yet he is not like to apologize for it till thou canst convince him that the neglect of Formalities and curious exactness of any kind in Discourses between Friends is blame worthy Nor yet will he plead excuse for the plainness of his Style till he hath reason to believe that the Vulgar whose benefit is here principally intended are capable of understanding higher Language I shall detain thee no longer than till I have told thee that he saith may this trifle be instrumental to beget in but any one a more free ingenuous and amicable Temper he shall not think he hath cause to repent his permitting it to be exposed to publick Censure The Contents The First Part Page 1. I. THE entrance into the Discourse Ibid. ii The hateful Character given by some to certain Friends of Theophilus and Philalethes 7 iii. An Argument of their being greatly abused in that Character 12 iv That Character due to the Broachers of Hobbian Doctrine 13 v. But that Doctrine by none better confuted than by these men 14 vi That Preaching some of their Adversaries Doctrines might render them too well deserving that Character in the Iudgment of over-critical Persons ibid. vii Another Argument that they are abused 18 viii Theophilus undertaketh impartially to Represent them 20 ix Of their Practises 22 x. Of their Conformity to the Ecclesiastical Laws 23 xi The unreasonableness of Censuring Men upon the account of their Conformity 24 xii Of their Conversation 37 xiii Of their Preaching 40 xiv Of their Preaching the Reasonableness of the Christian Precepts 42 xv Of the Use of Reason in Matters of Religion ibid. xvi 1 Cor. 2. 14. considered 43 xvii One advantage that is gotten by demonstrating the Reasonableness of Christian Duties 49 xviii The consideration of the goodness of the Doctrine of the Gospel necessary to accompany that of Miracles to prove its Divine Authority ibid. xix Of the Testimony of the Spirit to the Truth of Scripture 54 xx Theophilus his Opinion concerning the inward Testimony of the Spirit 56 xxi The believing of Divine Things a Divine Faith whatever the Motives thereunto are 58 xxii Of Moral Certainty 61 xxiii Of the Scripture bearing Testimony to it self 64 xxiv A second Advantage gotten by demonstrating the Reasonableness of the Precepts of the Gospel 66 xxv In what sence the Precepts of the Gospel are highly reasonable 69 xxvi A Description of Reason 70 xxvii The first Proposition shewing in what sence the Precepts of the Gospel are reasonable with a brief Demonstration that they are so 71 xxviii The Design of the Christian Religion 72 xxix The Second Proposition ibid. xxx A more particular demonstration of the Reasonableness of the Gospel Precepts 75 xxxi Almost all the Duties injoyned in the Gospel commended by Heathens 80 xxxii Those vindicated from making the Gospel but a little better than a meer Natural Religion that assert that Reason alone is able to prompt to us most of the Duties therein injoyned 86 xxxiii Wherein the Gospel excelleth all other Religions 88 xxxiv To say that what the Gospel requireth is most suteable to Reason is highly to commend it c. 91 xxxv Of their Preaching the Reasonableness of the Points of meer belief 93 xxxvi All the Points of meer belief to be consistent with Reason sometimes proved by them 94 xxxvii That they do not endeavour to level all such Points with mens Capacities 95 xxxviii That they acknowledge incomprehensible Mysteries in the Christian Religion ibid. xxxix That they prove the Consistency of such Points with Reason as they are delivered in the Scripture only 97 xl That they assert many Speculative Points to be also suteable to the Dictates of Reason ibid. xli An Argument drawn from Notions of the Heathens to prove the most weighty Points of Faith suteable to the Dictates of Reason 98 xlii Of their Style in Preaching 104 xliii Of their making Doctrines intelligible 105 xliv A sort of men that are Obscurers of the Gospel ibid. xlv Another sort of such 106 xlvi Of the Perspicuity of Scripture 108 xlvii Their Opinion of powerful Preaching 112 xlviii Of Carnal and Spiritual Reason 113 xlix A farther account of their Preaching 114 l. Of their being accused of Preaching up only a Moral Righteousness 117 li. In what sence they do not so and in what sence they do ibid. 118 lii No difference betwixt Evangelical Righteousness and that which is the best sence Moral 119 liii To work in us such a Moral Righteousness the Design of the Gospel 120 liv A Righteousness in no sence Moral a Contradiction 124 lv Of Imputative Righteousness and in what sence they believe and Preach it 126 lvi Their notion of Christ's imputed Righteousnesse ibid. lvii A false notion of it 128 lviii The first Mistake in that Notion 129 lix The second Mistake ibid. lx A false definition of Faith they Confute in their Preaching 130 lxi Christ's imputed Righteousnesse no Scripture Phrase 133 lxii Some Verses in the fourth to the Romans considered ibid. lxiii St. James 2. 23. considered 135 lxiv. Philippians 3. 9. considered 137 lxv As high a favour to be dealt with as if we were perfectly Righteous as to be so esteemed 139 lxvi The dangerous consequence of the Antinomian Doctrine about Imputed Righteousness 141 lxvii The Antinomians Opinion of Sin 143 lxviii Theophilus his Charity for some Antinomians 146 lxix A Defective Definition of Faith that those Divines Preach against and the ill consequence of it 148 lxx A full Definition of Faith ill applyed to the business of Iustifying 154 lxxi A full and plain Definition of Faith used by those Preachers 157 lxxii Of that Doctrine of those Preachers that Faith justifyeth as it implyeth Obedience 159 lxxiii An Argument to prove that Faith justifieth as it receiveth Christ quà Lord as well as quà Saviour 160 lxxiv. The Act of receiving Christ quà Lord to go before that of receiving him quà Priest 161 lxxv How Faith is distinguished from Repentance and other vertues in the business of Iustification 162 lxxvi Why Iustification is mostly ascribed to Faith 164 lxxvii Two Acceptations of the Word Faith ibid. lxxviii The vertue of Faith variously expressed in Scripture ibid. lxxix How Faith justifieth 165 lxxx The Covenant of Grace conditional 167 lxxxi Hebrews 8. 10. considered 168 lxxxii Men not without all power to cooperate with with God's Grace in their Conversion 174 lxxxiii A middle way to be taken in giving account of Mens Conversion 175 lxxxiv Faith the Condition of the New Covenant ibid. lxxxv Of their being accused for the foregoing Doctrine as holding Iustification by Works and Enemies to God's Grace 176 lxxxvi A Digression concerning censuring men upon the account of their Opinions ibid. lxxxvii A vindication of the foregoing account of Faith justifying from being opposite to free Grace 180 lxxxviii A vindication of that Doctrine from asserting Iustification by Works in St. Paul's sence 186 lxxxix By Works when opposed
As charitable as you are towards them I fear that they if not those also that are too neer of kin to them had they heard your past discourse would pronounce you an Heretick Theoph. And what if they should I should pitie them as weak but not condemn them as wicked for so doing The excellent Melancthon was called a worse name by Luther and the worst hurt I wish them is that I could upon as good grounds return that answer to them that he did to him which was to this effect Though Luther calls me Devil yet I will call Luther a most pious servant of Iesus Christ. Besides we need not now-a-days look upon our selvs as having any great injury done to us by being called Hereticks that name being grown as you know who speaks a meer Theological Scare-crow and moreover there is no man but is so reputed if not so called by some or other But yet mistake me not so as if I thought that to be really a Heretick and in a Scripture-sence were a trivial and light matter for I am far from so thinking being well aware that the Apostle reckons Heresies with Adulteries Lasciviousness Idolatry Witchcrafts Hatred Seditions and other fruits of the flesh which will undoubtedly exclude men out of Gods kingdom Philal. You intimated that there is more than one definition of Justifying Faith which those they call the Moral Preachers concern themselvs to bring their Hearers out of conceit with Theoph. There is another that they judge as defective as that we have given our sence of is false which is this That it is a recumbence or resting on Christ for salvation There are those which I cannot but think are very good men that will by no means endure that any more should be admitted into its definition Now these men I acknowledge make inherent holiness otherwise necessary than as that which must needs follow by way of gratitude upon a sense of their being in a justified state for they make it a necessary qualification to Salvation though not to Iustification But herein they also fall into the Antinomian Errour that they or at least their doctrine supposeth a man capable of Gods favour so far as to have his sins pardoned before he is purged from them I mean freed from their reigning power Philal. These differ from the other men as I suppose in this also That they do not make