no-
thing.
He faith pag 8. {If it derive in a direct
line from the fir ft Iranfgreffion, and have its
whole Root fajlened there jwhat then* why then
fome words which he fets together are not the
bejl fenfe that can be fpoken. It is then but
words, and yet it is the thing: What he
may mean by £a direct Line% and what
by [whole Root fastened] I know not ; but
I have told the World oft enough what I
mean 5 and what he meaneth, I hav£ little
to do with.
But if he think, i . That Adams Perfon
did commit the fin of Gain, and o£ all that
ever were fince committed ; and that Ju*
d&shisacl, was Adams pergonal act. %• Or
that Adams Jin was a total or necejjitating
Caufe of all the evil fince committed; fo
do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And -
now I am caft by him on the ftrair, either
to accufe him of differing de re, and fo of
Doctrinal errour, or elfe that he knoweth
not when the difference is dere y and when
de nomine^ but is fo ufed to confufion, that
Names and Things do come promifcuoufly
into
( pi )
into the Queftion with him: And which
of thefe to chufe, 1 know not.
The Reader may fee that I mentioned
fcAtfual Sift, andGuilf\ : And I think few
Will doubt 5 but Adams [Actual fin, and
Cains^ were divers • and that therefore,
the Guilt that Cains Children had of
Adams (in and of Cains was not the fame:
But that Cauja caufe is Caufa caufati^ and
fo that all following Sin was partly (but
partly) caufed by Adams > we ihall focn
agree.
He addeth that I mud make good that
new. Orioinal Sin (for he can make ufe of
the word New , and therefore made ir)
doth mutare naturam^ as the Old doth. Jnj.
And how far it changethit^ I told him, and
he taketh no notice of it : The jir ft fin
changed Nature from Innocent into Koccnt ;
the Second changeth it from Noceni triiv
-more Nocent : Doth he deny this t Or why
muff I prove any more i Or doth nothing
but Cbnfufion pleafe him <
3. He faith, I muft prove that the De-
rivation of Progenitors Jins is conftant and
neceffarv, not uncertain and contingent.
Jnf. (if this alfo I fully (aid what I held,
and he diffemblem it all, as if I had never
done it : And *hv muft I prove more i
'v z £y
K 91 )
By what Law can he impofe on me whaf:
%o hold**
But really doth he deny that the Re at us
$ulf either the
Reader will perufe the cited words^ and my.
words ^ which /hew to what em I cited them
(to prove our Guilt of pur nearer parents
fins) or he will not. If he will not, I can-
not expeft that he will read a further Vindica-
tion : If he will, he peedeth not*
j,
§. 3. His fecond Spark is Animadver-
Jians on a fheet of mine, before mentioned,
which are fuch as I ana not willing to med-
dle with 5 feeing I cannot either handle
them., or name them as the nature of them
doth require, without offending him : And
jf what is here faid fof Imputation and JRf-
v ^5 /
presentation) be not enough, I will add no
more, nor write over and over ftill the fame
things, becaufe a Man that will take no
notice of the many Volumns which an-
fwer all his Objections long ago, will call
for more, and will write his Animadverfions
upon a fingle Sheet that was written on an-
other particular occafion, and pretend to
his difcoveries of my Deceits from the Sir
knee of that Sheet 7 and from my naming
the Antinomians.
1 only fay, i. If this Mans way of Dif-
puting were the common way, I would ab-
hor Disputing) and be afhamed of the
Name.
2. I do friendly defire the Author of the
friendly Debate, Mr. Sherlock, and all o-
thers that would fatten fuch Do&rines on
the Non-GonformifiS} as a Character of the
J? arty i' to obferve that this Do<5W fuffici
ently confuteth their partiality ; and that
their Academical Church- Dodors, are as
Confuted, as Vehement maintainers of fuch
exprefifions as they account moft unfavoury,
as any even of the Independents cited by
them : Yea 5 that this Doctor would make
us qneftion whether there be.now znyAntino-
mians among us 5 and fo whether all the Con-
formifts that have charged the Conformifts,
yea, '
( 94 /
yea or the Sectaries > with having among
them Men of fuch unfound Principles, have
not wronged them, it being indeed the Do-
ctrine of the Church of England which they
maintain^ whom I and others calljlntino-
mians and Libertines : And I hope ^t leaft
the fober and found Non-Gonformifts are
Orthodox^ when the vehementeft Sectaries
that calumniated my Sermon at Tinners
Hall, are vindicated by fuch a Do&or of
theGhurch.
