otherwise there were no use of them nor any possibility by appealing to bring controversies to an issue Therefore it is impossible that the same person at the same time and in reference to the same sins should stand condemned and justified before God 2. Neverthelesse I also think that a man may be condemned I mean ipso jure under an actual obligation to punishment and yet be in a state of Justification at the same time which because it is necessary I should explain for the better understanding of the opposition between Justification and Condemnation I shall here once for all set down my opinion A state of Justification I call it not simply because all sins are actually pardoned for multitudes may not be yet committed but because all past sins are pardoned and a Promise given to the sinner by which all future sins shall be pardoned mercy prevailing against justice Mount Sion against Mount Sinai Mount Gerizim against Mount Ebal even as a man is then in a state of grace and regeneration not because he hath no sin in him but because he hath a spirit of life within him prevailing more and more against the lusts and rebellions of his flesh till at last sin be perfectly destroyed out of the soule And so my opinion is 1. That as soon as a man beleeves all his sins past are forgiven him 2. As often as he falls into new sins he contracts upon himself a new guilt or obligation to punishment by vertue of the Law so as it were just with God to destroy him notwithstanding his former sins be pardoned 3. The Lord Jesus our Advocate with the father doth continually represent and plead the Promise of remission made in his blood on the behalf of sinners by vertue of which not only the present and speedy execution of punishment is suspended but the sinners right to salvation continued and renewed notwithstanding his new contracted guilt x Justificatio toties siâ— quoties homo veré Poenitentiam agit side ad Christum mediatorem confugit Solin Meth. theol de Justif supposing the renewed acts of faith and repentance on the sinners part of implicite repentance for sâ—ns lesse known and unobserved and of explicite repentance for grosser sins unlesse want of time may alter the case Even as when God complaines that Israel had broken his Covenant and were tâ—rned out of the way that he commanded them and he would therefore presently have consumed them Moses opposeth the Covenant of their fathers Remember Abraham Isaac and Israel thy servants to whom thou swarest by thine own self c. Exod. 32. 8 10 13. And thus far I grant that in these vicissitudes Justification and Condemnation may consist in the same person but by no meanes can I yield that a man can at the same time stand condemned for those very sins from which the Gospel justifies him or that he can be in a state of Justification and a state of Condemnation both at once What follows about the different estates of grace and nature we shall consider below in the debate of Ephes 2. 3. only the last words of this paragraph deserve farther consideration The Law sayes Mr. Eyre condemns all men living for that all have sinned The Law doth not consider men as Elâ—ct or Reprobates or as believers or unbelievers but as righteous or sinners The Law will not cease to threaten and condemn believers as long as they live Ans It seems then that the elect and believers are as much under the §. 2. condemnation of the Law as reprobates and unbelievers the Law if I understand these words condemning no man effectually that is holding no man guilty so that he shall need to fear condemnation by the Law unlesse there be some other more effectual cause of his condemnation though the Law condemne him for as much as in it lies or to the utmost of its power or in som respect only but not simply and universally This I think is the meaning of these words but because there may be some other mystery under them which I am not able to reach I shall set down my answer by way of question 1. Whether the elect and believers be not in as much danger of hell fire as the reprobate and unbelievers If it be said as I suppose it must that the danger of both is equal by the Law though some other act of God put a difference betwixt them I would ask 2. What is that curse of the Law which Christ hath redeemed us from for if the Law condemn only for its own part or forasmuch as in it lies but never had power to hold the sinner under an obligation to wrath neither was there any need that Christ should die to redeem us from the curse of that Law nor can we be redeemed because the Law hath the very same power over us after his death yea and after our faith as it had before even by Mr. Eyres concession for it condemnes all men equally without distinction 3. Whether the Law do condemn any man at all yes will it be said so far as its power reacheth which is thus far that he that transgresseth the Law can expect no benefit by the Law or he forseits his right to life and blessednesse by that Law which he hath transgressed Neverthelesse he may at the same time have right to life by some other act of God But 1. Is that saying true or false Cursed is he that continueth not in all things that are written in the Law to do them I will not so much as suspect that any man that is called a Christian will say there