that there was Gospel under the Law and the Spirit c. and divers Iewes penitent beleevers and therefore under the second Covenant Sir all this is granted most willingly and yet Christs comming in the flesh did bring more light more plentifull effusions of the Spirit and so might possibly be allowed to give new precepts also 2 For the promises how plaine they were to the Jews needed not to bee disputed by him who speaks onely of precepts save onely as the height or plainnesse of the promises is amongst other arguments apt to make higher precepts more seasonable and yet that the promises might be cleared by Christ and made more universally knowne you will hardly deny or disprove also For though they were so plaine that they saw them yet 't was afarre off in your owne citation of Hebrewes 11 and they that were present to Christ who was one of the promises might sure have a clearer sight of them The same will bee answer to your third argument for that concernes the promises againe and in that respect 't is sufficient to adde that the promises were they never so high before were now sure clearer under Christ and that is all that is affirmed by that Author and will suffice to inferre his concluded obligation to higher obedience And so likewise the fourth will be answered concerning the Ceremonies which I acknowledge to have had some good in them in order to Christ whom they prefigured but yet many of them had none in themselves I am sure none when Christ is come and hath removed the obligation of them and so may bee allowed to have added some new precepts in lieu of them and I am as sure they have not so much of goodnesse or easinesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as now is in the very highest and strictest precepts that are given us under Christ and therefore there is nothing like unreasonable in the change In your fifth sure 't is not so strange that I should mention the pardoning of sinne now under Christ for though that was to bee had for the penitent beleever under the time of the Law of Moses yet was it 1. Not by the power or purport of the Law but onely by Christ And 2 't was not at all to bee had in the state of nature or first Covenant which required unsinning obedience and to the Law of nature that law of Christ was said to super-add as well as to the Law of Moses and therefore that particular in the 95 page was not impertinent neither or capable of your sad wonder But how I am obliged to thinke your question Whether there is any veniall sinne tolerably pertinent or fit to expect any returne from mee at this time I cannot guesse yet shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answer that also that though no sinne have any title to pardon under the first Covenant yet under or by the purport of the second many sinnes not gotten out of infirmities c. shall be washed in Christs blood and so bee actually pardoned which is more then veniall or pardonable in that sense whereas many other shall never bee capable of that washing or that pardon without particular forsaking but bring them that lye under them impenitent unbeleevers into condemnation This were abundantly enough considering the call I have to the answering of that question at this time Yet to demonstrate to you that I am not over shy of answering you a question though it bee of some nicety when you think fit to ask it me I will goe a little farther to serve you and give you the state of this question if you please by way of supposition at large in such a manner possibily that no party will find much to object to it Thus What is the meaning of this ordinary question an aliquod peccatum sit suâ naturâ veniale will appeare by the answer that must bee given if it bee satisfactory to this argument which I shall imagine produced against it No sinne is in its owne nature mortall for that sinne should bee the cause of damning any or that punishement eternall should bee due to sinne is but an accident that the Law or Covenant of God brought in either to Adam Quo die comeder is morte morieris or after Behold I set before you life and death c. for sure had it not beene for that Law of prohibition that Covenant with that penalty on breach of conditions sinne had never damned any one and therefore those irrationall creatures to whom no such Law is made and Covenant given though they should be supposed to sinne against the Law of their creation they shall not be punished eternally for that Now it is an old rule in Logick that Accident advenit enti in actu existenti and is not de naturâ subjecti though sometimes so ingraffed into it that it becomes inseparable from it therefore this being mortall or damning being an accident that came in by Gods Covenant or Law cannot bee of the nature of sinne what ever that sinne bee For if it were so then God who cannot make contradictions true nor consequently take away the nature of the thing and preserve the thing could not take away the damningnesse of sinne from sinne any more then quantity from a body manente peccato realiter which yet wee know God can doe and ordinarily doth by pardoning of sinne for however it may be said by way of answer to that part of the Argument that Christ suffered and satisfied for sinne or else God could not pardon any not to dispute the truth of that whether hee could or no it still remaines that the damningnesse of sin is then taken from sin by what meanes it now matters not This is the Argument I meant to suppose made against that plaine granted truth and to this argument hee that had proposed the maine question and held it negative if hee will ever answer must say that the Law and Covenant of God whether that signifie the eternall Law or even the eternall will of God who wills holinesse as hee is God or in any other motion of Law is a maine ingredient in the constituting of sin the very formalis ratio that makes that which is of its selfe materially an act to become formaliter a sinfull act that makes the killing of a man which is materially murder to be also formally the sin of murther and therefore if by the Law or Covenant of God all sinne bee made mortall then may it truly bee said in this other notion or respect or for this reason that all sinne is so of its owne nature This answer must bee acknowledged to bee pertinent and satisfactory and so any Protestant will receive it and in stead of excepting against it I desire to strike in and close with both Disputer and Answerer and inferre that then it seemes this is resolved on by that party that holds all sinnes in their owne