3 . I yet conclude, that if this One Mans
Writings do not convince the Reader, of the
Sin and Danger of Aliarming ChrifUans a-
gainft one another, as Adverfaries to great
and necefTary Do&rines, on the account of
meer Words not underjlood^ for want of accu-
ratenefs and skill in the expreflive Art, I
take him to be utterly unexwfeMe .
Pemble Vind. Graf, p, 25. It were fomewbat if it
were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burtbsn >
where many weak^Men may bear that which One or few
cannot: But in the fe arch of Knowledge it fares as
in dif crying a thing afar off j where one quick- fight
will fee further than a thoufand clear Eyes.
F I JA£ I S,
75
fmmmmmmm
A
POSTSCRIPT.
ABOUT
Mr. DA^VE^s
Laft BOOK.
WHen this Book was coming out of the
Prefs, I received another Book of Mr*
Qapvers againft Infants Baptifm, in
which he mentioneth Dr. Tallies fro-
t/lflg what a Papiftlam, in his Juftif. Paul, (with
Dr. Pierces former Charges) arid lamenting that
no more yet but one Dr. Tally hath come forth to
'Encounter rnc^ Epift. and Pag. 224. The perufal of
that Book ("with Mr. Tombs (hort Refledions) diV
re^eth me to fay but this intfead of any further
Confutation.
That it is (as the former) fo full of falfc Alle-
gations fet off with the greateft Audacity (even a
few Lines of my own about our meeting ar Sainc
James's left with the Clerk, grofly falsified) anct
former falfifications partly juftified , and parriy
part over, and his mod paffionate Charges grou-d-
F
74 3t ^oftfcript about
ed upon Miftakes , and managed by Mifreports* j
fometime of Words-, fometime of the Senfe* and ■
fometime of Matters of Faft > in fhort , it is ,
fuch a bundle of Miftake* Fiercenefs and Confidence* \
that I take it for too nfelefs and unpleafant a Work j
to give the World a particular Detection of thefc j
Evils. If I had fo little to do with my Time as
to write it, I fuppofe that few would find leifure
to read it : And I defire no more o,f the willing
Reader, then ferioufly to perufe my Book (More
Keafons for Infants Chitrch-memberjhip) with his,
and to examine the Authors about whofe Words
or Senfe we differ. Or if any would be Informed
at a cheaper rate, he may read Mr. 'Barrets Fifty
Queries in two (beets. And if Mv.Tornbes revile ]
me, for not tranferibing or anfwering more of
his Great Bool^* when I tell the Reader that I fup-
pofe him to have the Book before him* and ani not
bound to tranferibe fuch a Volume already in
Prinr, and that I anfwer as much as I think needs
an Anfwer, leaving the reft as I found it to the
Judgment of each Reader , he may himfelf take
this for a Reply > but I muft judg of it as it is.
I find but one thin^ in the Book that needeth any
other Anfwer, than to perufe what is already Writ-
ten : And that is about Baptizing Naked : My
£ook was written i6* r p\ A little before* common
uncontrolled Fame was* that wot far from us in one
place many of them were Baptized na^edy reproving
the Cloathing way af Antifcriptura! : I never heard
Man deny this Report : I converted with divers of
Mr. tombes's Church, who denied it not : As ne-
ver any denied it to me* fo I never read one that did
deny it to my knowiedg : He now tells me Mr.
Fijhet t
$0t. Dan ver's fctft 2I500&* 7?