was no truth in that threatening and if there be truth in it then he that transgresseth the Law is in a cursed estate till at last he be delivered from it through faith in the blood of Christ and if he be cursed then surely the Law hath more power over him then to deprive him of his right to life as to any help it self can afford him He is cursed who hath no right at all to life if he hath no right by the Law yet is he never a whit the more miserable for that as long as he hath right by any other act of God 2. And if he hath no right by any other act yet is he not condemned The Law indeed doth its part towards his condemnation but it seemes it condemnes him no farther then that as if there be no other act that condemnes him more effectually the sinner remaines uncondemned notwithstanding for to be condemned by the Law is not to be condemned simply in Mr. Eyres sense for believers themselves according to him are condemned by the Law who yet are not simply condemned something more of this notion we must speak by and by But the Assumption is that against which Mr. Eyre makes the most §. 3. professed opposition namely that all the world is under condemnation before faith This Mr. Eyre denies And
promise to the same purpose 1. If every conditional promise be contrary to grace then neither can God encourage us to any act of obedience by a promise of rewarding it nor may we take encouragement to obey out of respect to the reward without prejudicing the Grace of God The Reason is because do thus or thus and I will give thee this or that is a conditional promise more then such a forme of words we have not to prove that God ever made a conditional promise But the consequence in both the parts of it is grossely false for God doth make conditional promises to encourage us to obey his will and we are to take encouragement from them for that end For example he promiseth Lev. 26. 3 12. If ye walk in my statutes and keep my commandments and to them I will walk among you and will be your God and ye shall be my people Which that it pertaines to Christians as well as to the Jews the Apostle expresly teacheth 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. And from thence inferres immediately Chap. 7. 1. Having therefore these promises let us cleanse our selves from all filthinesse of the flesh and Spirit c. The promises he mentions aâ—e Gospel promises therefore promises of grace Yet out of respect to the good promised are we to come out and separate from all filthinesse of flesh and Spirit and God hath given us these promises for this end Moses rejected the pleasures of sin because he had respect to the recompense of reward Heb. 11. 25 26. So Paul 2 Cor. 4. 16 18. So Christ himself Heb. 12. 2. Multitudes of conditional promises we have in the Gospel which therefore surely are not inconsistent with grace Mat. 6. 14 15. Joh. 14. 21 23. Rom. 8. 13. Mat. 7. 7 c. If a man promise another to whom he hath no natural relation but out of a meer desire of his good that he will make him heire to five hundred per annum on condition he will go no more into an Alehouse or into none of the Popes dominions in such a promise there would be found every thing which according to Scripture or Philosophy as we have shewed before chap. 5. is required to an act of grace and yet the promise is conditionall If Mr. Eyre shall use his old evasion and say that in the places forementioned there is no proposing of a condition but onely a declaring of the persons who shall enjoy such and such blessings besides what hath been spoken against it before I shall onely adde this that then the said places and innumerable others like them do not declare that faith or righteousnesse or prayer or any other duty to which the promise is made is any whit more acceptable to God then unbelief or unrighteousnesse or neglect of prayer but onely that the person beleeving the person that keeps the Commandements of Christ the person that prayeth c. is more acceptable to God then he that doth not these things which is such a prodigious assertion that till I know whether Mr. Eyrâ— will own it I will not go about to confute it 2. If the condition being performed be it of what kind it will be the thing promised do eo ipso become a due dept then is it unjust to make the full price of a thing the condition of any contract The reason is Because whatsoever becomes a debt by contract supposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 repassum as they call it or an equality between that which I part with and that which I receive for it If then the full price be the condition another is bound to then have I double as much as what I part with is worth For if the condition had been the payment of six pence for what is worth a 100. l. the six pence being paid it becomes by virtue of the contract proportionable to that which is worth a 100. l. otherwise it could not make it a due debt If then I have in six pence what is proportionable to that I part with then if the said 100. l. had been the condition of the contract I had had double as much as that I part with is worth because the said 100 l. is in it self proportionable and againe it becomes proportionable by being made the condition of the contract so that it hath a double proportion of worth to that I part with for it In the next place Mr. Eyre brings in his adversaries as objecting §. 