Justification to be from Eternity as they do Theoph. You say well they do not approve of that mad Phancie but make Justification to follow upon Believing but then that Believing they judge necessary to Justification they make such a scanty thing as I now said and will not hear of making receiving Christ as Lord or being willing to obey his precepts a prerequisite to the obtaining of that priviledge And so their doctrine is too plainly liable to the ill consequences of the other mens Philal. Do they not onely say that good works are not necessary to Justification Theoph. No that I am sure they do not for as I told you they will not admit so much as a willingness to perform them into the definition of Justifying faith And besides they assert that good works are not always necessary to Salvation it self neither as when a person is converted at the point of death Wherein they say truly if any are which can be known to none but God onely But then observe moreover that these persons will not have their Faith a condition of Justification but an instrument Philal. But why are they so shie of that phrase and so fond of this Theoph. Their pretence is that to make any condition of Justification is to derogate from the freeness of Gods grace therein But to that we shall have occasion to speak anon Philal. Our Salvation as well as Justification is ascribed to Gods grace but sure they will grant that that hath conditions Theoph. Conditions must take from the freeness of the one as well as of the other but therefore they being aware of it will not call what is necessary to Salvation proper conditions but rather qualifications men having they say no hand in them but are the meer effects of the Holy Ghost Philal. Will they not grant then that the Covenant of Grace is conditional if it be not it is sure enough no Covenant for I understand not what a Covenant means and how it is distinguishable from a meer or absolute promise if it be not conditional Theoph. No more can any mortal Therefore they talk strangely in the clouds as to this matter so that I confess I can by no means understand them I wish they understand themselvs For because there are so many promises in the Gospel that run as conditionally as words can express them they are shie of saying with the Antinomians that the Covenant of Grace is not conditional but then they tell us that all the priviledges therein contained shall be absolutely bestowed on those that they are promised to and so in my weak judgement they plainly deny all conditionality therein notwithstanding And they think themselvs warranted thus to express themselvs by Ieremiah 31. 33. and the quotation of that place Hebrews 8. 10. But to these places we will speak anon Philal. Well I perceive these also are obscurers of plain and I had almost said too spoilers of good Divinity as well as the other men for the consequences of their Doctrine will I fear be found to have too untoward an influence upon the practice of too many that understand them though they do not shew themselvs quite so soon as those that follow from the former Doctrine Theoph. I wish they could as easily discern Consequences as I see you do for my charity leads me to believe that very many of them have so much unkindness for them as that they would then for their sakes bid adieu to the beloved premisses But Philalethes there are other more moderate and wise persons and many of them men of excellent worth who being sensible how greatly Protestants have exposed themselvs to the Papists lash by that doctrine make receiving of Christ as both Lord and Saviour to be justifying Faith Which I acknowledge to be a very true and full definition But yet they say that though this alone is the Faith that justifieth yet as it justifieth it receives Christ as Saviour onely or consists in relying on his merits Philal. But is not this marveilous subtile Theoph. Truly it seems so to me and I believe at least to all vulgar capacities Philal. But why will they not admit that receiving Christ quâ Lord as well as qua Saviour justifieth Theoph. Because they say Justification is often denied to works and onely ascribed to faith But they apprehend not a difference between these two otherwise than by making faith relying on Christs merits and works yeelding obedience to his precepts But therefore that they may reconcile Justification by Faith alone with taking obedience or
a willingness to obey into justifying Faith which they are convinc'd they must do or they shall make mad work on 't that is that they may make S. Iames not to contradict S. Paul they say that justifying Faith must be a working obediential Faith yet as it justifieth must be considered as distinct from obedience But because it is replied that to rely upon Christs merits is an act of obedience or a work they answer that though it be yet it doth not justifie as it is a work and therefore with the other men they will not have it called a condition of Justification but the instrument Philal. But don't you think that this elaborate acuteness might be well spared by understanding works when they are undervalued comparatively to grace and faith as quite distinct things from sincere obedience to the Gospel of Christ Theoph. I am verily perswaded it may and that the way in which those that are called the Moral Preachers go as to this point will be made as clear as our hearts can wish by so understanding them Philal. I desire you to give me as full an account as briefly you can how they deliver this doctrine of Faith in reference to Justification Theoph. Justifying Faith because they would express themselvs as plainly as may be in a matter of most weighty importance they describe much after this manner That It is so full a perswasion that Christ Iesus is the Saviour of Mankinde and that his Gospel is true as causeth a hearty and sincere willingness to yeild obedience to all his precepts or to take that course which he hath prescribed in order to Salvation Philal. This is plain enough And I should think not capable of being misunderstood Theoph. Though I cannot say that I speak the words of any of them yet sure I am that those I have heard them use in defining justifying faith are as easily intelligible as these are and have the same sence Philal. I have heard you heretofore say that when you were a youth you was taught this definition viz. Iustifying faith is a grace of the holy Spirit whereby a man being convinced of his sin and miserable estate in regard of it and an all-sufficiencie in Christ to save from both receives him as he is tendered in the Gospel or according to his three Offices of Prophet Priest and King What fault can be found with the wording of this Theoph. None at all not is a better definition of Faith desirable I was taught this when other kinde of definitions of that grace were all the Mode by a most judicious as well as pious Divine I cannot forbear to call him so though he is of all men most nearly related to me to him I shall ever acknowledge my self obliged for first rightly instructing me in this point and antidoting me against the forementioned false notions concerning it with divers others that were highly by very many cryed up in those as well as in these wilde days Philal. You are not less beholden to that Reverend and worthy person upon those accounts than you are for your very being But I pray do the Preachers you have undertaken to represent not onely say that Justifying faith includes obedience but also that it justifieth as it doth so Theoph. Yes Philalethes that they do For they do not think that the Scriptures make any difference between the two forementioned acts of faith as to the influence it hath upon Justification and that not without cause S. Paul tells us Gal. 5. 6. that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing he means especially as to Justification as appears by vers 4 but faith that worketh by love which takes in the whole of obedience and there he stops The Apostle troubleth not himself to give any caution to the Galatians that they should not understand him as if his meaning was any more than this That justifying faith worketh by love or as if he had said That faith justifieth as it worketh by love Philal. There comes into my minde an Argument that seems to me demonstrative that there is to be made no distinction between those acts of faith in justifying namely the Scriptures assure us that our Saviours death was intended not onely to deliver us from wrath but from sin too and it is plain that this later was its immediate end deliverance from wrath being a consequent of deliverance from sin And therefore faith in Christs bloud must needs justifie as it designs obtaining this as well as that Theoph. Your Argument will rather prove more than that for which you bring it viz. That if those acts of faith be at all to be distinguished in the business of Justification the greater stress is to be laid on that which complieth with the principal end of our Saviours death And so if we must be making comparisons Faith justifieth as it receives Christ quâ Lord rather than quâ Priest or Saviour But however I am not for any comparisons they being perfectly needless and nothing gotten by them Philal. That act of receiving Christ as Lord is to go before that of receiving him as Priest for we may not rely upon him for salvation till we are willing to yeeld obedience to him Theoph. 