were mis-informed and I thanke you for your endeavour to prevent mistakes Truly Sir I doe not wilfully mistake your sense nor doe I desire to take any advantage of an hasty expression Your first Proposition is that justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sinne I will not stand to aske you why you put acceptation before pardon it is likely that was not done de industrià but I would know why you speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation I observe that in your second proposition you doe affirme that The mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of this justification Doe not thinke mee too curious since you desire mee to give my opinion of these propositions you know there are some that distinguish between a first and second justification and they doe expresse themselves warily and they will grant what you say so you will give them leave to chuse which they meane this or that justification But I will judge charitably of you hoping that by this justification you intend not to imply that there is another justification and so as they say a first and second justification Give me leave to aske you a question or two about the second proposition compared with the fourth and with some passages in your Practicall Catechisme that by a cleare answer to a few quaeres many mistakes may be prevented In your second proposition you say The mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of justification In your Catechisme you say That Christ did sacrifice himselfe for all the sin of all mankinde and yet in your fourth proposition in this last return you say That this worke of grace in God through Christ is not every mans portion Sir if Christs satisfaction bee the sole cause and hee hath made satisfaction for every man the grace of God which extends as farre as Christs satisfaction must be the portion of every man for his justification by the obedience of Christ alone My first quaere then is 1 Why the grace of God in justifying those for whom Christ hath satisfied doth not extend to every man for whom he hath satisfied 2 Whether the qualification and condition which you require in the subject bee bestowed upon the elect absolutely or conditionally Regeneration you say is a condition which doth dispose the subject for justification that is for acceptance and pardon as I conceive and you expresse Pray Sir shew mee what condition God requires unregenerate persons to perform that they may attaine unto regeneration which you take to be the condition of justification I acknowledge that God doth never justifie an impenitent infidell in sensu composito that is the infidell doth not remaine an impenitent infidell but then you must grant on the other side that God doth justifie the ungodly 3 Whether there be any condition which doth so qualifie the subject as that you can say by these habits acts vowes and these onely I am justified Pract. Catech. page 28. Sir Learned men say that there is no condition required to dispose the subject for justification but there is a condition namely Faith bestowed upon none but the elect to receive the object of justification Christ and his compleate obedience perfect righteousnesse and hence as I conceive some men that meant well say there is a condition required that is to receive the object and others say there is no condition required that is to dispose or qualifie the subject so as that the subject shall bee constituted righteous by that disposition or qualification I speake as plainely as I can devise that there may bee no mistake God doth by his free and effectuall grace worke the hearts of his elect to receive Christ that they may bee justified not by their own obedience or vow of obedience but by the obedience of Christ alone freely imputed by God and rested on by faith onely Moreover Learned men doe distinguish betweene disposing of the subject to salvation which is the last part of the excution of Gods decree of election and disposing the subject unto justification though they grant that there is a condition to enable the subject to receive the object Jesus Christ who is Iehovah our righteousnesse And therefore Protestants do maintaine that all the habits and acts of grace which are in the best of men concurring together are not sufficient to justifie a man before God and therefore faith concurring with a vow of obedience or any faithfull actions cannot justifie us Though faith alone bee said to justifie us Relatively that is in regard of the object received by faith I acknowledge with you that justification is Gods act wee cannot pardon out selves and God sitting as a fatherly Judg upon a throne of grace doth justifie us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Chrysostome upon the 8. of Rom. 33. vers Sir let me intreat you not to wonder that I find fault with some passages in your Book which you say are in effect places of Scripture Sir to abuse the Scripture for the maintenance of any error is to my apprehension a great deale worse then to deliver any erroneous conceits in our own language The Papists say as you doe that they say no more then St. Iames himselfe saith I did not dreame that you thought Abraham was justified by the actuall sacrificing of his sonne Socinus saith Abraham was justified by offering up of Isaac I doe not think he means it in any other sense then that which you repeat namely that Abraham was justified by a resolution to obey God in the sacrificing of his Sonne not by the actuall sacrificing of him Sir I am heartily glad to heare you acknowledg that you agree with mee in the conclusion bee pleased to retract all that is contrary to that conclusion in your Pract. Catechisme and then I am sure you must retract what I complained of Pray Sir doe you not thinke that we are justified by a sincere vow of obedience as truly as wee are by faith that is that our vow of obedience is a condition of Justification I doe not say an instrument for you deny faith to bee an instrument of justification And therefore if a sincere vow of obedience be the condition of justification wee are justified as truly by that as by faith 2 Consider that you say in this last returne p. 20. The condition must bee undertaken before the Covenant belongs to me This vow or resolution of obedience is as I conceive that which you call the undertaking of the condition why then surely obedience is the condition of the Covenant of justification for obedience is that which is undertaken in a vow of obedience 3 If by Covenant you meane the whole Covenant of grace you must make some condition goe before our regeneration also 4 You know the Papists speake as fully as you doe any where for the meritorious satisfaction of Christ but you know what
that was brought for it that it might looke the more naked and despicable Your third was discreetly order'd to scoffe at what was said for a dictate and admirable which was neither but a plaine evident truth that the impurity of our humane condition may bee matter of godly sorrow to any though not meerely quà an infelicity and you aske againe whether it bee godly sorrow to grieve for an infelicity I say againe such the infelicity may bee particularly that now spoken of that it may bee matter of Godly sorrow or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be otherwise described in a gracious stile of loving the appearance of Christ which may rid us of our impurities and yet not bee this quà sic meerely as an infelicity which was all that was needfull there to bee inferr'd In your fourth you mention your opinion that all pollution of the soule of man hath been by sinne onely But sure Sir this doth not prove every pollution to bee a sinne but as your words import an effect or consequent of sin Next you pronounce that I am much mistaken and your proof of it is petitio principii a begging i.e. not proving yet assuming the thing before in question and prov'd on the other side by mee both before and now in the last Sect. viz. That no man grieves for a sinne after a godly manner but hee that grieves for it as a sinne against God When you know that by that one instance of the impurity of our nature mourned for by him that tooke it not for a sinne but onely a thing that rendred him 1 imperfect then 2 prone to sinne and 3 lesse amiable in Gods sight c. with an addition of wishing and praying to bee dissolved and bee with Christ as farre better the contrary was undeniably inferr'd and no answer offered by you to these premisses For the undeniable grounds of repentance I suppose they are laid in that Cat. both by requiring it for all sinne and by naming inclinations to evill in the front of sinnes without ifs or ands or any dubious expressions But yet after all your severity in giving your advice for the designing of a Catechisme I conceive your inference in the name of the Acute wretch was farre from any acutenesse for sure whatever were resolved about inclinations being no sinnes when unconsented to 't would never follow for your Client Ergo the like acts to which he is naturally inclined are not evill For sure Sir the acts may bee allow'd sinnes and not bee excused by our being naturally inclined to them whatever were conceived of the inclinations The conclusion from your premisses could onely bee this Ergo this and that act being naturall also are not evill And if you wretch should conclude so you would soone bee able to inform him that his acts are not naturall and therefore may be allow'd to be evil though he be naturally inclined to them because it is very evil not to resist and deny those inclinations You then goe off in triumph with a You know what I could adde Truly Sir I professe I doe not and yet whatever 't is if it bee like this you have allow'd mee I should consider it perhaps in obedience to you but never be much wrought on by it Yet shall I excuse this for the good news it brings with it being a transition to the fourth report another stage toward the end of my very wearisome journey In that you have begun with many little particulars which want of truth particularly that I make a second acknowledgement that I was mis-informed when I onely professe that by your discourse I cannot discerne whether I was in this mis-informed or no. It seemes you are willing to receive acknowledgements of mistakes you would otherwise thinke it more pertinent to tell mee whether in either Assembly you insisted on that particular or no. For an answer to your quaere's you sure perceive though you complaine for want of it that I gave you that whole sense of my soul in that point not onely by that meanes to bee sure to tell you my opinion of your then present quaere's but also of all others of that subject that 't were possible for you to ask And by this time I conceive you do discern that I am neither very forward to make quaere's to divert c. nor to deny answer to them when they are made About the first proposition you mention though you stand not to ask why acceptation is put for pardon 'T were no great matter if I said 't were de industriâ on this head because God first accepts the penitent person in Christ and then after in order of nature though not of time hee pardons his sinnes though indeed 't is true againe that the sinnes are pardoned in order of nature before the acceptation of the actions I meane of all the actions of the subsequent life But then there is a double acceptation of the person first and then of the actions of Abel first as the Fathers observe and then of his offerings Which yet I hope will not passe with you for the double justification but this ex abundanti also But to your maine question for I must now wholly deale in the old trade of answering questions which I have been told is the farre easiest way for him that wants other provision and yet would faine not make an end of disputing Why I speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation Sure 't is partly because acceptation of the person and so pardon also includes imputation of Christs righteousnesse as the formall cause of our justification God accepting of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or payment which is imputation of his sufferings by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and then accepting our persons and pardoning our sinnes partly because one kinde of imputation is after our pardon of sinne in order of nature a distinct thing from it and so needed not to bee there spoken of as belonging rather to our sanctification for the completing or filling up the imperfections of that I meane now the imputation of Christs perfect obedience to that penitent beleever whose sinnes are pardoned by the sufferings of Christ for to such a one Christs perfect obeying the Law may so farre bee imputed as to give a glosse or tincture to his still imperfect obediences so farre as that they shall bee accepted by God Which imputation therefore may bee antecedent to and have to doe with that acceptation of actions but yet in order of nature bee after the acceptation of persons and forgivenesse of sinnes But the truth is I then meant to give you plaine grosser propositions to prevent mistakes and disputes and not to descend to such nicer distinctions as these But truly you were very wary when you laid such an observation on the This in the second proposition which sure was an innocent particle of reference looking back to the Antecedent justification in the