5. against this his third argument and clearing themselves from any impeachment of Gods grace though they assert the covenant to be conditional But in none of his objectionss doth he take notice of what he might very well suppose would be principally insisted upon for wiping off his aspersions As 1. That the Covenant of grace is not made with righteous persons but with sinners and enemies and children of wrath who if they had had their due and the rich grace of God had not prevented had been past all capacity of having any new terms of life and peace proposed to them 2. That the conditions required are neither so much as is Gods due nor yet so much as man was once able to performe which the Apostle mentions as a glorious difference between the righteousnesse of the Law and the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 10. 5 8 9. God accepteth the heart though in many things we sin all Therefore these conditions are such as are indeed available for our good through the acceptance of a gracious and mercifull governour as Benhadads servants prevailed with the merciful Kings of Israel when they supplicated for life with sackcloth upon their loyns and ropes about their heads 1 Kings 20. 31 32. though they availe us nothing in the tryal of justice But let us see Mr. Eyres objections First he supposeth us objecting thus We ascribe no meritoriousnesse §. 6. to these conditions as the Papists do unto works His answer is 1. The Papists assert no other works and conditions to be necessary to justification and salvation then we do 2. They ascribe no more meritoriousnesse to works then we do for Mr. Baxter says that the performers of a condition may be said to merit the reward 3. The condition required of Adam himself was not meritorious in a strict and proper sense Rep. 1. The first is a calumny The Papists some of them dispute that it is a thing possible to keep the Law of God and that facile parvo negotio they are Bellarminâ—s words dâ— Jâ—stif lib. 4. cap. 11. 2. The second is a calumny as Mr. Baxter a man borne to reproaches hath sufficiently shewed in his admonition to Mr. Eyre Reader if thou art not read in the fathers do but peruse Vâ—ssâ—â— Theses De bonor opâ—r merit or Bp. Vshers answer to the Jesuits challenge or any other Protestant who replies to the testimonies of the fathers which the Papists are wont to boast of and thou wilt find that they do all
convenientis as a most suitable good and thus it is a knowledge antecedent to faith or at most but the beginning of faith it self Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have believed Or it is an act of the Will embracing delighting and taking complacency in the Promise as his best good and then it follows immediately not upon our right and interest in the Promise but upon our knowledge of that right for as we desire not that which we do not know so neither can we rejoyce in a right which we know not The Question then returnes viz. how the soul comes to know its right and interest in the Promise To say it knows it by taking complacency in it is to say it delights in it knows not what for the will follows the judgement and to take complacency in a good which we do not know we have a right in is naturally impossible Mr. Eyre therefore may speak truly when he sayes He that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-grace knows his interest therein such the taste may be but we are never the wiser in the understanding of the main question viz. How the soule comes to the knowledge of his interest in that Promise in which he tastes so much sweetnesse from answer to this Mr. Eyre makes an escape under the darknesse of his metaphorical expressions 5. I desire also to know whether it be the Promise of pardon and Justification in which the soule tastes such sweetnesse as thereby to have the evidence of his Justification or some other If some other how is it possible that faith should evidence to me my pardon and Justification by tasting sweetnesse in that truth which promiseth no pardon or Justification at all If it be the Promise of pardon let Mr. Eyre see that he consist with himself Promises are essentially boni futuri of a future good Therefore according to Mr. Eyre there can be now no Promise of pardon or Justification Not of the Act for that is past from all eternity not of the Effect for that is past as long as since the death of Christ and therefore neither the one nor the other can be the object or matter of a Promise It remaines then that it is the Promise of manifesting and declaring Justification But then behold the sense My faith doth evidence to me that I am justified by relishing the Promise which God hath made of manifesting and declaring Justification Hence it follows that I have the evidence of my Justification by beleeving that I shall have it And then either my faith must be false or the Promise must be false for if I do already know that I am justified that knowledge cannot be future else the same thing might be and not be at the same time But there can be no falshood either in a divine faith or in a divine testimony And I desire also Mr. Eyre to reconcile what here he speaks of faiths evidencing with the Interpretations given before of those sayings in Scripture whosoever beleeves shall receive remission of sins Acts 10. 