Reasons and you presently feign a Retractation of the Doctrine and of about sixty Books of Retractions It 's well that pag. 23. you had the justice not to justifie your Nec dubito quin imputatam Christi justitiam incluserit But to confess your Injustice was too much It is not your own Retractation that you are for it seems § XIV Pag. 23 24. You talk as if my supposing that both Justice and Imputation are capable of Definitions which are not the Things were a Fallacy because or is a disjunctive viz. When I say that the Definition of the one or the other is not the Thing Do you grant it of them Disjunctively and yet maintain the contrary of them Conjunct Yes you say Imputed Justice cannot differ from its true definition unless you will have it to differ really from it self And pag. 34. you say I am ashamed you should thus over and over expose your self as if supposing Definitions true they were not the same Re with the Definitum Good Sir talk what you please in private to such as understand not what you say and let them give you a grand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for your pains but you may do well to use more Civility to the reason of a Scholar though he hath not yet worn out his Freshmans Gown Answ This is no light or jesting Matter The comfort of Souls dependeth on it I see some Men expect that Reverence of their Scholarship should give them great advantage But if one argued thus with me for Transubstantiation I would not turn to him to escape the Guilt of Incivility If the Definition and the Definitum as in question now be the same Thing wo to all the Unlearned World and wo to all Freshmen that yet have not learnt well to define and wo to all Divines that differ in their Definitions except those that are in the right I know that a Word and a Mental Conception are not Nothing They may be called Things but when we distinguish the Things from their Signs Names or Definitions we take not the word Things so laxly as to comprehend the said Signs Names c. When we say that the Thing defined is necessary but to be able to Define it or actually to Define it is not necessary to Salvation it is notorious that we take Definition as Defining actively as it is Actus definientis and Definire sure is not the same with the Thing defined I have heard before your Letter told me that Definitum definitio idem sunt But I pray you let us not quibble almost all the World under a sentence of Damnation As long ago as it is since I read such words I remember our Masters told us I think Schibler in his Topicks for one that when they are taken Pro terminis Logicis definitio definitum non sunt idem but only when they are taken Pro rebus per eos terminos significatis and that there they differ in Modo significandi essentiam the definitum signifying the Essence confusedly and the Definition distinctly If you will take the Res definita for that which is strictly nothing but Rei conceptus inadaequatus seu partialis that is a Species and that not as the thing is Existent extra intellectum but as the conception is an operation of the Mind so I confess that he that hath a true Conception of a Species as meerly denominated or as defined hath the same conception of it And also the Thing named and the Thing defined is the same thing in it self Homo Animal rationale are the same that is it is the same essence which is denominated Homo and defined Animal rationale And it is the same Conceptus mentis which we have if true when we denominate and when we define But as Things are distinct from the knowledg and signs of Things nothing is Res that is not existent and nothing existeth but in Singulars or Individuals And as nothing can be defined but a Species so a Species or any Vniversal is nothing but a Notion or Ens rationis save as it existeth in the said Individuals And in the Individuals it is nothing but their being as partially or inadequatly taken or a Conceptus objectivus partialis whether it be of a thing really or only intellectually partible or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of Vno simplici conceptu activo Now if you take the word Definition for the Species as existent in Individuals it is really a part of the thing that is a Partial objective conceptus or somewhat of the Thing as Intelligible But this is to take Definition in Sensu passivo for the Thing defined which our Case distinguisheth But Sir I crave your leave to distinguish Real objective Beings from 1. The Knowledg 2. and the Names and other Logical Organs by which we know them and express our knowledg of them God Christ Grace Glory Pardon Justification Sanctification the Gospel-Doctrine Precept Promises Faith Hope Love Obedience Humility Patience c. are the Res definitae in our Case not as they are in esse cognito or in the notion or idea of them but in esse reali To Define properly is either 1. Mentally to conceive of these things 2. or Expressively to signifie such Conceptions agreeably to the nature of the things known or Expressively defined Which is if the Definition be perfect under the notions of a Genus and Differentia The Definition as in Words is but a Logical Organ as Names are also Notifying signs Mental defining is