Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n law_n moral_a precept_n 2,880 5 9.5945 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45140 The middle-way in one paper of justification with indifferency between Protestant and papist / by J.H. Humfrey, John, 1621-1719. 1672 (1672) Wing H3691; ESTC R27122 35,163 44

There are 5 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

righteousness of Christ that we are justified I cannot but think they are out likewise For if when Paul sayes we are not justified by works his meaning were not by our own works but by the obedience of Christ wrought for us then when James sayes we are justified by works his meaning must be by the works Christ did for us and he must not mean our own But this is absonant to any rational apprehension to construe St. James so Nor do I think such a meaning ever came into the heads of either of the Apostles Our Divines then should not say here of our works in general but as to the sense the Apostle speaks of them in general we are not justified them And what is that sense then in which he speak of works why he speaks of works in that sense most manifestly as the law require them that we may live in them Let a man then have the help of the spirit or be without it so long as he falls short of what the law requires at his hands be it never so little he cannot live by those works the curse is due to him for the least breach and that is contrary to justification There are some Divines of note therefore seeing no footing for this distinction have chose an other There are works of the Law say they and works of the Gospel When St. Paul sayes we are not justified by works he speaks expresly of works of the Law St. James is to be understood of the works of the Gospel This distinction may serve well provided it be cloathed with the sense of the Apostles When some have used these terms to signify no more but that we are not justifyed by Jewish observations but by the righteousness of the Gospel it falls too short in the first branch to do any thing But by the works of the law let them understand works which answer the law and that there are none justified by the works of the law because there is none perfectly fulfil it and they have hit the business For though Paul speaks not only of works by the law of innocency but directly and mostly of the works of the Jewish law which the Jews fancied ex sufficientia praestantialegis did as such procure pardon and life without looking to the merits of the Mediator for it and so erred yet the law of Moses consisting either in moral precepts that represented the law of Nature which no man can come up to and the most righteous of them did break or in the remedying commandements of sacrifices or attonements for sin whose virtue alone did lye in the blood of the Redeemer the ground and bottom of their errour which he confuteth does indeed lye herein that whatsoever it was they did or whatsoever they thought of it it did fall short of the law of works therefore did not justify them before God There are works then which if they be performed doe answer the law the law we are to mean ultimately as given to mankind in a Covenant by our creation and works which if performed do not answer the law but answer the Gospel If the distinction before-cited be received with this meaning it is true that Paul speaks of the works of the law and James of the works of the Gospel and that there is no man justified by the former because there is no man does or can perform them when we do perform the latter and are justified by them To give more light and weight to this There are works which if we be justified by them exclude grace and there are works which exclude not grace though we be justified by them The works of the law take them in this sense that answer the law if they be performed must make justification due so as it may be challenged according to the law the reward shall be of debt and there be no need of grace but justice in the case for he that doth them ought of right to live in them And these are the works undoubtedly that Paul disputes against while he proves justification to be of grace which is also agreeable to the end and scope the holy Ghost seems to have in it to wit he beating man down from all vain exaltation in himself and laying him at Gods feet for all he has Wherein it were not yet enough that what he hath is received seeing he would be even ready to boast of this that he hath received what others have not but that when he is enabled by God to perform that which he does even this which he hath received and is accepted is but such as God Almighty might choose whether he would accept it or not and if it were not for grace for all he hath done he could not yet be justified and saved On the contrary hand therefore the works of the Gospel that is the works which the Gospel requires of us as the condition of our justification and salvation such as faith repentance and new obedience when they are performed and answer the Gospel they do yet stand in need of grace because they do not answer the law and God might chuse whether he would accept them or no or make any promise to them When we repent it includes the acknowledgment of sin and when we believe it is a flying to Gods mercy for it and though we may walk sincerely before God we do not and cannot walk perfectly and he might condemn us is justice for the least failings and much more for our manifold transgressions If God then shews mercy and accepts of what we do it must be of his grace that he does it It is true that these works do justifie us but that is while we are judged at the bar of Gods grace or according to the new Covenant which is therefore called a Covenant of grace or the law of grace because that grace is no ways destroyed but confirmed by these works From whence it