43. and 26. 18. That receiving saith he is our act not Gods namely our knowing our selves to be justified Here he makes it intrinsecal to faith to beget assurance as it is a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise that is in the Promise of manifesting Justification for no other Justification is capable of being promised Lay all this together and one or both these two things must be the result either that I know I am justified before God manifest it to me for I beleeve and thereby know that I am justified and the Promise which I beleeve is that God will manifest my Justification to me Ergo he hath not yet manifested it or else the great Promise of justifying them that beleeve must be resolved into this ridiculous piece of non-sense He that hath the evidence of his Justification shall have the evidence of his Justification for in that he believes he hath this evidence and the thing that is promised is that he shall have this evidence Therefore Mr. Eyre doth not limit the evidence of faith to its relishing §. 21. the sweetnesse of indefinite and general Promises but there must concurre withal a secret and inscrutable work of the Spirit to make these general Promises particular It is not the first time I have been acquainted both at home and elsewhere with Pretenders to assurance in such a way whose lives and ends I have known so well that I shall for their sakes esteem it no other whilest I live then a carnal groundlesse enthusiastical presumption Two Authours Mr. Eyre quotes in his margin as countenancing his doctrine namely k Of faith sect 1 cap 9 ◠4. Dr. Jackson and l Sound Bel. pag. 220 221. Mr. Shepheard But the former hath not a word of making the general Promise particular but saith only That the particular manner of the Spirits working this alteration in our soules namely that now we relish spiritual things which naturally we taste no sweetnesse in is a mystery inscrutable to which I consent The latter whose memory is very honourable and precious to me was the most violent opposer of this doctrine of any man on earth that ever I knew or heard of his works shew something of it but they that knew him can testifie more I heartily consent to him that in vocation the Spirit makes the general call particular according to the sense in which he explaines himselfe in the place quoted The soule saith he at this instant feeles such a special stirring of the Spirit upon it which it feeles now and never felt before as also its particular case so spoken to and its particular objections so answered and the grievousnesse of its sin in refusing grace so particularly applied as if God spake only unto it All this I beleeve to be true but it is nothing in the world to our purpose To make the common motives and invitations unto faith to become in this manner particular in their operation upon particular persons doth neither affirme nor deny any thing concerning the state and condition of those persons But to evidence to a man immediately that he is justified must be by a particular testimony and that as distinct from the testimony of Scripture which saith only that believers are justified as a proper or particular Proposition from a general I say therefore 1. That the Spirit evidenceth to no man that he is §. 22. justified who hath not at the same time the evidence of his faith and so is this evidence of the Spirit alwayes at least implicitly syllogistical And the soule can have no setled comfort in it but by analysing the crypsis and resolving the whole evidence into its parts after the manner below specified He that beleeveth is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The case is so plain to me that I appeal to Mr. Eyre himself for
judgement If a man shall come to him and say Sir I am assured by the Spirit of God that I am justified and that all my sins are pardoned but whether I beleeve or no or ever did that I cannot tell Would he allow this perswasion to be of God If not then doth not the Spirit testifie to any man immediately that he is justified but the evidence of the Spirit as I said before is if not expressely yet implicitly syllogistical If so I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyres principles He that doth not believe cannot be assured that he is justified But thou dost not believe Ergo thou canst not have assurance from the Spirit that thou art justified What will be here denied Not the major for that 's an undoubted truth grounded in Mr. Eyres interpretation Not the minor for the man whom we are now convincing of his errour in pretending to assurance by the Spirit is supposed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo he cannot truly say he hath faith though he have it because to affirme that for truth which we do not know to be true is a lie though the thing should be so as we say Ergo he must yield to the Conclusion that his assurance is not from the Spirit else the testimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture Secondly Mr. Eyres words do also contradict themselves notoriously §. 