but the said distinct knowledg of the thing defined and is neither really the Thing it self nor usually of necessity to the Thing Which two I shall prove distinctly as to the sense of our Case 1. The Definition of Justification is either our Distinct knowledg or Expression of it Justification is not our Distinct knowledg or Expression of it Therefore the Definition of Justification and Justification are not the same Justification In sensu activo is not an Act of God and In sensu passivo is the Relative state of Man thereby effected But the Definition of Justification is neither The Definition of Justification is a work of Art but Justification is a Work of Grace A wicked damnable Man or a damned Devil may define Justification and so have the Definition of it but not Justification it self The Definition of Justification Faith Love c. is Quid Logicum but Justification Faith Love c. are things Physical and Moral A Man is Justified or hath Christs Righteousness imputed to him in his sleep and when he thinketh not of it but he hath not the Active definition of Justification in his sleep c. Other things be not the same Really with their Dâ—finition therefore neither is Justification Faith c. The Sun is not really the same thing with a Definition of the Sun nor Light Heat Motion c. A Brute can see taste feel smell that cannot
about the Imputation of Adam's Sin Dr. Gell Mr. Thorndike c. vehemently accusing the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness The Consent of all Christians especially Protestants about the sense of Imputed Righteousness 1. The form of Baptism 2. The Apostles Creed 3. The Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed 4. Athanasius's Creed 5. The Fathers sense Laurentius his Collections Damasus his Creed 6. The Augustan Confession 7. The English Articles Homilies and Confession 8. The Saxon Confession 9. The Wittenberg Confession 10. The Bohemian Confession 11. The Palatinate Confession 12. The Polonian Confessions 13. The Helvetian Confession 14. The Basil Confession 15. The Argentine Confession of the four Cities 16. The Synod of Dort and the Belgick Confession 17. The Scottish Confession 18. The French Confession Whether Imputation of Passion and Satisfaction or of meritorious Perfection go first How Christ's Righteousness is called the formal Cause c. That it is confessed that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us as our sin was to him Molinaeus Maresius Vasseur Bellarmine is constrained to agree with us A recommendation of some brief most clear and sufficient Treatises on this subject viz. 1. Mr. Bradshaw 2. Mr. Gibbon's Sermon 3. Mr. Truman's Great Propitiation 4. Placeus his Disput in Thes Salmur 5. Le Blank 's Theses And those that will read larger Mr. Watton John Goodwin and Dr. Stillingfleet Chap. 2. The opening of the Case by some Distinctions and many Propositions Joh. Crocius Concessions premised Mr. Lawson's Judgment Chap. 3. A further Explication of the Controversie Chap. 4. My Reasons against the denied sense of Imputation and personating The denied sense repeated plainly Forty three Reasons briefly named Chap. 5. Some Objections answered Chap. 6 7 8. Replies to Dr. Tully and a Defence of the Concord of Protestants against his Military Alarm and false pretence of greater discord than there is Of the Imputation of Christs Righteousness Material or Formal to Believers Whether we are Reputed personally to have suffered on the Cross and to have satisfied God's Justice for our own sins and to have been habitually perfectly Holy and Actually perfectly Obedient in Christ or by Christ and so to have merited our own Justification and Salvation And whether Christ's Righteousness Habitual Active and Passive be strictly made our own Righteousness in the very thing it self simply Imputed to us or only be made ours in the effects and Righteousness Imputed to us when we believe because Christ hath satisfied and fulfilled the Law and thereby merited it for us The last is affirmed and the two first Questions denied I Have said so much of this subject already in my Confession but especially in my Disputations of Justification and in my Life of Faith that I thought not to have meddled with it any more But some occasions tell me that it is not yet needless though those that have most need will not read it But while some of them hold that nothing which they account a Truth about the Form and Manner of Worship is to be silenced for the Churches peace they should grant to me that Real Truth so near the Foundation in their own account is not to be silenced when it tendeth unto Peace In opening my thoughts on this subject I shall reduce all to these Heads 1. I shall give the brief History of this Controversie 2. I shall open the true state of it and assert what is to be asserted and deny what is to be denied 3. I shall give you the Reasons of my Denials 4. I shall answer some Objections CHAP. I. The History of the Controversie § 1. IN the Gospel it self we have first Christ's Doctrine delivered by his own mouth And in that there is so little said of this Subject that I find few that will pretend thence to resolve the Controversie for Imputation in the