may appear that the two Apostles shall be so far from contradicting one another about this point as that what St. Paul contends for shall be made good by that which is said by St. James Paul sayes we are justified by grace and St. James proves it while he shews us that our works which are imperfect even such as Rahabs as well as Abrahams are accepted and rewarded as if they were perfect that is are imputed to us for righteousness which they could never be but for grace and that purchased through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus The third thing wherein St. Augustine mistakes is that which strewes the way to the Papists doctrine or justification by works and therefore it will be necessary before I come to it to advance here somthing out of this Father which offers us I think some light towards the fixing our own doctrine of justification by faith Per legem cognitio peccati per fidem impetratio gratiae contra peccatum per gratiam sanatio animi a vitio
5. Where he is proving that our conversion and so faith it self is from God To go on when the Apostle does oppose this faith and grace unto works he is put to it for when by grace he understands nothing but infused righteousness for the fulfilling the law how does that oppose works For the making his notion hold therefore by works in opposition to grace and faith he understands Opera sine adjutorio dono Dei works without the assistance and gift of God In short our justification is not of works which are done before we have grace but of works which proceed from it Israel non pervenit ad justitiam quare quia non ex fide sed tanquam ex operibus id est tanquam eam per semet ipsos operantes non in se credentes operari Deum Israel attained not to righteousness why because he sought it not of faith but as it were of works that is as working it out of themselves and not believing in God to work it in them Ib. c. 19. So De gra lib. arb c. 8. Quomodo non ex operibus ne fortè quis extollatur audi intellige non ex operibus dictum tanquam tuis ex te ipso tibi existentibus sed tanquam his in quibus te Deus finxit Ipsius enim figmentum sumus creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis How not of works that one may not boast hear and understand it is said not of works as thy own done by thee of thy self but of those as in which thou art created by God for we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works Again Ignorantes Dei justitiam id est quae ex Deo est homini ut sit justus suam volentes constituere tanquam per eorum non adjutam divinitus arbitrium lex possit impleri Being ignorant of the righteousness of God that is which comes from God to man to make him righteous and being willing to establish their own that is as if by their own free-will without the divine help they were able to perform the law Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum l. 3 c. 1. In this doctrine of the Father there are three things wherein he is out The first is in his conception of grace When works and grace are opposed we are not to apprehend with him that grace is taken for any thing infused in the Soul which is inherent grace for works and grace in this sense have no opposition the one being the fruits of the other But by grace we must understand the grace of God without us the grace which is in God that is his favour or the condescention of God to us in this matter And thus is the opposition very plain That which is of debt is one thing and that which is of favour another Not of works that is not of debt or of what would make the reward to be due but of grace that is when it is not due but of favour The certain truth is this God Almighty gave to man a law according to his nature which he repeated to the Jews and if any man were able to keep this law according to the Covenant of Nature then should his justification be of right and due according to the law of his creation but the Apostle does most industriously prove that neither Jew nor Gentile was able to produce these works and consequently if there be any whether Jew or Gentile that are justified it must be by grace because it cannot be of right or what he may challenge by the law upon that account Grace then and mark it well is the accepting of any mans person or thing which is done when one may choose or when in justice one were not bound to do it Accordingly when God justifies us by grace it is his accepting of us as righteous or of what we doe for righteousness and rewarding it as such when according to his law it would not stand but he might condemn us for it Let any who have better words use them I regard only my sense And here may we have an answer to a question of great heat amongst our Divines The Gospel requires Faith Repentance and new Obedience and how then are we justified and saved by grace or how then is grace free when it is not vouchsafed but upon conditions This difficulty hath made some run into that extream that the Covenant of grace is without condition but I say readily the grace of God or of the Gospel is free in that he accepts of the sinners faith and repentance when he needs not or when according to the law he is not tyed to it unless mans obedience were perfect That which our Divines do offer usually is this It is free because it is not of merit mans belief and obedience cannot merit any thing at the hands of God and much less salvation as well from the disproportion of our performances or momentary sufferings to the eternal weight of glory with other the like reasons as that we do herein but our duty and he helps us also in the doing which are the cheif reasons that are urged This information does labour I think with some defect of light If man had performed the condition of the Covenant of works it might upon these reasons have been said that life and salvation had been still of grace