'T is most true we have not any ground at all so to do we must be willing to be to our power universally obedient before we take that confidence Philal. Before you go farther I pray tell me what distinction you would make betwixt Faith and Repentance and the other graces also if its nature be extended so far as to imply obedience Theoph. The Scriptures are seldom so curious when they speak of Faith or Repentance or the love or fear or knowledge of God c. as to understand them in so restrained a sence as to abstract them from other vertues but sometimes they express all by one We finde in multitudes of places some one of the principal vertues put to express the whole of practical Religion as each of those last mentioned of which I need not give you instances And whereas Faith and Repentance are sometimes distinguished it is onely because believing the Gospel implieth more than bare Repentance in its strict notion Irenaeus therefore gives this honest description of faith in Christ Credere ei est facere ejus voluntatem To believe in Christ is to do his will Moreover we shall finde that Justification and Remission of sins for the Scripture makes no difference betwixt those two is sometimes ascribed to other vertues as well as to Faith but then they are understood either in so general a sence as to include Faith or as supposing it For instance Acts 3. 19. 't is attributed to conversion and repentance Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out To forgiveness of trespasses Matth. 6. 14. If you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you To shewing mercy Mat. 5. 7. Blessed are
the merciful for they shall obtain mercy To works or sincere obedience Iames 2. 24. A man is justified by works and not by faith onely Where Faith is taken in a more strict sence and Works suppose Faith That is A man is justified by an effectual working faith and not by faith without works And again vers 21. saith he Was not our father Abraham justified by works who yet according to S. Paul was justified by faith But whereas Justification is mostly attributed to faith the reason is because all other graces are vertually therein contained and that is the Principle from whence they are derived Philal. I pray inform me next Theophilus what influence it is that those Preachers tell their people Faith hath upon Justification or how it justifieth Theoph. I should not have forgotten this though you had not minded me in the least of it for it is of as great importance to be spoken to as most of the heads of our past discourse Observe therefore That Faith sometimes signifieth in Scripture the Doctrine of faith or the Gospel so it is to be understood Gal. 3. 23 25. and in several other places But it ordinarily signifieth the vertue or duty of believing and so it is variously expressed as by believing on the Son of God and the record that God gave of his Son 1 Joh. 5. 10. Believing the word or words of Christ Joh. 5. 47. Believing Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the world Joh. 8. 24. Joh. 11. 26 27. Receiving of Christ Joh. 1. 12. All which are to be understood in a practical sence For as the Scriptures scarcely ever call any other the knowledge of God but that which hath the end of knowledge viz. obedience so do they make nothing true believing but that which hath the ends of faith or causeth men to do those things for the sake of which it is required Now as Faith is put for the Doctrine of faith so those Preachers are content it should justifie as an instrument viz. as it containeth the Covenant of grace and holdeth forth pardon to sinners and so it justifieth as the Law condemneth As it signifieth the vertue or duty of faith so it justifieth as it is the condition of the new Covenant wherein forgiveness of sin is offered God the Father is the principally efficient cause of our Justification and so it is said that it is God that justifieth Jesus Christ justifieth as the onely meritorious or procuring cause the Gospel as the instrumental cause and faith therein as the condition without which we cannot be justified and to which that priviledge is assured The new Covenant offereth pardon of sin and eternal life to us upon the condition of believing in Christ So God loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life He that believeth shall be saved c. If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins Philal. This is a very easie account of Faiths justifying Theoph. Nothing seems to me to be more plain as obscure a business as 't is made Philal. But what cannot the wit of men make difficult Theoph. First there is nothing more evident as we said than that the new Covenant is conditional and that God doth not therein promise absolutely pardon of sin and the consequent blessings Philal. The great place that is produced against the conditionality of the Covenant of grace is that which you said you would speak to viz. that quotation out of Ieremiah that we finde in Heb. 10. 8. where God seemeth in his Covenant to promise to do all in order to our eternal happiness and to require nothing of us Theoph. It is in a good hand I pray do you answer that Objection Philal. Were I duller than I am I think I could easily enough apprehend a satisfactory answer to it viz. That a condition is there implied for the meaning of those words I will put my laws into their hearts and write them in their inward parts cannot be I will do all for them they need do nothing at all this would make all the precepts of the Gospel most wretchedly insignificant nor indeed do any assert this but some very monstrously wildebrain'd people nor yet as appears from many other Scriptures can this be the sence I will sanctifie their natures and so cause them to keep my laws without their concurrence in that act but I will afford them my Grace and Spirit whereby they co-operating therewith and not being wilfully wanting to themselvs shall be enabled so to do Or I will do all that reasonable creatures can reasonably expect from Me towards the writing of my laws in their hearts putting them into their inward parts Whatsoever God may do for some persons out of his superabundant grace doubtless this is all that he either here or elsewhere engageth himself to do for any Theoph. This exposition of yours is a very good one most agreeable with the analogie of Faith and fully answers the forementioned Objection But there are very judicious Expositors that are led by the consideration of the verse following thus to interpret this place viz. This is the Covenant that I will make in the times of the Gospel I will in stead of those external and carnal ordinances which the house of Israel hath for a long time been obliged to the observance of give them onely such precepts as are most agreeable to their reason and understandings and such as wherein they may discern essential goodness and by this great expression of my grace to them as also that which is expressed in the 12 verse namely assurance of pardon to all reforming sinners of all past wickednesses whatsoever and all present frailties and weaknesses I shall not onely convince them of their duty but also strongly encline them to the chearful performance of it And then it follows very pertinently to this sence in vers 11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother saying Know the Lord for all shall know me from the least to the greatest i. e. There shall be no need of such pains in teaching men how they must obey the Lord and what they are to do as there was under the Law of Moses which consisted in observations that were onely good because commanded and had no internal goodness in them to commend them to the reason of men and which might cause it to prompt them to them but the precepts now given shall be found written by every man in his own heart so that none need be ignorant of what is enjoyned for the substance of it that will but consult the dictates of their own natures For a confirmation of this sense see Deut. 30. 11 12 13 14 vers Moses having in the later part of vers 10. put the people upon turning to the Lord their
Theoph. When we can put a favourable construction upon our brothers faults and not offer over-great violence to our own Reason we ought to do it and to look upon them as proceeding rather from infirmity than from a principle of immorality But yet Philalethes I would not have you take me to be more charitable than I am for though I will not conclude those censorious people to be all hypocrites yet I dare confidently pronounce them at best but of the lowest fourm in Christs School as great attainments as they may be thought to be arrived at by men of greater honesty than understanding Philal. But we have forgotten our business all this while Theoph. You do well to minde me of it You expect Philalethes that I should vindicate those friends of ours and all that are of their minde in the point in hand from opposing free grace and holding the Popish doctrine of Justification by works They are so far from being guilty in these particulars that I am amazed at their ignorance that say they are upon such slight grounds or rather upon none at all Nor do I think that an easier task can be imposed on any man that hath but a competent understanding of our Saviours Gospel than to clear the foregoing account of Faiths justifying from those hateful sequels For whereas 't is pretended that that doctrine is an enemy to free grace I may ask those that pretend so how Justification is free seeing it is necessary to believe in their sence in order to it they must at least acknowledge that if not so much as that lazie faith of theirs were requisite it would be so much the freer Philal. But the Antinomians will tell you that they make no faith at all nor any thing else necessary or requisite to their Justification and that their faith consists in believing that they are already justified and that they were so before they were born too nay as was said that their Justification is as old as God himself for he could be but from eternity Theoph. I confess these blades are swinging assertors of the freeness of their Justification and therefore the Question I now asked is nothing to them but I am sure it signifieth something to the second sort I told you of and that are gotten about one little remove from formal Antinomians But I say moreover that such a Faith as that we have described is absolutely necessary in it self to make us capable of that priviledge and meet objects of Gods grace Will they say that the Kings pardoning a notorious Traytor is ever the less free because that as far as he could judge of his heart he looked on him as a person that was resolved to become for the future a Loyal subject Me-thinks they should not and that for this reason because such a purpose is but necessary to qualifie him for a pardon it being an act of greater fondness and folly than of grace and goodness to forgive an offender that obstinately persists in his disobedience Or suppose his Majestie should confer upon one of them an honourable Office in his Court would he say he bought it or that it was not freely bestowed upon him because his Majestie required that before his investiture and admission into it he should learn good Breeding and how to behave himself in such a Place Surely he would not and that for the already-mentioned reason this he could not but know was no more than necessary to be enjoyned him for otherwise he could not be at all fit for the Office and the King would greatly disparage his wisdom in making such a choice And as little cause have any to imagine that to assert that God will pardon and receive into special favour none but such as so believe as to be heartily willing to obey his Sons Gospel is to derogate from the freeness of his grace Besides that glory and blessedness which consisteth in the enjoyment of God in the other world which is the consequent of Justification cannot be enjoyed by a wicked man the joys of heaven are of so spiritual a nature that carnal souls are as uncapable of them as are beasts of the intellectual delights of men They are onely the pure in heart that can as well as that shall see God Heathens will teach us this doctrine if we are to learn it Much less then in the third place is this doctrine of a working Faiths being the condition of our Justification at all a lessening of the freeness of Gods grace when as those that preach it do withal assert that this faith is Gods own gift a grace of his blessed Spirit They say indeed and that most truly that we are to use the means appointed us by him for the obtaining of it but they tell their hearers also that it must come from God if they ever have it Could we work this faith in our selvs and stood in no need of the divine assistance considering what hath been said it would make our Justification to be never the less free much less reason then is there that those should be charged with making it otherwise that preach that doctrine of Faiths being the condition of Justification when they declare that the power whereby we perform that condition comes from God Philal. I am sure that I have no power to invent any one Reply by way of objection Theoph. Well then we 'll to their next Cavil namely that to hold this doctrine is to maintain Justification by works which is indeed the same in their sence with the former but it is fit it should be distinctly spoken to because S. Paul in his Epistles especially to the Romans and Galatians doth so often deny works to have an influence into Justification and is found opposing them one while to Grace and another while to Faith as to this matter I cannot stand to cite the particular places but the consideration of these following things will enable any man to reconcile them with this Doctrine at the first sight of them 1. By the works of the Law whereby the Apostle saith that men cannot be justified we are frequently to understand those of the Jewish Law their External Rites and Observances And so they are to be understood in most if not all the places in the Epistle to the Galatians And by the understanding of that one thing that Epistle may with ease be defended from patronizing the Antinomian doctrine The chief designe of which as is most apparent being to vindicate the liberty of the Christian Religion from the Judaical Yoke which being by the Judaizing Galatian Converts imposed upon the Christian Gentiles as absolutely and indispensably necessary was like to prove a mighty obstacle to the progress of the Gospel among them 2. In some other places by works are meant absolutely perfect and altogether faultless ones And we are told that as the Law of Moses cannot nor ever could justifie by reason of its own weakness
none better confuted then by these men VI. That preaching some of their adversaries doctrines might render them too well deserving that character in the judgment of over-critical persons VII Another Argument that they are abused VIII Theophilus undertaketh impartially to represent them IX Of their Practices X. Of their Conformity to the Ecclesiastical Laws XI The unreasonableness of censuring men upon the account of their Conformity XII Of their Conversation XIII Of their Preaching XIV Of their preaching the Reasonableness of the Christian precepts XV. Of the use of Reason in matters of Religion XVI 1 Cor. 2. 14. considered XVII One advantage that is gotten by demonstrating the Reasonableness of Christian duties XVIII The consideration of the goodness of the doctrine of the Gospel necessary to accompany that of Miracles to prove its divine authority XIX Of the testimony of the Spirit to the truth of Scripture XX. Theophilus his opinion concerning the inward testimony of the Spirit XXI The believing of divine things a divine Faith whatever the motives thereunto are XXII Of moral certainty See the Learned Dr. Stilling fleets excellent Answer to the Lo. Archbp of Canterbury's Adversary p. 206. XXIII Of the Scriptures bearing testimony to it self XXIV A second Advantage gotten by demonstrating the reasonableness of the precepts of the Gospel XXV In what sence the precepts of the Gospel are highly reasonable XXVI A description of Reason XXVII The first Proposition shewing in what sence the precepts of the Gospel are reasonable with a brief demonstration that they are so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p 22. XXVIII The designe of the Christian Religion XXIX The second Proposition XXX A more particular demonstration of the Reasonableness of the Gospel-precepts XXXI Almost all the duties enjoyned in the Gospel commended by Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. p. 26. XXXII Those vindicated from making the Gospel but little better than a mere natural Religion that assert that Reason alone is able to prompt to us most of the duties therein enjoyned XXXIII Wherein the Gospel excelieth all other Religions XXXIV To say that what the Gospel requireth is most sutable to Reason is highly to commend it c. XXXV Of their preaching the Reasonableness of the points of meer belief XXXVI All the points of mere belief to be consistent with Reason somtimes proved by them XXXVII That they do not endeavour to level all such points with mens capacities XXXviii That they acknowledge incomprehensible Mysteries in the Christian Religion XXXIX That they prove the consistency of such points with reason as they are delivered in Scripture onely XL. That they assert many speculative points to be also suitable to the dictates of Reason XLI An Argument drawn from notions of the Heathens to prove the most weighty Points of Faith suitable to the dictates of Reason XLII Of their Style in Preaching XLIII Of their making Doctrines intelligible XLIV A sort of men that are obscurers of the Gospel XLV Another sort of such XLVI Of the perspicuity of Scripture XLVII Their opinion of powerful Preaching XLVIII Of carnal and spiritual Reason XLIX A farther account of their Preaching L. Of their being accused of preaching up onely a Moral righteousness LI. In what sence they do not so and in what sence they do LII No difference betwixt Evangelical righteousness and that which is in the best sence Moral LIII To work in us such a Moral righteousness the designe of the Gospel LIV. A righteousness in no sence Moral a contradiction LV. Of imputative righteousness and in what sence they believe and preach it LVI Their notion of Christs imputed righteousness LVII A false notion of it LVIII The first Mistake in that notion LIX The second Mistake LX. A false definition of faith they confute in their Preaching Preface to The mystery of Godliness p. 27. LXI Christs imputed righteousness no Scripturephrase LXII Some verses in the fourth to the Romans considered LXIII S. James 2. 23. considered LXIV Philippians 3. 9. considered LXV As high a favour to be dealt with as if we were perfectly righteous as to be so esteemed Dr. Cudworth in his Serm preached at Lincolns Inne LXVI The dangerous consequence of the Antinomian doctrine about imputed righteousness Rom. 4. 5. LXVII The Antinomians opion of sin LXVIII Theophilus his charity for some Antinomians LXIX A defective definition of Faith that those Divines preach against and the ill consequence of it LXX A full definition of Faith ill applied to the business of justifying LXXI A full and plain definition of Faith used by those Preachers LXXII Of that Doctrine of those Preachers that Faith justifieth as it implieth obedience LXXIII An argument to prove that Faith justifieth as it receivs Christ quâ Lord as well as quâ Saviour LXXIV The act of receiving Christ quâ Lord to go before that of receiving him quâ Priest LXXV How faith is distinguisht from repentance and other vertues in the business of Iustification LXXVI Why justification is mostly ascribed to faith LXXVII Two acceptations of the word Faith LXXviii The vertue of faith variously expressed in Scripture LXXIX How faith justifieth LXXX The Covenant of grace conditional LXXXI Heb. 8. 10. considered LXXXII Men not without all power to co-operate with Gods grace in their conversion LXXXiii A middle way to be taken in giving account of mens conversion LXXXiv Faith the condition of the new Covenant LXXXV Of their being accused for the foregoing doctrine as holding justification by works and enemies to Gods grace LXXXvi A digression concerning censuring men upon the account of their opinions LXXXvii A Vindication of the foregoing account of faiths justifying from being opposite to free grace Lxxxviii A vindication of that Doctrine from asserting justification by works in S. Paul's sence Lxxxix By works when opposed to Grace or Faith new obedience never meant XC No crime to hold justification by works in S. James his sence XCI S. Paul's language not to be preferred before S. James his I. A more distinct account of their Opinions II. Of their judgment in Doctrinals III. In what sence the Church of England imposeth subscription to the 39 Articles IV. The Lord Primate of Ireland his testimony V. What Doctrines they most endeavor to confute VI. Philalethes his representation of Gods nature VII Consequences of Opinions not to be charged on all those that hold them VIII That they set themselvs against the Doctrines of Gods absolute decreeing mens sin and misery IX That those two are not to be separated X. That those doctrines make their defenders assert two wills in in God and the one contrary to the others by which means other sad consequences also follow XI Of opposing Gods secret to his reveled will XII That we must resolve to believe nothing at all if we may believe nothing against which we cannot answer all Objections XIII That the forementioned doctrine evidently contradicts our natural notions XIV Which is the safest course in
to Grace or Faith New Obedience never meant 188 xc No Crime to hold Iustification by Works in St. James his sence ibid. xci St. Pauls Language not to be preferred before St. James his 189 The Second Part. 190 i. A more distinct Account of their Opinions ibid. ii Of their Iudgment in Doctrinals 191 iii. In what sence the Church of England imposeth Subscription to the 39 Articles ibid. iv The Lord Primate of Ireland his Testimony ibid. v. What Doctrines they most endeavour to Confute 192 vi Philalethes his Representation of Gods Nature 193 vii Consequences of Opinions not to be charged on all those that hold them 198 viii That they set themselves against the Doctrine of Gods absolute decreeing Mens Sin and Misery 199 ix That those two are not to be separated 200 x. That those Doctrines make their Defenders assert two Wills in God and the one contrary to the other by which means other sad Consequences also follow 202 xi Of opposing Gods Secret to his Revealed Will 206 xii That we must resolve to believe nothing at all if we may believe nothing against which we cannot answer all Objections 210 xiii That the forementioned Doctrine evidently contradicts our natural Notions 213 xiv Which is the safest course in reconciling seemingly contradictory Scriptures 216 xv Theophilus can believe no sence of Scripture that doth evidently contradict self-evident Notions 217 xvi Of that Opinion That whatsoever God doth is therefore good and just because He doth it 218 xvii What is the Motive inducing the good men of that Perswasion to go that way 223 xviii Those Divines middle way between the Calvinists and Remonstrants 228 xix This way proposed by Catharinus at the Council of Trent 231 xx How it comes to pass that this way for some Ages had fewest Friends 232 xxi This Way a great ease to Theophilus his Mind 233 xxii Philalethes no less beholden to it which causeth Theophilus to ask him some Questions 236 xxiii Of Free Will 239 xxiv Of the State of the Heathens 249 xxv That God hath wayes though they may be perfectly unknown to us to clear the Iustice and Goodness of his Dealings with all Mankind 254 xxvi Whether what must be acknowledged to defend that middle Way tends to encourage security c. 256 xxvii That the Doctrine discoursed against doth a world of mischief 257 xxviii The Test by which Theophilus examines Controverted Points 260 xxix Of the great obscurity of St. Paul's Style in many places and the causes of it 261 xxx A Paraphrase upon several Verses of the ninth to the Romans 263 xxxi How God is said to harden sinners 275 xxxii Philalethes offereth another Interpretation of the 19 th and 20 th Verses 284 xxxiii That the most Ancient Fathers were Enemies to absolute Reprobation with its Concomitants 288 xxxiv That the old Gnosticks were great Friends to it 291 xxxv Mr. Joseph Mede's Iudgment concerning this Point 293 xxxvi The Church of England no favourer of it 294 xxxvii The Moderation of those Divines in other Matters of Controversie which Theophilus hath not time to insist upon very remarkable 295 xxxviii None more disliked by them than the Monopolizers of Truth to a Party 296 xxxix Infallibility in the best of Men or Churches denyed by them 297 xl Of the Infallibility of the Church and those Protestants that seem to be sticklers for it 298 xli Of Acquiescing in the four first Occumenical Councils 300 xlii What Respect due to Councils 302 xliii The Church of Englands sence of General Councils 304 xliv The Determinations of our own Church not to be opposed in Matters disputable 305 xlv An Argument that Christ intended us no Infallible Iudge of Controversies 306 xlvi Private Christians promised Infallibility in the same sense that the Church Representative hath the promise of it 307 xlvii Of Disputacity 308 xlviii Of Friendly Disputes ibid. xlix The way to Peace ibid. l. The mischief of contending for an Infallible Iudge 309 li. Forcing others to be of our mind Tyrannical ibid. lii To condemn men for dissenting from us unwarrantable 310 liii Of those Divines Candor towards dissenters from them 313 liv Of Mr. Chillingworth's Book 315 lv Of their Opinion concerning Fundamentals and that they are not forward to give a Catalogue of them 316 lvi The use of the foregoing Principles 317 lvii That those Divines procure to themselves Enemies of divers sorts by their endeavours to propagate those Principles 319 The Third Part. 322 i. Their Iudgment in Matters of Discipline ibid. ii That they prefer Episcopacy to all other Forms of Church Government 323 iii. How much essential to Episcopacy ibid. iv That they unchurch not those Churches that will not admit it though they think it desirable that all would 324 v. Their Opinion of the Power of the Civil Magistrate in Sacred Affairs 325 vi That the Civil Magistrate hath a Power both Legislative and Iudiciary in Ecclesiastical Affairs ibid. vii Their Opinion of the Authority of the Church 327 viii That they believe Magistrates are to be obeyed when they command things inconvenient if lawful 329 ix That they judge it unlawful for the People to take Arms against their Prince c. on any pretence 331 x. That they are for shewing favour to Dissenters out of Conscience 332 xi Whom they conceive are not to be dealt with as men of tender Consciences 333 xii Theophilus presumes that they would be glad if some things that most offend were removed c. 334 xiii Philalethes his Opinion upon the whole Account 336 xiv Why the Bigots of the several Parties are mostly their Enemies 337 xv That it is pity there should be any distinction of Name between Them and the Moderate Men of some Parties 339 xvi What Name they onely desire to be known by 340 xvii That their Temper and Free Principles are of no late standing c. 341 xviii Why the Pharisees could not endure our Saviour ibid. xix When the Temper and Spirit that hath been described began to decay in the Christian World 343 xx The Pope beholden to the Decay thereof for his Power 344 xxi That it is much revived in the Protestant Churches though the Generality are still greatly defective in it 345 xxii If the Invisible Antichrist were once fallen the Visible one would quickly follow ibid. xxiii The Conclusion 346 Theophilus a Lover of God Philalethes a Lover of Truth ERRATA Page 27. line 13 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 165. l. 13. r. Make. p. 289. l. 24. r. 100. A FREE DISCOURSE BETWEEN Two Intimate Friends c. Philalethes MY dearest Theophilus the observation I have for some time made of the great change in your countenance from that spriteful and chearful air I was wont with pleasure there to behold to a melancholy pensiveness and deep dejection hath made me not a little solicitous concerning the cause nor can I but entertain a great suspicion that it is no ordinary
Nay how then could he marvail as we read he did at their unbelief Philal. But they will tell you that to assent to the truth of the Scriptures from the forementioned motives is no divine Faith Theoph. But I dare tell them that the believing of Divine things is a divine Faith let the motives inducing thereunto be what they will and that it is no unusual thing for the Act to receive its denomination from its Object But with a divine Faith in their sense also we no less than they believe what is contained in the Scriptures true viz. because God that cannot lye hath reveled it but that he hath indeed reveled it the Miracles as was said whereby this is confirmed and the goodness of the Doctrine to which I may adde also the completion of Prophecies as being of no less consideration than the Miracles do assure us And again that such Miracles as are recorded were really wrought for the confirmation of the Gospel and likewise that the Doctrine contained in our Books is that Gospel that was confirmed by them we may be convinced by as undeniable Arguments as any matters of fact men have not seen with their own eyes can be proved by and so undeniable that he must needs be a most unreasonable person that requires better Nay he must resolve if he will be consistent with himself to believe nothing he hath not himself seen I will adde too that whoever he be that is dissatisfied as to this matter he doth undoubtedly believe hundreds of things and thinks he should be unwise in questioning them that have not the quarter part of the evidence that this hath nay I may say not the twentieth part If they please Philalethes to call it a humane faith to believe matters of fact upon the account of Tradition I will not contend with them but tell them plainly that I like it never a jot the worse for being so nor can I understand how any wise man should But yet take notice too that such a degree of faith concerning these matters of fact also as hath a powerful operation upon our lives and souls is imputed by us no less than by them to the grace of God and his Holy Spirit though not as operating in us in an immediate manner as I said ordinarily but in making the means effectual and I hope they will acknowledge this in the best of senses a Divine faith Philal. But they say that onely a moral certainty can result from the evidence that is in the most uninterrupted and universal Tradition and therefore how closely soever you tell us the Spirit of God applieth that evidence this way of yours tends to make men no better than morally certain of the truth of our Religion Theoph. What a fault that is â— our certainty thereof may be perfectly undoubted as moral as it is And I fear not to declare that I do not desire to be more undoubtedly assured that there were such persons as our Saviour and his Apostles that they performed such works and preached such Doctrines as we have on Record and that the Books we call Canonical were written by those whose names they bear than I have cause to be and am that there were such great Conquerors as Alexander and Iulius Caesar which yet lived before our Saviour or that those which pass for Tully's Orations were really for the substance of them at least his which yet are elder than the Gospel but for all that my certainty of these things can be no more than moral yet I do notwithstanding no more doubt of them than I do of those things that are plainly objected to my Senses for I do not at all doubt of them and I should be laugh'd at as an arrant fool if I did but should I deny them I should be thought a mad-man by all wise people And yet let me tell you that we have from Tradition a greater certainty in some respect of most of those particulars than we have of these for it hath been the interest of many that those should be false but so hath it not been of any that these should be so But the greatest enemies of the Christian Religion have not so much as attempted to disprove those nay have taken all for granted except one or two Miracles Philal. I have but a Moral assurance that there is such a City as Rome or Venice or that there were such persons as Queen Elizabeth and King Iames yet I should be a Brute did I more question whether there are such Cities or were such persons than I do whether there be such a place as London or Bristol where I have several times been or whether there are such men as Theophilus and Philalethes Theoph. To be sure so you would Well I wish that those men would shew us a more certain way of conviction concerning this matter of weightiest importance and then see whether we would not with great thanks leave ours for it But I fear me in stead of so doing should we give up our selves to their conduct they would most sadly bewilder us and in stead of setled and unshaken believers make mere Scepticks of us or what is worse Philal. There are others Theophilus that say that the Scripture is sufficiently able to convince men of its Divine authority by the witness it can give to it self or to use their own Metaphorical expression by the resplendency of its own light So that he doth enough in order to his believing it to be Gods Word that doth but acquaint himself with the contents thereof which I think follows from that opinion Theoph. If these understand what they say there is no difference betwixt them and us for the Miracles and Goodness of the Doctrine we prove the Scriptures Authority by we fetch onely out of the Scriptures themselves And therefore supposing we believe the matters of fact therein written we say as they do that we need no Argument to prove them Divine but what is therein included But if their meaning be as by their manner of expressing themselvs one would think it should that there is such a light in Scripture as immediately operates upon mens mindes as proper light doth on the Optick nerves there can be nothing said more inconsiderately For mens understandings cannot discern the truth of things by immediate intuition but onely in a discursive manner that is by such reasons and arguments as perswade to assent And besides if that be true not onely what you concluded from thence is so also viz. that 't is enough in order to our believing it to acquaint our selvs with the contents thereof but likewise that 't is altogether impossible that any man should read the Scriptures and not believe them supposing he be compos mentis and understands what he reads But to convince us that this is not so I fear there are very many sad instances have too good ground for my fears Well Philalethes it