23. First he tells us that faith evidenceth our Justification by assenting to and tasting the general Propositions of the Gospel then he tells us that those general Propositions are made particular by the Spirit to a beleever otherwise he could taste no sweetnesse in them To tell us that faith evidenceth by tasting general Propositions and then to say in the same breath that it can taste no sweetnesse in general Propositions but they must be first made particular by the Spirit is to say and unsay 3. Accordingly the general Propositions in the Gospel must first be made particular by the Spirit before the soul can taste any sweetnesse in them for which I confesse there is all the reason in the world for the object apprehended must be before the act apprehending the Proposition assented to and tasted must be before the act assenting and tasting But then hence it will follow that a man before he believes hath a particular testimony from the Spirit that he is justified For this Proposition thus made particular by the Spirit is the object of his assent and taste that is of his faith Ergo it exists before his faith even as the general Promises in the Word exist before we can believe them But to say it is evidenced to any man before he believes that he is justified is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto disowned as well he may A mans faith suppose Peters can evidence no more to him subjectively §. 21. then the Word doth evidence to him objectively even as the eye can see no other thing then what the light makes manifest But this Proposition He that believes is justified doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is justified for the former is general and the latter is proper And otherwise every one in the world that believes that Proposition might thereby have the evidence of Peters Justification as well as of his own Even as we know by faith that they to whom the Lord said Your sins are forgiven you were justified as well as themselves And all believers one as well as another know by faith that the world was made by the Word of God Heb. 11. 3. because the Scriptures say so Object But the Spirit makes this general Proposition to be particular unto Peter Answ I ask whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule of all mens faith If not then neither of their obedience which will introduce Antinomianisme with a vengeance If so as most undoubtedly so then this particular testimony of the Spirit is no object of Peters faith which I farther argue thus It is no object of Pauls faith that Peter is justified Ergo it is no object of Peters faith The reason is because the rule of all mens faith is one and the same equally Therefore the faith of Christians is called a common faith Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect ibid. ver 1. which is but one Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter beleeve upon the testimony of the Spirit that which Paul cannot or hath no ground to beleeve upon the testimony of Scripture then Peters faith doth not act by the same rule that Pauls doth but there will be as many rules of faith as there be persons in the world that pretend to this particular testimony of the Spirit 5. To conclude to make a general Proposition particular is to §. 25. change the substance and nature of it for it cannot be general and particular too though I readily grant as before that a truth proposed in common may be made particular in respect of its effectual operation upon one and not upon another but the Proposition it self remaines general still Ergo this particular testimony of the Spirit must be some other then that of Scripture unlesse by being made particular be meant no more then that a particular is inferred out of a general which is a syllogistical evidence not axiomatical which Mr. Eyre now disputes for But I do wholly deny any such particular testimony of the Spirit for which there is not so muth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and Mr. Eyre I think is of the same mind for he produceth not one text for it That which seemes most to favour it is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention and therefore I answer it for the sake of some others Compare this verse with the foregoing and with a parallel place to the Galatians and it will not be difficult to give the right sense of it Gal. 4. 6. Because you are sonnes God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Sonne into our hearts crying Abba Father So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Then it followes ver 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That very same Spirit so I render the words beareth witnesse c. Hence I gather that this witnesse of the Spirit is not any secret revelation of a Proposition as this Thou Peter or Paul art justified made by the Spirit to the soul But the Spirits working in us liberty in our accesses unto God to call him Father is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument that we are the children of God And because Arguments by themselves do not m Argument◠non arguunt extra dispositionem evidence actually but virtually therefore the Spirit by this work helping us to conclude our selves the children of God doth thereby witnesse that we are Gods children SECT VI. MY second
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher