THE CONTENTS THe Prologue to Mr. Blake pag. 1 Certain Distinctions and Propositions explaining my sense How Christ as King is the Object of Justifying Faith § 1. pag. 3 Ten Arguments proving that Christ as King and Head is the object of the Justifying Act of Faith § 1. pag. 3 4 The common Distinction between Fides Quae and Fides Quâ Justificat examined § 1. pag. 7 The danger of the contrary Doctrine § 1. pag. 8 The former Doctrine defended against Mr. Blakes Exceptions § 1. pag. 9 The same defended against more of his Exceptions and the faith Heb. 11 explained § 2. pag. 10 James 2. about Justification by works explained and vindicated § 3. pag. 12 How far works Justifie § 3 4. pag. 14 15 Why I wrote against the Instrumentality of Faith in Justifying § 5. ibid Ethical Active improper Receiving distinguished from Physical Passive proper Receiving § 5. pag. 17 How Christ dwels in us by Faith § 5. ibid Mr. Bl's Exceptions against my opposition of Faiths Instrumentality in Receiving Christ considered § 6. pag. 18 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine That God is not the sole efficient nor any Act of God the sole Instrument of Justification § 7 8. pag. 19 Mr. Bl's contradiction that faith is the Instrument of man and yet man doth not Justifie himself § 9. pag. 20 Whether Faith be both Gods Instrument and mans in Justification § 10. pag. 21 Further how Christ is said to Dwell in us by Faith § 10. pag. 22 The common opinion of Faiths Instrumentality opened and the Truth further explained § 11. pag. 23 More of Mr Bl's reasoning on this confuted § 12. pag. 27 Whether God make use of our Faith as his Instrument to Justifie us § 13 pag. 28 Whether the Covenant of God be his Instrument of Justification § 14. pag. 28 Mr. Bl's arguing against the Instrumentality of the Promise confuted § 15 16. pag. 29 Mr. Bl's dangerous Doctrine confuted that the Efficacy that is in the Gospel to Justification it receives by their Faith to whom it is tendred § 17 18. pag. 30 Whether Mr. Bl say truly that the word hath much less an Influx to the producing of the Effect by a proper Causality then faith § 19. pag. 31 In what way of Causality the word worketh § 20. pag. 32 Whether the word be a Passive Instrument § 21 pag. 33 Mr. Bl's strange Doctrine examined that the word is a Passive Instrument of Justification § 22 23. pag. 34 More against Mr. Bl's Doctrine that Faith through the Spirit gives efficacy and power of working to the Gospel in forgiving sins § 24. pag. 35 Fuller proof of the most proper Instrumentality of the Gospel in Justification § 25. pag. 36 Mr. Bl. Contradiction in making Faith and the Gospel two Instruments both making up one compleat Instrument § 25. pag. 37 More against Mr. Bl. strange doctrine that Faith gives efficacy as an Instrument to the word § 25. pag. 37 A Condition what and how differing from meer Duty § 27. pag. 38 The difference between us compromized or narrowed § 27 pag. 40 Of Evangelical personal Righteousness § 28. pag. 41 What Righteousness is § 28. pag. 43 In what sense our personal Righteousness is Imperfect and perfect § 28 pag. 44 Isa 64.6 explained Our Righteousness is as filthy rags § 29. pag. 46 How Holiness is perfect or Imperfect § 30. pag. 47 Whether Holiness or Righteousnes be capable neither of perfection nor Imperfection but in relation to a Rule § 31 32. pag. 48 Concerning my charging learned Divines with Ignorance and other harsh speeches § 33. pag. 49 We are not denominated personally righteous for our conformity to the Law of works only or properly proved § 33. pag. 50 Whether as Mr. Bl. saith the old Rule the Moral Law be a perfect Rule and the only Rule § 33. pag. 51 A Vindication of the Author from the imputation of Arrogance for charging some Divines with Ignorance § 33. pag. 49 Whether Imperfect Conformity to the Law be Righteousness as an Image less like the patern is an Image § 35. pag. 54 How fairly Mr. Bl. chargeth me to say Sincerity is the New Rule § 36 pag. 55 An Answer to Davenants Testimony cited by Mr. Bl. § 37. pag. 56 How far Vnbelief and Impenitency in professed Christians are violations of the New Covenant § 38. pag. 57 How many sorts of Promises or Covenants there are in Scripture mentioned § 39. pag. 58 How far Hypocrites and wicked men are or are not in Covenant with God in several Propositions § 39. pag. 60 An enquiry into Mr. Bl's meaning of Dogmatical faith and being in Covenant § 39. pag. 64 Of the Outward Covenant as they call it and how far the Vnbelievers or Hypocrites may have right to Baptism and other Ordinances § 39. ibid Mr Bl's Absurdities supposed to follow the restraint of the Covenant to the Elect considered § 41. pag. 80 Our own Covenanting is the principal part of the Condition of Gods promise or Covenant of Grace § 41. pag. 81 Whether I make the Seal of Baptism and of the Spirit to be of equal latitude § 42. pag. 84 Mr. Bl's dangerous argument answered The great Condition to which Baptism engageth is not a prerequisite in Baptism But Justifying Faith is such Therefore § 43. ibid More of Mr. Bl's Arguments answered § 44 45. pag. 86 My Arguments Vindicated from Mr. Bl's Exception § 46. to 52. pag. 88 26 Arguments to prove that it is Justifying faith which God requires of them that come to Baptism and that Mr. Bl's doctrine in this is unsound and unsafe § 52. pag. 94 Of Mr. Bl's Controversie with Mr. Firmin § 53. pag. 107 My asserting of the Absolute promise of the first Grace vindicated § 55 pag. 108 Whether our Faith and Repentance be Gods works § 55. pag. 109 What Life was promised to Adam in the first Covenant § 56. pag. 111 Of the Death threatned by the first Covenant § 57. pag. 112 Whether the Death of the body by separation of the soul were determinately threatned § 58. pag. 113 Of the Law as made to Christ § 59. pag. 115 Whether the Sacrament seal the Conditional promise Absolutely or the Conclusion I am Justified and shall be saved Conditionally § 60 61 62 63. pag. 115 The Nature of sealing opened § 64. pag. 118 20 Propositions shewing how God sealeth § 64. pag. 119 That the minor being sealed the Conclusion is not eo nomine sealed as Mr. Bl. affirmeth § 65. pag. 123 How Sacraments seal with particular Application § 67. pag. 125 Mr. Bl's doctrine untrue that If the Conclusion be not sealed then no Proposition is sealed § 68. pag. 126 Whether it be Virtually written in Scripture that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 69. pag. 126 More about Condiâ—ional sealing § 70 71. pag. 128 Whether it is de fide that Mr. Bl. is Justified § 72 73 74. pag. 129 In what sense we deny
read a Remonstrant that would say that the work is so ours as that it is only the power that is vouchsafed us by God I conclude therefore that you have not confuted my answer 1. In that you have not disproved the absolute Promise of the first special Grace 2. You have not disproved God to be the Author of our Faith so as that it is his work 3. If you had yet Believing which is our work is not the same thing with giving Faith or moving us to believe which I say is Gods Work §. 56. Of the Life Promised and Death threatned to Adam in the first Law Mr. Bl. I Finde no material difference in the Conditions on Gods part in these Covenants Life is promised in both in Case of Covenant-keeping and Death is threatned in both in case of Covenant-breaking Some indeed have endeavored to finde a great difference in the Life Promised in the Covenant of Works and the Life that is promised in the Covenant of Grace as also in the Death that is threatned in the one and in the other and thereupon move many and indeed inextricable difficulties What Life man should have enjoyed in case Adam had not fallen and what Death man should have dyed in case Christ had not been promised From which two endlessly more by way of Consectary maybe drawn by those that want neither wit nor leisure to debate them In which the best way of satisfaction and avoidance of such puzzeling mazes is to enquire what Scripture means by Life which is the good in the Covenant promised and what by Death which is the evil threattned Now for the first Life contains all whatsoever conduces to true Happiness to make man blessed in Soul and body All good that Christ purchases and Heaven enjoyes is comprised under it in Gospel expressions c. On the contrary under death is comprised all that is injurious to man or mankinde that tends to his misery in Soul and body The damnation of Hell being called death the uttermost of evils being the separation of Soul and body from God Joh. 8.51 1 Joh. 3.14 Sin which leads to it and is the cause of it is called death in like manner Eph. 2.1 And the separation of Soul from the body being called Death sickness plagues are so called in like manner Exod. 10.17 Now happiness being promised to man in Covenant only indefinitely under that notion of Life without limit to this or that way of happiness in this or that place God is still at liberty so that he make man happy where or however to continue happiness to him and is not tyed up in his engagement either for earth or heaven And therefore though learned Camero in his Tract de triplici faedere Thes 9. make this difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace In the Covenant of Works which he calls nature Life was promised and a most blessed Life but an animal life in Paradise in the Covenant of Grace a life in Heaven and Spiritual And Mr. Baxter in his Aphor. of Justification p. 5. saith That this Life promised was only the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradise is the opinion of most Divines Yet with submission to better Judgements I see not grounds for it seeing Scripture no way determines the way and kinde c. And indeed there are strong probabilities Heaven being set out by the name of Paradise in Christs speech to the theif on the Cross and in Pauls vision c. §. 56. R. B. 1. YOur opinion in this point is moderate and I think sound I have nothing therefore to say to you but about our different expressions and therefore excuse me if I be short for I love not that work I think your judgement and mine are the same 2. Only remember that it is Mr. Blake also that hath these words pag. 74. The Conditions on mans part in the Covenant of Works were for mans preservation in statu quo in that condition in which he was created to hold him in Communion with God which was his happiness he expected not to be bettered by his obedience either respective to happiness no more is promised then in present he had nor yet in his Qualifications respective to his conformitie to God in Righteousness and true holiness What improvement he might have made of the Habit infused by the exercise of obedience I shall not determine but no change in Qualifications was looked after or given in Promise so far Mr. Blake If the Reader cannot reconcile Mr. Blake and me let him reconcile Mr. Blake with himself and the work is done 3. But I confess that upon more serious consideration of several passages in the New Testament naming and describing the work of Redemption I am ready to think it far more probable that Adam was not created in Patria but in Via not in the highest perfection which he should expect but in the way to it But whether God would have given it him in the same place that he was in or in some other called Heaven upon a remove I take as Mr. Bl. doth to be unrevealed and undetermined in the Promise So that I could finde in my heart to fall a confuting the same opinion in Mr. Blake expressed in these last words which he confuteth in me but that his former save me the labor 4. I confess also that I spoke rashly in saying that it was the opinion of most Divines seeing it so hard a matter to know which way most go in the point I also confess that the judgement of Camero Mr. Ball Mr. Gataker c. swayed much with me but the silence of the text in Gen. much more but I had not so well weighed several Texts in the New Testament as I ought which describing Redemption give some more light into the point The same I say concerning the qualitie of the Death threatned 5. I agree to Mr. Blakes first conclusion that the thing is indeterminate or at lest hard for us to know but I cannot reconcile his premises with that conclusion much less with this his latter speech p. 74. For if as he saies the Life promised was all whatsoever conduces to true happiness to make men blessed in soul and body by conducing to I suppose he meant constituting of then either the Caelestial Degree of Grace and Glory conduces not to that happiness and then not to ours who have no greater natural capacitie or else I see not how it can be said that this greater blessedness was not Promised Doubtless Adam had not in present possession so great a measure of holiness so confirmed a state of Holiness or Glory nor so great and full a fruition of God as Christ hath given us a sure hope of in the Gospel And therefore though he say God is at liberty for the place and way yet that is nothing to the kinde and measure 6. Observe that the words of mine which Mr. Bl.
no duty though it be their duty still to get Faith first and then to profess it The minor is proved already in the foregoing arguments and more shall be anon It is no less then justifying Faith that Christs Church hath ever to this day required the Baptized to profess before the application of the water To believe in God the Father Son and Holy-Ghost and profess Repentance for all sins and to renounce the world the flesh and Devil c. And when Mr. Bl. maketh profession enough to give Right to baptism I would know whether he mean the profession of Justifying-Faith or not If yea then Justifying Faith is prerequisite or else the profession of it could not If not then the profession of true Christianity is not requisite but of some part of it For as I have shewed it is not the true Christian Faith but some part of it only if it be short of that Faith which is justifying And let men say no more that profession is it that entitles to Baptism without the thing professed when they take even profession it self of true Christianitie to be consequential and not prerequisite Argu. 11. If Baptism be the solemnizing of the mystical marriage between Christ and the baptized then true justifying Faith is of God required thereto but the Antecedent is true therefore Therefore is it said that we are baptized into Christ and into one body And the Church hath ever held the Antecedent to be true The consequence is evident in that no man but the sound believer can truly take Christ as a Husband and Head for so to do is justifying Faith It is Christ himself first in order and then his benefits that are offered in the Sacraments The main business of them is to exhibite Christ himself to be received by a marriage Covenanting The signs are but means and instruments as a twig and turfe and Key in giving possession When the minister in Christs name saith Take Eat c. it is not only bread that he bids men take but first and principally Christ by Faith Joahimus Vadianus Aphorism de Eucharist li. 3. pag. 82. much commendeth a saying of Chrysostoms viz. If thou hadst no body then Christ would have delivered thee all these gifts nakedly or immediately but because thy Soul is conjoyned with a body he hath delivered them in and with these sensible things It is one of the greatest errors that can be committed in the Sacraments to overlook Chirst himself who is offered and to look only either to the signs or to his other gifts We receive him first as our Saviour our Soveraign Redeemer our Head our Husband our Captain and Guide He therefore that comes to these ordinances doth pretend thus to receive Christ and doubtless to receive him thus sincerely is true jusâ—â—â—â—ing saying Faith and therefore it is saving Faith that is called for to the due Receiving of the Sacraments And doubtless God means a sincere and not a seeming dissembled nominal Faith in his command Argu. 12. If there be no such Covenanâ— mentioned in the Scripture specially to be sealed with baptism wherein men engage themselves to perform hereafter their first act of true Repentance and justifying Faith then Mr. Blakes Doctrine is unsound but there is no such Covenant therefore Men are oft in Scripture called to Repent and Believe but nowhere that I know of to Covenant with God that they will hereafter begin to do it sincerely much less is there such a Covenant sealed with Baptism They that affirm such a thing let them prove it if they can Argu. 13. If according to Mr. Blakes Doctrine no true sound Believer or Penitent person can regularly be baptized then his Doctrine is unsound But the Antecedent is true therefore The consequence is proved before The Antecedent is proved thus According to his Doctrine saving Faith accepting Christ to Justification is the great condition to which Baptism engageth and is not prerequisite therein Therefore he that already performeth that condition is past such engageing to do it initially hereafter and so hath no use for baptism as to that engagement to the great condition so that if such a person be baptized it must be to other ends then the Ordinance is appointed for and so not Regularly The like may be said of Gods part for to such a Believer God should Seal Remission past or present whereas according to Mr. Bl. the Ordinance is instituted to seal Remission future Argu. 14. If the Doctrine opposed be true then the Gospel preached before baptism was not instituted nor is to be used as a means at least an ordinary means of saving conversion i. e. of producâ—ng saving Faith and Repentance But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent It would be tedious and needless to the Intelligent to heap up Scripture proof of the minor viz. that the Gospel preached before baptism is appointed for an ordinary means of working true conversion We see it was ordinarily done else Preachers could not endeavor it or hope or pray for it The consequence is manifest in that Mr. Bl. makes this true justifying Faith and consequently true Repentance to be not prerequisite to baptism but to be engaged for as to the future performance And therefore regularly it must be only the word after Baptism that must truly Convert or not at all Argu. 15. If Mr. Blakes Doctrine be true then regularly it must be supposed that all persons are in a state of damnation immediately on their baptism and if they then dyed should perish But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent For the Consequence if Mr. Blake mean that it is any space of time after baptism that we engage to begin our justifying Faith in then the consequence is undenyable for till then the person is unjustified But if he mean that in baptism they must engage to believe to Justification in the same instant of time then this is to make such Faith necessary in the instant of baptism and this is but an evident vanity to suppose a man not believing to justification who yet can and must promise to do it in the same instant or the next Argu. 16. If it be only true justifying Faith that gives men right coram Deo by vertue of his Covenant to the Sacrament of the Lords Supâ—â—r and so be prerequisite to that Sacrament and not only to be promised for â—he future then the same may be said of baptism But the Antecedent is true therefore The consequence is proved 1. In that the Sacraments are both Seals of the same Covenant 2. It is right to Church-priviledges in general that Mr. Bl. ascribes to his Dogmatical Faith and therefore to one Sacrament as well as the other For the Antecedent I think our brethren that would so fain keep the Church and Ordinances pure would hardly admit a man to the Lords Table that they were sure did not take Christ for his Lord or that would say I
opposeth are but that Divines are of that judgement §. 57. Mr. Bl. ANd what I have said of the Life promised I say of Death threatned c. My Learned friend Mr. Baxter enquiring into this Death that was here threatened saith that the same Damnation that followed the breach of the second Covenant it could not be Aph. p. 15. When I suppose it rather should be said that in substance and kinde it can be no other Infidels that were never under any other Covenant c. §. 57. R. B. 1. WHat also I have answered to the former may suffice to this for the main 2. One would think that you intended directly to contradict me but whether you do so indeed I cannot well tell I know nor what you mean by substance and kinde Pain and Loss have no substance but a subject I never doubted but that it is the Loss of the same God and Blessedness formally considered but I am yet very uncertain whether the Blessedness promised by Christ be not far greater in Degree then that to Adam and consequently whether the Poena Damni threatned in the Gospel be not far greater Also I know as to the mediate Blessings Relative they are not the same To be deprived by Unbelief of Remission Reconciliation Adoption the everlasting praising of him that Redeemed us by his blood c. these are true punishments on unbelievers that reject the mercies offered to them but these were none of Adams punishments That was a Negation only to him that is a Privation to them I profess also that I ever took the pain of Sense to be of the same nature which was due to Adams Soul and which is due to unbelievers Only I then did and still do doubt whether any Scripture speak of the everlasting Torments of Adams body or whether it were not only his Soul that should eternally suffer his body being turned to dust and so suffering the penaltie of loss Nay whether the New Testament do not make Resurrection the proper fruit of Christs death and Resurrection But of this I am not fully resolved my self much less will I contend for it But I must needs say that I took not a gradual difference in punishments to be inconsiderable Nay I know that moral specifications are grounded in natural gradual differences And Rewards and Punishments being moral things formally they may and oft must be said to differ specie and not to be the same when naturally they differ but in degree Yea whether in naturals themselves we may not sometimes finde a specification in meer degrees is not so clear as rashly to be denyed There is but a gradual difference between the smallest prick with a pin and to be thrust throow with daggers in 20 places yet I will not say that it is the same punishment §. 58. Mr. Bl. NEither can I assent to that speech To say that Adam should have gon quick to Hell if Christ had not been promised or sin pardoned is to contradict the Scriptures that make death temporal the wages of Sin It were I confess to presume above Scripture but I cannot see it a contradiction of Scripture A burning Feaver Consumption Leprosie Pestilence c. are in Scripture made the wages of sin Yet many go to hell through those diseases c. §. 58. R. B. I Willingly leave every man to his own judgement in this But I think it most probable that the sâ—paration of Soul and body was particularly intended in the threatning Thou shalt dye the death Reas 1. Because this is it that is in prima significatione called Death and the miseries of Life but Tropically much more this or that particular miserie which answers your objection about sicknesses 2. This is it that Christ was necessarily to suffer for us and if it had not been necessary for man to dye thus by the Commination of that Law then it would not thence have been necessary for Christ to dye this Death For it was not the following sentence which you call Leges post laâ—as which Christ came to satisfie or bear but the curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 be being made a curse for us Phil. 2.8 Col. 1.22 Heb. 9.15 by means of death he was to Redeem the transgressors of thâ— first Law without Blood there is no Remission The death of the creatures in sacrificings signified the necessity of this Death of Christ I have met with none but Mr. John Goodwin that saith Christs readyness or willingness to have dyed might have served the turn though the Jews had not put him to death Col. 1.20.14 Eph. 1.7 Rom. 3.25 It s true the Apostle speaking of the necessitie of Blood in Heb. hath reference to the Constitutions of Moses Law but then it must be confessed that that Law did in its Curse much explicate the former and direct us to see what was threatned and what must by the Messiah be suffered for us Heb. 2.14 Christ was to destroy by death him that had the power of death that is the Devil but it seems that the Law gave him his power at the Will and Sentence of the Iudge for execution 1 Cor. 15.26.54 Death is the last enemy to be overcome O Death where is thy sling O Grave where is thy victory This is no doubt the death now in question It is the evils befallen mankinde in execution of the violated Law that are called enemies Though we dye it seems there was a necessitie of Christs dying to loose the bonds of our Death and procure us a Resurrection Rom. 5.17 As by one mans offence death reigned by one c. That one man must dye for the people Câ—iaphus prophesied Joh. 18.14 3. The sentence useth to contain what is threatned in the Law and though part may be remitted yet the other part is the same threatned But Gods Sentence on Adam contained the penaltie of a temporal Death Though he mentioned not the Eternal because he would provide a remedy yet the temporal as one part meant in the threatning he laid on man himself Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return This is not as you imagine Lex post lata but sententia Judicis Legis violaâ—ae comminationem exequentis When it is said 1 Cor. 15.22 in Adam all dye it is in Adams finning all became guilty of it and in Adam then sentenced all were adjudged to it Which is intimated also Rom. 5.12 Sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed on all men for that all have sinned So that the sentence expressing this Death particularly and Christ bearing it necessarily and adde moreover all mankinde for the generality bearing it certainly and also Death signifying primarily the separation of Soul and Body it seems to me most probable that this Death was in special meant in the threatning But you say He takes the same way where his Justice hath satisfaction those that are priviledged from death as the wages of sin thus Dye Reply I do
the other of sense and knowledge yea that it will hold in matters of Faith both fundamental and superstructive §. 74. R. B. 1. IT was not this according to your limitations that was said to be a gross mistake but as applyed to ordinary Believers though my reasons make against both 2. You deal more easily to your self then fairly with me in your entred Dissent 1. I said meerly Credenda as confessing it is partly of Faith and partly of knowledge as the Premises are and you leave out meerly and put in Crendenda alone as if I denyed it to participate of Faith 2. I denyed it therefore to be a proper object of Faith that is a meer Credendum or Divine Testimony acknowledging that it may be participative and partially and less properly called an Object of Faith and you leave out properly and only affirm it an Object of Faith of what sort soever in general 3. I have answered this sufficiently in telling you my opinion i. e. The Conclusion still partakes of the nature of both Premises and therefore when one is de fide and the other naturaliter revelatum vel cognitum there the Conclusion is not purely either supernatural or natural de fide or ex cognitione naturali but mixt of both That it s truly a Conclusion following those Premises is known only by Rational discourse and is not de fide but that it is a true Proposition is known partly naturally partly by supernatural Revelation which is that we mean when we say it is de fide But because it is fittest in our common speech to give this Conclusion a simple and not a compound Denomination for brevitie sake therefore we may well denominate it from one of the Propositions and that must alwaies be a parte debiliore And therefore when it is principia naturaliter nota that make one proposition or sensible things or what ever that is more evident then the truth of the Proposition which is of Divine Testimony there it is fittest to say The Conclusion is de fide or of supernatural Revelation As when the one Proposition is that there is a God or I am a man or God is Great or Good or True But when the other Proposition is less evident then that which is of Divine Revelation then it is fittest to say that the Conclusion is such as that Proposition is and not properly de fide For the Conclusion being the joynt issue of both Premises as its parents or true Causes it cannot be more noble then the more ignoble of them This explication of my opinion is it that I referr you to as the substance of my answer to all that follows §. 75. Mr. Bl. WHen Fisher the Jesuite told Dr. Featley that it was solid Divinity that a Conclusion de fide must necessarily by inferred out of two Propositions de fide Dr. Goad being present as Dr. Featleys Assistant interposed in these words I will maintain the contrary against you or any other That a Conclusion may be de fide although both Propositions be not de fide but one of them otherwise evidently and infallibly true by the light of Reason or experience giving instance in this Conclusion Christus est risibilis which he said and truly was de fide though both Propositions whence it is inferred be not de fide Omnis homo est risibilis is not a Proposition de fide or supernaturally revealed in Scripture yet thence the Conclusion follows in this Syllogism Omnis homoest risibilis Christus est homo therefore Christus est râ—sibilis which is a Conclusion de fide affirming that Melchior Canus had judiciously handled and proved this tenent which he said he could otherwise demonstrate to be infallible To whom Dr. Featley assents second Daies dispute pag. 85. It were casie to frame many such Syllogisms If an Heretick should affirm that Christ had only a phantastick body in appearance only how would you prove the contrary but with this Syllogism He that is truly man hath a true body and not a phantastick body only This is a Position in reason Christ is truly a man this is a Position de fide in Scripture whence follows the Conclusion de fide that Christ hath not a phantastick body If one should deny that Christ had a reasonable soul affirming that his body was informed by the Dietie instead of a Soul must it not be thus proved Every true man hath a reasonable Soul Christ is a true man and therefore Christ hath a reasonable Soul The Citie that ruleth over the Nations of the earth and is seated on seven hills is the seat of the Beast This is a Scripture Proposition But that Rome then ruled over the Nations of the Earth and was seated on 7 hills we know by History and Geography Whence the Conclusion follows that Rome is the seat of the Beast Abundance of these may be framed where the Proposition opposite to the Conclusion is either an Heresie or at least an error in Faith The Conclusion is of Faith Disputing against the Vbiquitarians and Transubstantiation to hold up the Orthodox Faith we are necessitated to make use of maximes of known reason If they were denyed us the new Crew now start up that deny all consequences from Scripture and will have none but Scripture words had here a notable advantage This Argument well followed would put Mr. Baxter himself to a great loss in some of his Arguments for which yet I give him thanks to prove that the Scripture is the word of God §. 75. R. B. THis is fully answered before even in my last Section 1. Dr. Goâ—d saith but the same that I say only I distinguish 1. Between that which is purely de fide and that which is only denominated de fide as the more debile of the Premises In the latter sense the Doctors conclusions are de fide in the former not 2. When a Conclusion is denyed to be de fide it may be meant either as a Diminution of its evidence or as magnifying its evidence above that which is purely de fide or as equaling it thereto When I say this Conclusion is not de fide A. B. is Justified and shall be saved I speak it by way of Diminution of its evidence and authority And I confidently speak it and doubt not to maintain it But when I deny this Conclusion to be simply or purely de fide I R. B. shall rise again I distinguish nothing of the evidence or necessity of it And when I thus argue Omne quod sentit ratiocinatur est Animal Ego R. B. sentio ratiocinor therefore ego sum Animal though I say that here the Conclusion is not de fide yet I intend thereby to extoll it for evidence above that which is de fide And when I affirm this Conclusion to be de fide I R. B. shall rise again as denominated à parte debiliore I do speak it in Diminution of its evidence in