God in power knowledge and his other Physical perfections is there intended This St. Paul also as much as those people count him their great friend and quote him more than any other Apostle makes to be the designe of the Promises Having these promises saith he dearly beloved let us cleanse our selvs from all filthiness of flesh and spirit all sensuality malice and pride perfecting holiness in the fear of the Lord. Nay I may adde that there is not a Doctrine as meerly Speculative as divers may seem to be at first sight but it hath a tendencie to the promoting of this Moral righteousness but that will be too long a task to perform now And indeed I may spare my pains to do this at any other time for it will not be long before the world will see a Discourse upon this Subject from a very worthy person if God spare him life and health But enough of this I am ashamed to adde more in so plain a case and think indeed that I have said too much Philal. What you have said is as clear as the Sun at noon-day and for my part I must confess that I know no Righteousness that deserves that name but what is in your sence truly moral And a righteousness in no sence so seems to my understanding a most perfect Contradiction And therefore I much wonder what should incline those people to inveigh against preaching up altogether such a righteousness as this is They must therefore mean surely something else by it than such a one as you have described Do they not think you mean however they express themselvs a perfect unsinning righteousness or the other extreme a meer partial and external one Theoph. I had a thousand times rather charge them with an errour of Vnderstanding onely than of Will and therefore I should be loath to think that they mean either of those because I cannot then excuse them from the guilt of notorious lying for they have not the least shadow of pretence for accusing those Preachers of at all preaching up the former righteousness which they as little doubt as any that no man in this lapsed state can attain to and as to the later none more frequently shew the defectiveness and insufficiencie of it But I perceive that I am acquainted with those mens Principles better than you are and therefore can I presume tell you why they are so angry with those that understand the Gospel better than themselvs for preaching up onely this truly moral or real righteousness namely because they hear no talks from their Pulpits of an Imputative righteousness Philal. You startle me now Theophilus I pray do those Preachers deny Imputed righteousness I thought them as Orthodox in that as in any other point Theoph. They don't use the phrase at least not often and anon I will tell you why but they believe the thing and preach it too in that sence that I dare say you do Philal. In what sence Theoph. Do you not remember that I told you a while since that they so handle the doctrine of imputed as to shew the necessity of inhaerent righteousness Philal. Yes very well Theoph. This then is their notion of Christs Imputed righteousness That those which are sincerely righteous and from an inward living principle allow themselvs in no known sin nor in the neglect of any known duty which is to be truly Evangelically righteous shall be dealt with and rewarded in and through Christ as if they were perfectly and in a strict Legal sence so Philal. I my self would have given no other account of Imputed righteousness Theoph. You see I had a good guess of you for I presumed that such a man as I take you to be could entertain no other notion of it for I am confident that this is the onely true one Philal. But are there any that will not be satisfied with this account I must confess it is so long since that I read any thing of the Quarrelsom mens Divinity that I have forgotten both in this and some other particulars what they say Theoph. But have you not had occasion of late to discourse with any of them Philal. No not about matters of Religion Theoph. If you had I believe you would not have asked me whether there are any that have any other notion of imputed righteousness than that which you now heard Philal. Inform me I pray what is their opinion of it Theoph. That I will do truly and it is this That Christs righteousness or inherent holiness is as completely made theirs as if they themselves were completely and perfectly righteous and that upon no other condition or qualification wrought in them but onely believing whereby too many of them mean strongly fancying this righteousness to be theirs Philal. I do now remember that I have read such doctrine as this in my younger days but I need no argument to convince me that it is grosly false For there are these two palpable mistakes in it First That Christs righteousness is properly made ours I am confident that there is no Scripture that tells us so All that we finde asserted in the Gospel as to this matter is this That real benefits and advantages which are likewise exceedingly great excellent do by the righteousness of Christ accrue to us and those no less great and excellent than if that righteousness were in the most proper sence ours Secondly The other Mistake is that this righteousness is made ours upon no other terms than that of believing it is so This is not onely a false but also a most dangerous opinion Theoph. You have not I suppose forgotten that I informed you that those they call the Moral Preachers are careful to shew the falsity and defectiveness of some Definitions of Faith of dangerous consequence and this is one of the false ones namely that It is a taking hold of Christs righteousness or a believing that it is made over to us Which is the same as I said with Strongly fancying it to be ours Philal. You said that they are despised as men unacquainted with the great Mystery of believing this is a mysterious Faith indeed Theoph. It is so for I count nothing so mysterious and hard to be understood as the thing called Nonsence which I am sure this Definition is according to their sence of it that will not admit of any other but one worded after that manner for they understand Christs righteousness in the most proper sence and not for the advantages redounding to believers by it I speak of those that are truly Antinomians Phil. But why do not those friends of ours use at all or but seldom the phrase Imputed righteousness Theoph. What need they so long as they preach the Doctrine I mean all that is true of it But to say the truth those mens very untoward notion hath so leavened the heads of the Vulgar that they can scarcely hear of Christs
jot as high a favour and as great an expression of the Divine grace to be dealt with as if we were perfectly righteous as to be so judged and esteemed Philal. I should think him as blinde as a Beetle that doth not see it is But though I said the Antinomian notion of imputed righteousness is of dangerous consequence yet now I remember me the defenders thereof have a way to evade it for they say that though a real inward righteousness is no qualification required to this imputation of Christs righteousness and so to our justification yet it will follow of it self by way of gratitude and therefore will be found in men before their Salvation Theoph. I will answer you to this in the words of an excellent Doctor This is like to prove but a slippery hold when it is believed that gratitude it self as well as all other graces is in them already by imputation What Reply they can make hereunto I am not able to imagine Philal. I am not like to help you To say the truth it is a most sottish and mischievous Doctrine and must needs do a world of hurt among people that are glad of any pretence for their carnality and disobedience Theoph. I know too many that make use of it to patronize their ungodly practices and no question it is the grand support of most if not of all hypocrites A very worthy person preaching some time since upon the words of Zacheus the necessity of Restitution where there is ability in case of fraud one of his Auditors was heard to say as he was going out of the Church If the Doctrine now taught us be true how are we beholden to Iesus Christ And multitudes I fear of our meerly imputatively-righteous men think what that Gentleman had the face to speak Philal. You may well fear it for there is no consequence more natural from any Doctrine than is this from those mens viz. That real righteousness or inherent holiness is a needless thing in order to eternal happiness Theoph. The light at noon-day is not clearer than is that inference for if a person may have in his unregenerate or sinful state Christs righteousness made his and so be esteemed by God as perfectly righteous what should hinder but that in the same state he may be admitted to enjoy the reward of a righteous man If an ungodly man may be justified and declared righteous why may he not also be saved and made happie Philal. But they will tell you that it is expresly asserted by S. Paul That God justifieth the ungodly Theoph. I cannot conceive why it may not be admitted that the word that signifieth to justifie is in divers places to be understood for making really just or sanctifying for because it is sometimes to be taken in a forensick sence it doth not therefore follow that it must always be so But I will willingly grant that it is to be so understood here if that by the ungodly may be meant those that were once so that is before not at the same time when they were justified For to say that God can pronounce a person just righteous that is unjust and unrighteous is the greatest contradiction imaginable to his own justice his own righteousness This makes him to pronounce a perfectly false sentence and to do that which Prov. 17. 5. he himself had declared an abomination Nor can we entertain a more unworthy thought of the Holy God than to conceive that he hath no greater antipathy against sin than to make him that alloweth and liveth in it an object of his complacential love Philal. But Theophilus to say the truth I have observed that those men make such a thing of sin as that it may become God well enough to reconcile himself thereunto as well as to him that lives in it For they make it a meer indifferent thing in it self and to depend onely upon arbitrary laws the evil of which is founded upon the alone will of God as you gave me an intimation at our entrance on this Discourse Which account of sin doth plainly as you said undermine all Religion and therefore the Antinomian opinion of imputed righteousness as absurd and of as wretched consequence as it is may if that be so very well be true Theoph. It may with as great shew of reason be questioned whether God be essentially good as whether sin be intrinsecally evil And I admire what those men have done to themselvs to enable them once to doubt the later more than the former Philal. I hope they will call it Blasphemy to deny Gods essential goodness yet in acknowledging no vertue or vice independent upon all will they dwindle it away to a perfect nothing Theoph. I have not a more undoubted assurance of mine own being than of the truth of what you say Well Philalethes those whose stomacks can digest such filthy stuff and such as I can shew you even Heathens did nauseate need not stick at swallowing the Phancie of imputed righteousness in that gross sence as absurd and dangerous as it is but we that know how contrary sin is to the Nature as well as the Will of God cannot question that no man that is in love with it can by vertue of anothers Righteousness be esteemed or dealt with by God as righteous Philal. When I can once see a diseased or lame man made well and sound by anothers imputed health and soundness I may imagine a wicked man made righteous by the imputation of anothers righteousness but before I cannot as well knowing that wickedness is as really a moral as sickness or lameness is a natural evil Theoph. If you don't fancie it till then to be sure you never will Philal. They are both alike contradictions But I pray Theophilus now I think on 't how can those that hug and are so fond of this ill-favoured notion have any opinion of Christs Expiatory Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins for how can there be any sin to be pardoned where a perfect and most complete righteousness is imputed Theoph. That question is put by the last mentioned Doctor but I believe he will wait long enough for a satisfactory answer to it Philal. Is it possible think you that there should be any good men of this Perswasion Theoph. As apt as I am to censure and condemn some doctrines I would be as backward to pass sentence on the persons of those that hold them And I must tell you I verily hope that there are pious men of that opinion we are now perstringing but know too that those of them that are so are so weak as not to understand the true consequences of their Doctrine and so honest as at first hearing to abhor them And were led to like well of it not out of a designe to gratifie any base lust but because it seemed to them to have a shew of humility and self-denial and to advance Gods grace Philal.
cry up the Four first Oecumenical Councils as our great Standard and assert that their Determinations ought to be by all acquiesced in Theoph. But there are few Controverted Points determined by them what then shall we do as to all other But besides what assurance have we that those Councils ascribed Infallibility to themselves But suppose they did must we believe them infallible upon their own bare word If any will assert so they must prove it except we are bound to believe them as infallible as those Councils and if they undertake to prove this who shall judge whether they do it well or no They must say every man 's own reason or hold their peace and if so then all is at last to be thereinto resolved Nor is it any mens saying that General Councils are infallible that will cause considerative men one jot the sooner to embrace their Decrees unless their understandings be first convinced by a proof of it If any will say that those Councils proved themselves or shall for them go about to prove that they were infallible the same Question recurrs who shall judge whether this be done convincingly And so the matter comes again to the same Issue Philal. But you do not contemn the Authority of those Councils Theoph. I am so far from it that I have a great Veneration both for the Ancient Fathers and all General Councils that have been impartially Called and whose members have been under no restraint but were freely permitted to speak their minds and give their Suffrages but I must tell you that such have been at most very rarely known Yet I will not ascribe more to such neither than I have good reason for much less will I believe them infallible against plain reasons too many to be now given If I could think any so I should be most inclined to believe it of the Great Jewish Sanhedrin because the Jews were expresly Commanded to stand to their Determinations but he that will say that Council could not err must renounce his Christianity and believe that it justly Condemn'd our Saviour Philal. What is the Veneration then that you say you have for those Councils Theoph. I say that we ought rather to suspect our own private Judgments than without very apparent reason to conclude their Determinations false And moreover that it is our duty in order to the preserving of the Churches peace not publickly to oppose them whatsoever opinion we have of them For supposing them obnoxious to errour yet I will grant them to have the Authority of Courts of Appeal and that their Power is so great as to bind men to outward submission when their errours are not so weighty as to preponderate the Churches peace But though we ought for peace-sake to submit to them in all things that are not contrary to the great Essentials of our Faith yet as I said there is no warrant for our being obliged to assent to their Decrees quatenus so as infallibly true But for all this saying neither I nor those friends of ours who are all I believe of the same Judgment in this point do no less value all General Councils then doth our Mother the Church of England as appears by what she saith of them in her 21 Article whose words are these General Councils may not be gathered together without the Commandment and Will of Princes And when they be gathered together forasmuch as they be an Assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God they may erre and sometime have erred even in things pertaining unto God Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority unless it may be declared that they are taken out of Holy Scripture And it will not be amiss to mind you also that in her 19 Article she declares not onely that the Church of Rome but also that those of Ierusalem Alexandria and Antioch have actually erred By these Citations you will easily guess who are most of the Church of England's Judgment in this Point whether we or those Persons whose talk we but now took notice of and which occasioned this Discourse And the like to what was said of General Councils we also most heartily acknowledge concerning our own particular Church viz. That we are bound by no means to oppose the Determinations of her Governours and Representatives in disputable Matters nor do they as hath been shewn require our internal Assent to their Articles but enjoyn our submission to them as to an Instrument of Peace onely And what wise and good man can think though he should suppose them not only subject to error but likewise to have actually erred in some of them that Contention about them can by any means make amends for the loss of the Churches Peace Philal. It is too apparent that those which contend for an Infallible Judg of Controversies in Religion are like to do no service towards the ending of them but indeed so much disservice as to encrease them Seeing there is nothing more hard to prove than that there is any such Judge and if there be where he is to be found And in the determining of this Controversie the Reason of every mans own mind must be appealed to except there be another Judge to resolve us concerning that Judge and again another to satisfie us concerning him and so we shall never have done And I look upon this as a most certain Argument that our Saviour never intended us any other besides our own Reason assisted with his Blessing for if he had he would no doubt have been so plainly deciphered as that there should be no dispute about him much less would that which was ordained for the Churches Peace be an unavoidable occasion of Contention Theoph. For my part I see no need of any other Judge for the Rule of our Faith the Scripture is in all Essential Points so plain that we can not reasonably desire to have it plainer And moreover in such Points every private honest Christian hath a promise of Infallibility in the same sence that the Church Representative hath If any man will do his Will saith our Saviour he shall know of the Doctrine whether it be of God John 7. 17. If ye continue in my Words then are ye my Disciples indeed and ye shall know the Truth Joh. 8. 31 32. several other promises there are to the same purpose I grant the Church cannot err in Fundamentals while she continues so for should she she would ipso facto cease so to be and therefore the same is to be asserted also concerning every particular Member of it And as for Circumstantials why may not men dispute about them and maintain peace and love notwithstanding What is there in not thinking just alike in doubtful Matters that should make people so much as angry with each other I like not I confess a Disputatious wrangling and