Tifoer, Mr. Haggar^ and Mr. Combes did : Let any
Mao read Mr. T'ombes Anfvver to me, yea and that
Paffage by him now cited, and fee whether there
be a word of denial : Mr. Fifher or Haggar 1 never
faw : Their Books I had ieen*, but never read
two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. Fifhers,
though I numbered it with thofe that were writ-
ten on that Subject, as well I might : I knew his
Education and his Friends, and I faw the Great
Volume before he turned Quaker, but I thought it
enough to read Mr. 'tombes and others that wrote
before him, but I read not him, nor all Mr. Wg-
gars: If I had, I had not taken them for compe-
tent Judges of a fad far from them ? and that
three years after : Could they fay, that no one ever
did fo ? The truth is that three years after, mifta-
king my words, as if I had affiimed it to be their
ordinary praUice (as you may read in them) which
I never did, nor thought, they vehemently deny
this: (And {ach he edlefs reading occafioneth many*
of Mr. Danvers AccufationsJ. I never faid that
no Man ever denied it j for I have not read all that
ever was written, nor fpoken with all the World :
But no Man ever denied it to me, nor did I ever read
any that denied it. And in a matter of Fa&, if that
Fame be not credible, which is of things Late and
Near, and not Contradicted by any one of the m Ji
interejfed Perfons themfehes, no not by Mr. T'ombes
himfelf, wemuft furceafe humane Couverfe : Yet
do I not thence undertake that the fame was true,
either of thofe Perfons, or fuch as other Writers
beyond Sea have faid it off. I faro not any ore Bap-
tized by Mr. T'ombes or any other in River cr die-
[Where by Dipping at Age : If you do no fuch %lm§%
F 2 I
7A £ ^oftfcript about I
1 am forry that I believed it, and will recant it° J
Had I not feen a gjtyaker go nakec( through JVorce-
fieratthc Aflizes, and read the Ranters Letters full
of Oathes, I could have proved neither of them.
And yet J know not where fo long after to find my
Witnefles t I abhor Sjanders, and receiving ill Re-
ports unwarrantably : I well know that this is not
their ordinary Practice : The Quakers do not thofe
things now, which many did at the rifing of the
SecSti and if I could, I would believe they never
did them.
2. This Book of Mr. Vanversjwith the reft of the
fame kind, increafe my hatred of the Vifputing Con-
tentious way of writing, and my troublie that the
Caufe of the Church and "truth hath fo oft put on
me a neceffity to write in a Difputing way, againft
the V^ritings of fo many Aflailants*
3. It increafeth my Grief for the Cafe of Man-
Irind, yeaof well-meaning godly Chriftians, who
are unable to jiidg of many Controverfies agitated,
otherwife than by fome Glimpfes of pocr Probabili-
ty, and the efteem which they have of the Perfons
which do manage them, and indeed take their Opi-
nions upon truft from thofe whom thf'y moft reve-
ience and value \ and yet can fo hardly know whom
to follow, whilft the groffeft Miftakes are fet off
with as great confidence and holy pretence, as the
greateft Truths. Q how much (hould Chriftians be
jpitied, that muft go through fo great Temptations !
4. It increafeth my RefoJution, had I longer to
|ive, to con verfe with Men ' that I would profit? or
profit by, either as a Learner hearing what they have
to fay, without importunate Contradiction, or as
a 'teacher tf they delire to Learn, of me : A School^
1 J '•' ; r : * -; ' ' ■ - - • •* ' way
£Pt% Danver's iatt BOOR. 77
way may do fomething to increafe Knowledg *
but drenching Men, and Jiriving with them, doth
but fee them on a fiercer driving againfi the Truth;
And when they that have need of feven and feven
years Schooling more, under fome clear well ftudicd
Teacher, are made Teachers thtmfelves, and then
turned loofe into the World (as Sampfons Foxes)
to militate for and with their Ignorance, what tLuft
the Church Tuffer by fuch Contendeis ?
5. It increafeth my diflike of that Sectarian di-
viding hurtful Z^al, which is defcribed James 3.
and abateth my wonder at the rage of Periecntors :
For I fee that the fame Spirit maketh the f*me kind
of Men, even when they moft cry out againft Perffe-
cutors, and feparate furtheii from them.
6* It refolveth me more to enquire lefs after the
Anfwers to Mens Booty than I have done : And I
(hall hereafter think never the worfe of a Mans
writings, for hearing that they are anfwered ; For
I fee it is not only eaiie for a talking CM an to tall^
QH-i and .to fay fomething for or againji any thing, but
it is hard for them to do otherwife^ even to hell
their "tongues , or Fens , or Peace : And when I
change this Mind, I muft give the greateft belief tA
Women that will talk moil, or to them that live
longeji, and fo are like to have the laft word, or to
them that can train up militant Heir* and Succel-
fors to defend them when they are dead, and fo
propagate the Contention. If a fober Confidcra-
tion of the firfl and fecond writing fyea of p fu he
Principles) will not inform me, I (hall have littfc
hope to be much the wifer for ail the reft.
7. I am fully fatished that even good Men are
here fo far from Petfe^ion, that they puft bear
'• ■ witli
73 % #oftfcttpt about
with odious faults and injuries in one another,
and be habituated to a ready and eafie forbearing
and forgiving one another* I will not fo much as
defcribe or denominate Mr. Darners Citations of
Dr. Fierce, to prove my Popery and Crimes, nor
his paflages about the Wars, and about my Chan*
ges , Self-oontradi&ions , and Repentances , left
I da that which favoureth not of Forgivenefs; O
whff need have we all of Divine Forgivenefs !
8. I (hall yet lefs believe what any Mans Opinion
(yea or Practice) is by his Adverfaries Sayings,
Collettionsj Citations, or moft vehement Aftevera-
tions, than ever I have done, though the Report-
ers pretend to never fo much Truth, and pious
■Zeal,
p. I (hall IeYs truft a confounding ignorant Reader
or Writer, that hath not an accurate defining and
difiinguijhing Underftanding, and hath not a ma-
ture, exercifed , discerning Knowledg than ever I
have done \ and efpecially if he be engaged in a
Se& (which alas, how few parts of the Chriftian
World efcape ! ) For I here (and in many others)
fee, that you have no way to feem Orthodox with
fuch, but to run quite into the contrary Extream :
And if I write againft both Extreams, I am taken
by fuch Men as this, but to be for both and again(h
both, and to contraditl my felf When I write a-
gainft the Per(ecutors, I am one of the Sectaries,
and when I write againft the Se&aries, I am of the
Perfecutorsfide : If I belie not the Prelatifts, I am
a Conformift ; If I belie not the Anabaptifls, In-
dependants, &c. I am one of them : If I belie not
the Papifls, I am a Papift V if I belie not the Ar-
menians, Jam an Aminian > if I belie not the Cal-
• yinijls
$)r* Dan ver's foft 1B00k; 7 9
vinilh-, I am with Pfeudo-Tilenw and his Brother,
pwus putus ?nritanus y and one Qui totum Purita-
nifmumtotus fpirat (which Jofepb Allen too kindly
interpreted) • If I be for lawful Epifcopacy, and
lawful Liturgies and Circumftances of Worfljip , I
am a temporizing Conformijl: If I be for no morejmx
an intollerable Non-Conformift (at this time forced
to part with Houfe, and Goods, and Library, and
all fave my Clothes, and to poifcfs nothing, and
yet my Death (by fix months Imprifonment in the
Common Goal^ is fought after and continually ex-
pected. If I be as very a Fool, and as little under-
stand my felf and as much contradiU my felf as all
thefe Confounders and Men of Violence would havs
the World believe,it is much to my cofl, being hated
by them all while I feek but for the common peace.
10. But I have alfo furthetr learned hence to take
up my content in Gods Approbation , and (having
done my duty, and pitying their own and the Peo-
ples fnares) to make but fmall account of all the
Reproaches of all forts of Se&aries * what they
will fay againft me living or dead , I leave to
themfelves and God, and (hall not to pleafe a Cen-
forious Sect, or any Men whatever, be falfe to my
Confcience and the Truth : If the Caufe I defend
be not of God, I defire it may fall: If it be, I
leave it to God how far He will profpet it 5 and what
Men (hall think or fay of me : And I will pray for
Peace to him that will not hate and revile me for
fo doing. Farewell.
Septemb. 4.
U75,
F I N I S.