and free as not merited while these considerations hinder merit whereas the Apostle industriously opposing the sinners being justified or saved freely by Gods grace to justification by works or the deeds of the law does account if man were justifyed by works it would be of debt Could a man I say have performed the condition of the Covenant of Nature the Apostle accounts still in his reckoning that then had the reward been of debt or merit and if a mans own Conscience could not accuse him of sin he had no need of grace but now sayes he seeing both Jew and Gentile fall short hereof and all are become guilty before God there is none is or can be justified but it must be gratis freely in opposition to that performance To lend more help against this difficulty we must distinguish of merit There is a debt or merit of commutative justice or of governing distributive justice It is impossible that any should engage the Almighty in a debt of the former sort Of the latter fort there is a debt or merit upon compact or upon strict retaliation It is true that there is nothing man does or could do in the state of innocency had he continued perfect can merit or could have merited any reward from God upon the score of a strict retaliation or returning good for good any more then upon commutative justice because there is nothing we can do to our Governour who is infinite to benefit or hurt him and so these reasons before named of our Divines and others may come in if they please Can a man
The righteousness of God and grace opposed to works is really nothing else but the meritorious righteousness of Christ procuring the pardoning Covenant of grace and our performing the condition that is the righteousness of the Covenant of grace accepted by God for Christs sake instead of the righteousness of the Covenant of works Only we are to know this righteousness may be understood either with respect to God as it is all one I say with his grace or with respect to Vs as it is all one with that upon which this grace is vouchsafed Charitas Dei dicta est diffundi in cordibus nostris non qua nos ipse diligit sed qua nos facit dilectores suos sicut justitia Dei qua justi ejus munere efficimur As it is called the love of God whereby we are made to love him so the righteousness of God whereby we are made righteous through his gift Aug. de spir lit c. 32. It is true that this righteousness is wrought in us by the spirit and flowes not from our selves it is true also that as we performe it by his aid it is our own work yet is not the one the reason why it is called the righteousness of God nor the other any hindrance why it should not be so called for the reason lyes altogether in the opposition of it meerly to that of works Let a man do all that he can whether by his own strength or by Gods aid he can never come up to the law of works or to a conformity to the terms of the Covnant of nature or law of Moses as it was a representation of that Covenant so that by the deeds thereof he cannot be justified and for as much as it pleased God therefore to vouchsafe us a new law the law of faith or grace or the new Covenant having lower terms that in the performance hereof or in a conformity only hereunto the man who is a sinner in respect of the law may be righteous and so God just in justifying him this grace and condescention of God being meerly from his own good will is called thus the righteousness which is of him in opposition to the other which is of nature and so were ours or mans righteousness properly if he could attain unto the same But when he cannot attain unto that which is so by nature whatsoever he attains if it be less must be a righteousness only through grace which notwithstanding our shortness God mercifully condescends to accept instead of that which is perfect through the merits of our Saviour and in regard of that acceptation N. B. it is called his or the righteousness which is of him of his own free tender and allowance when in regard of performance it is ours though we do it by his help Lo here the true key that opens the mind of the Apostle and consequently the door to that treasure which depends upon it That which is said I know by our Protestants most to the quick is this that pardon indeed is an act of meer grace but justification is an act of justice according to law and therefore must Christs is an act of justice according to law and therefore must Christs righteousness which alone does answer the law be brought in to justifie the believer But this is a mistake for if justification lyes not altogether in pardon Even as David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works saying blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven it is at least one part of it and the whole is expresly declared by the Apostle to be by grace being justified freely by his grace True indeed it is an act of righteousness even a judicial or forensical act that is according to law but what law not the law of works but according to the law of Faith It is an act I say of that righteousness of God and no other which the Apostle sets forth in opposition to the law and works and makes all one with his grace To reckon it then an act of justice according to the Law intending thereby the law of works is to correct the Apostle and to tell him we know better how we are justified by Christ then he It is the understanding of this righteousness whereof we are now speaking will set us all right It is Christs obedience and sufferings alone no doubt which could make any compensation to God for our sins that he might without diminuition to his honour as Law-giver or Governour recede from his first law but when Christ hath by his satisfaction procured this that God should now deal with us by a new law the remedying law or upon other terms the thing is manifest in itself that the righteousness then which is pleaded and accepted for this satisfaction sake of Christ must be this righteousness of the new law or the righteousness of faith and not of works which both denominates the performer righteous and God just in justifying him according to it For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth That is as I construe it Christ by his satisfaction hath procured that we should not be judged by the law of works and consequently that righteousness or justification be attained if we do but perform the terms of the Gospel To declare I say at this time his righteousness that he might be just and a justifyer of him that belives in Jesus Who is made unto us of God that is a phrase I take it signifying no more then through whom one way or other God would have us obtain all spiritual blessings wisdome righteousness sanctification and redemption After this there are no texts I count such as the last purposely mentioned which are pressed by our Divines for their service before that are able to carry such a burden He hath made him sin for us sin as the expiatory sacrifice under the law is called sin who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him That is he who was the imaculate Lamb was made a sacrifice for our sins that we may become righteous with the righteousness of God which he accepts through him Christ as a Sacrifie redeems us from the law of sin and purchases for us a law of grace according to that law we have a righteousness which is accepted unto life through Christ I pray note it therefore it is not said that his righteousness might be made ours nor that we might be made his righteousness but that we might be made the righteousness of God And what is the righteousness of God I have shewen you just now and what in him likewise is declared here together with it in these few words Vt simus justitia Dei in ipso Haec est illa justitia Dei non qua ipse justus est sed qua nos ab eo facti That we should become the righteousness of God in him This is that righteousness
of God not whereby he is righteous but whereby we are made so of him Augustine again in the last cited place It is true then there is a righteousness of faith and righteousness of God of faith as the root of the whole condition which are one and by which in opposition to the righteousness of works we are justified but that this righteousness of God and of Faith is only the obedience of Christs life and death which he performed for us is assumed as much without reason as any consent of that Father To this purpose I take it is God styled in the Old Testament The Lord our righteousness that is in his condescention to accept us for Christs sake as righteous by a law of grace when in strict justice he might condemn us for sinners It is not appropriated to the second Person but to be understood of that Gospel goodness of God whereby he imputeth righteousness to us when we have none according to the law of our creation that is imputing the righteousness of faith to us without the works of that Covenant All our merits O Lord sayes the Father are thy mercy This is the true and exellent import of that expression signifying moreover that God that found out the means to demonstrate his justice no less fully and his goodness more fully to the World in saving us by this new law through his Sons mediation then if we had kept our first innocency or underwent his eternal judgment for our transgressions Another text which is a fellow with this I take it in sense and words is that to the Romans As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous I comment these words thus As through Adams sin we came into the state of the fall and so do all sin or are sinners against the law which none fulfil so by Christs obedience to his Father whereby he procured the grace of a new law for us we are brought to such a state as that many become righteous and are justified by the performance That all man-kind is involved in Adams first sin our Divines are agreed against Pelagius The most understand this to come through the Covenant or Will of God there are some apt to conceive only that Adam being the natural root of mankind human nature it self sinned in him and so when we come to exist his guilt is derived upon our persons as virtually and seminally in him no otherwise then Levi is said to have paid tyths to Melchisedech in the loyns of Ahraham I should incline to this explanation but that I see not then why all the sins of Adam besides and of all our Progenitors should not be ours also upon the same account as much as that first transgression Distinguish we therefore between the precept thou shalt not eat of the Tree under this Covenant and the threatning upon breach of it The Precept plainly belong'd to our first Parents only and as none of us broke that precept which we had not so can we not be reputed to have that sin in it self which we never committed nevertheless the penalty being by the Will or Covenant of God to extend to their progeny which falls out ordinarily in mans laws also that sin of Adams which in it self could be his only in the effects threatned upon the commission does become ours also God does so impute that act to us that we are all as well as he deprived of original righteousness corrupted in our nature and sure to dye In like manner I take it are we to conceive of the imputation both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us Our sins are not laid upon him to make him a sinner but to be a propitiation for our sins He was not made sin or accounted a sinner quoad reatum culpae as if he were guilty of our facts but he was dealt with as a sinner quoad reatum paenae in regard to the obligation unto satisfaction which as a Sponsor he was to make in our behalf The righteousness of Christ likewise which he performed as Sponsor or Mediator cannot be ours either really or representatively in it self because this righteousness as Mediator is proper to his Person and is not the very same required of any or all of us in the law it self but his righteousness as Mediator even his whole submission to the law of his Mediatorship in life and death is ours respectively as to what it procured or to what he intended it should procure in asmuch as we are partakers of the benefits that derive from it Our sins were Christs in the causation of his sufferings Christs righteousnes is ours in the effects of pardon and life eternal A third text and which carryes our Divines I think more then any is that to the Phillipians I count all things but loss that I may win Christ and be found in him not having mine own righteousness which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith In these words our Protestants observe that the righteousness of God and of faith is opposed to that righteousness which is our own and therefore it must be a righteousness without Vs received by faith But they are mistaken for besides that the righteousness of faith and of God is not the same with the righteousness of Christ as hath been before observed they are to know that this righteousness which Paul calls his own in this Text is the righteousness of the Jew that is the Jews own or his own as a Jew and a Pharisee not our own or his own as a Christian This appears from the Verses before If any thinketh that he hath whereof he may trust in the flesh I more circumcised the eighth day an Hebrew of the Hebrews as touching the law a Pharisee as touching the righteousness which of the law blameless This appears farther from another text which together with this alone is all that hath any such Antithesis in the Terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence they fetch this conjecture I bear them record that they have a Zeal for God but not according to knowledg For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God It is certain now from these places both that there is a righteousness which was Pauls own and the Jews own which he excluds from justification and opposes to the righteousness of faith and of God but this I say is not the Christian righteousness The Christians faith and new obedience are his own acts out of doubt by Gods help and his righteousness according to the Gospel and you shall never read St. Paul saying I desire to be found in Christ not having my own repentance my own faith love and new obedience which are conditions of being found in him that we may
Gospel The latter of these I take to be plain the former must be warily understood There is the Precept and the Retribution of the law We must take heed that we conceive not Christ to be our legal righteousness in regard to the Preceptive part of the law in the more frequent sense as if we were reputed by God to have fulfilled the same or satisfied it in him as representing our Persons which is the errour before confuted and especially by the reason last mentioned because this makes our justification to be by the law of works and not of grace which subverts the Gospel but there is a righteousness in regard to the retributive part of the law of works consisting in our discharge from its curse and penalty which is a righteousness of pardon and if any will call this our legal righteousness which is yet conferred by the Gospel and account we have it in Christ understanding nothing else by it but that his righteousness is the meritorious cause of it I know not any will oppose him It is true that pardon and righteousness without explication is a contradiction and therefore when we allow of a righteousness of pardon there is a strict and a large sense to be acknowledged of terms use in Scripture Blessed is the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works The imputation of righteousness to a person is to account him righteous and for a man to be accounted righteous without works that is without righteousness is explained in the next verse viz. to be pardoned By works he understands works of the law out of doubt for without faith and repentance or Gospel works God imputes righteousness to none Now how a man may be righteous according to the law of grace and yet need pardon in reference to the law of works the matter is plain but to make a man righteous through this pardon in regard to the retribution and guilty in regard to the precept of the same law is to speak I account Scripturali licentia by leave of the Scripture To be acquitted from the condemnation of a law by being pronounced innocent or to be adjudged to the reward by being declared to have fulfilled it is in the strict sense to be justified To be acquitted from the condemnation and be pronounced guilty is to be delivered from the law and not to be justified but in a large fence of justification Justification from a law and not by it is a catechrestical speech and I do question whether we should not using a strict speaking place the discharge of the sinner from condemnation upon the score of Christs redemption rather then on the work of our justification That God was in Christ reconciling the World to himself not imputing their trespasses does import an universal conditional remission bestowed upon all so far as a delivery of the whole World over from the law of works to be judged by the law of grace and when we are at that bar there is no inquest like to be made about Christs work whether he hath done his part but whether we have done ours that is performed our condition and if we be found to have bin upright to God in the main bent of our hearts and lives notwithstanding our manifold failings he accepts of us for Christs sake and declares us righteous according to this law and so adjudges us to the reward or promise which is to have Christ and his benefits whereof one is the application of his redemption and therein our discharge from the Laws condemnation And thus methinks the Apostle speaks with more acurateness where justification and redemption are de industria distinguished and the one made the means or foundation to the other Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus Redemption is the delivery of the World in general from the law and so from its penalty on terms appointed by the Redeemer Justification is the pronouncing of particular persons accepted upon those terms and so to have a right to the purchased possession In fine there is but our own sincerity and a right to impunity and life is all the righteousness that we have or that can go in it self to the justification of a sinner The import of all is we are not to conceive a sinner to be brought before two barrs that he should have need of a righteousness of perfect obedience in Christ to plead against the law for Christ hath redeemed us from coming before this barre by the ransome of his blood paid for all the World but being to stand only at one bar it is but one righteousness is sought as the condition upon which the sentence must pass and as for that Righteousness we have through Christ besides which is in regard only to the retribution not the work of the law that is to say Pardon it comes to us by way of sentence or as a part of the reward given upon the condition performed but is not part of the condition or the whole condition it self pleaded for our justification Only the redemption of Christ I count is to be first supposed with the whole righteousness of his Mediatorship as the foundation through the merits whereof this new covenant is purchased and so the reward given for his sake upon that condition And if it be for Christs sake for his merits righteousness mediation redemption sake we see also how this righteousness of his even his Mediatory righteousness which cannot be ours possibly in it self is yet imputed to us and made ours in the effects or in the end to which it was performed for salvation to Believers I will conclude all with the agreement of the two Apostles which hath been already but lightly before touched When Paul then contends that a man is not justified by the works of the law By the works of the law he means works as would justify him according to law if he had them and sayes no man is justified hereby because no man hath them as he proves at large in the first and second Chapters to the Romans as the very business and scope of both to any that will consider of the matter and so pleads a necessity of their believing that they may be justified But when St. James sayes a man is justified by works he means not works that answer the law or such as of themselves would justifie the doer which no man hath neither Abraham himself much less Rahab whom he also mentions but such works as suppose grace to their acceptance through faith in the Redeemer for the reconciling the Person and covering his imperfections And thus the two holy Penmen disagree not but while the one faith I conclude a man is justified by faith without the works of the law and the other You see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only the sense of both is that though a man hath not the works of the law the works the law qua faedus requires of him which would justifie the doer if he did them as for certain he does not it being impossible for any to have these so that if he be justifyed at all he must be justified without them yet is he justified by faith provided that faith be accompanied with or is the initium and fundamentum of good works of another size to wit that will not make the reward to be of debt but of grace or that are unperfect and not able to justify him by law yet are required in sincerity of life together with his faith in the Redeemer supposing him revealed or else in the mercifulness of Gods nature unto final justification and salvation And now Reader if thou art offended at this paper I cannot help thy prejudice but I desire thee to hear reason If thou art sensible of that deadly advantage which is given to the Papists by our ill treating this point by the doctrine I mean more particularly of Christs righteousness imputed in the unsound sense especially when those that expound it worse do ordinarily lay most stress upon it If thou art sensible yet neerer home what a stumbling block hereby hath been laid in the way of a late numerous Sect among us whom to name methinks is some rudeness to them that really having our Ministers here by the lock that is the place where their only strength they have against us does lye do reject the whole Tribe as False Teachers that harbour men in their sins and make Christ serve only to be a cover for them as they bitterly traduce us with great indignation and in very earnest on this account which I must confess hath affected me so much in reading their books as to set me to write and gives me yet a good conscience in what I do though thou perhaps art angry with me for it If lastly thou art sensible of the evil and danger of Libertinisme or Antinomianisme which hath been lately so rife though now allayed in this Land what roots yet it hath alive in this notion mis-understood thou wilt be advised with me and others perhaps that see more then I that it is time that it is fit this Sluce be stopt The Presbyterians are my Friends and the Independents my Friends and Others my Friends but Truth is greatest and must overcome Deo Gloria mihi condonatio JOHN HUMFREY ERRATA PAge 9. l. 35. for justified them r. justified by them p. 10. l. 28. for that r. seeing that N.B. p. 19. l. 14. for perceptive r. preceptive An Advertisement THere is a Book came out this Terme entituled Two points of Moment Discussed by the same Authour sold by Mr. Million at the Bible in Fleet-street