rigorous sence The same I say of the Acts of the Apostles and all the rest of the New Testament except Pauls Epistles The Apostle Paul having to do with the Jews who could not digest the equalizing of the Gentiles with them and specially with the factious Jewish Christians who thought the Gentiles must become Proselytes to Moses as well as to Christ if they would be Justified and Saved at large confuteth this opinion and freeth the Consciences of the Gentile Christians from the Imposition of this yoke as also did all the Apostles Act. 15. And in his arguing proveth that the Mosaical Law is so far from being necessary to the Justification of the Gentiles that Abraham and the Godly Jews themselves were not Justified by it but by Faith And that by the works of it and consequently not by the works of the Law or Covenant of Innocency which no man ever kept no man could ever be justified And therefore that they were to look for Justification by Christ alone and by Faith in him or by meer Christianity which the Gentiles might have as well as the Jews the Partition-wall being taken down This briefly is the true scope of Paul in these Controversies § 2. But in Paul's own days there were somethings in his Epistles which the unlearned and unstable did wrest as they did the other Scriptures to their own destruction as Peter tells us 2 Pet. 2. And it seemeth by the Epistle of James that this was part of it For he is fain there earnestly to dispute against some who thought that Faith without Christian works themselves would justifie and flatly affirmeth that we are Justified by Works and not by Faith only that is as it is a Practical Faith in which is contained a Consent or Covenant to obey which first putteth us into a justified state so it is that Practical Faith actually working by Love and the actual performance of our Covenant which by way of Condition is necessary to our Justification as Continued and as Consummate by the Sentence of Judgment Against which sentence of James there is not a syllable to be found in Paul But all the Scripture agreeth that all men shall be Judged that is Justified or Condemned according to their works But it is not this Controversie between Faith and Works which I am now to speak to having done it enough heretofore § 3. From the days of the Apostles till Pelagius and Augustine this Controversie was little meddled with For the truth is the Pastors and Doctors took not Christianity in those days for a matter of Shcolastick subtilty but of plain Faith and Piety And contented themselves to say that Christ dyed for our sins and that we are Justified by Faith and that Christ was made unto us Righteousness as he was made to us Wisdom Sanctification and Redemption § 4. But withal those three first Ages were so intent upon Holiness of Life as that they addicted their Doctrine their Zeal and their constant endeavours to it And particularly to great austerities to their Bodies in great Fastings and great contemp◠of the World and exercises of Mortification to kill their fleshly
justified that is Righteous by that Imputation 3. And how unable is my weak Understanding to make his words at peace with themselves The same Man in the next lines saith Lex nisi praestita neminem justificat and all Justification before God must be legal or none so that no Man is justified but as reputed Innocent or a performer of the Law And yet Justification is our Absolution from the Punishment and Malediction of the Law As if he said No Man is justified but by the pardon of that sin which he is reputed never to have had and Absolution from that Curse and Punishment which he is reputed never to have deserved or been under Are these things reconcileable But if really he take Absolution for justifying or acquitting from a false Accusation and so to be absolved from the Malediction of the Law is to be reputed one that never deserved it or was under it then it 's as much as to say that there is no pardon of sin or that no Man that is pardoned or reputed to need a Pardon is justified 4. All this and such Speeches would perswade the Reader that this Learned Disputer thinketh that I took and use the word Legal generally as of that which is related to any Law in genere and so take Evangelical contrarily for that which is related to no Law whereas I over and over tell him that speaking in the usual Language that I may be understood I take Legal specially and not generally for that Righteousness which is related to the Law of Works or Innocency not as if we had indeed such a Righteousness as that Law will justifie us for But a pro-Legal-Righteousness one instead of it in and by our perfect Saviour which shall effectually save us from that Laws condemnation And that by Evangelical Righteousness I mean that which is related to the Law of Grace as the Rule of Judgment upon the just pleading whereof that Law will not condemn but justifie us If he knew this to be my meaning in my weak judgment he should not have written either as if he did not or as if he would perswade his Rsaders to the contrary For Truth is most congruously defended by Truth But if he knew it not I despair of becoming intelligible to him by any thing that I can write and I shall expect that this Reply be wholly lost to him and worse 5. His Lex nisi praestita neminem justificat is true and therefore no Man is justified by the Law But his next words praestitam omnes in Christo agnoscunt seemeth to mean that It was performed by us in Christ Or that It justifieth us because performed perfectly by Christ as such Which both are the things that we most confidently deny It was not Physically or Morally or Politically or Legally or Reputatively take which word you will fulfilled by us in Christ it doth not justifie us because it was fulfilled by Christ as such or immediately and eo nomine It justified Christ because he fulfilled it and so their Law doth all the perfect Angels But we did not personally fulfil it in Christ it never allowed vicarium obedientiae to fulfil it by our selves or another Therefore anothers Obedience merely as such even a Mediators is not our Obedience or Justification But that Obedience justifieth us as given us only in or to the effecting of our Personal Righteousness which consisteth in our right to Impunity and to God's Favour and Life freely given for Christ's Merits sake and in our performance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace or that free Gift which is therefore not a co-ordinate but a sub-ordinate Righteousness and Justification to qualifie us for the former This is so plain and necessary that if in sense it be not understood by all that are admitted to the Sacramental Communion excepting Verbal Controversies or Difficulties I doubt we are too lax in our admissions § 5. Next he tel's us of a threefold respect of Justification 1. Ex parte principii 2. Termini 3. Medii I find my self uncapeable of teaching him that is a Teacher of such as I and therefore presume not to tell him how to distinguish more congruously plainly and properly as to the terms And as to the Principle or Fountain whence it floweth that is Evangelical Grace in Christ he saith It is thus necessary that in our lapsed State all Justification be Evangelical Answ Who would desire a sharper or a softer a more dissenting or a more consenting Adversary Very good If then I mean it ex parte principii I offend him not by asserting Evangelical Righteousness The Controversie then will be only de nomine whether it be congruous thus to call it And really are his Names and Words put into our Creed and become so necessary as to be worthy of all the stress that he layeth on them and the calling up the Christian World to arrive by their Zeal against our Phrase Must the Church be awakened to rise up against all those that will say with Christ By thy words thou shalt be justified And with James By Works a Man is justified and not by Faith only and we are judged by the Law of Liberty and as Christ Joh. 5.22 The Father judgeth no Man but hath committed all Judgment to the Son and that shall recite the 25 th Chapter of Matthew Even now he said at once There is no Justification in foro Dei but Absolution c. The Law of the Spirit of Life hath freed us c. Here is no mention of any Justification but Legal And now All our Justification ex parte principii is only Evangelical So then no Text talks of Evangelical Justification or of Justification ex parte principii And Absolution which defineth it is named ex parte principii And yet all Justification is Evangelical Is this mode of Teaching worthy a Defence by a Theological War 2. But Reader Why may not I denominate Justification ex parte principii Righteousness is formally a Relation To justifie constitutively is to make Righteous To be Justified or Justification in sensu passivo is to be made Righteous And in foro to be judged Righteous And what meaneth he by Principium as to a Relation but that which other Men call the Fundamentum which is loco Efficientis or a remote efficient And whence can a Relation be more fitly named than from the fundamentum whence it hath its formal being Reader bear with my Error or correct it if I mistake I think that as our Righteousness is not all of one sort no more is the fundamentum 1. I think I have no Righteousness whose immediate fundamentum is my sinless Innocency or fulfilling the Law of Works or Innocency by my self or another and so I have no fundamentum of such 2. I hope I have a Righteousness consisting in my personal Right to Impunity and Life and that Jus or Right is mine by the Title of free Condonation and
a congruous way of disputing for Truth and Righteousness nor indeed is it tolerably ingenuous or modest If not then why doth he all along carry his professed agreement with me in a militant strain perswading his Reader that I savour of Socinianism or Popery or some dangerous Error by saying the very same that he saith O what thanks doth God's Church owe such contentious Disputers for supposed Orthodoxness that like noctambuli will rise in their sleep and cry Fire Fire or beat an Allarm on their Drums and cry out The Enemy The Enemy and will not let their Neighbours rest I have wearied my Readers with so oft repeating in my Writings upon such repeated importunities of others these following Assertions about Works 1. That we are never justified first or last by Works of Innocency 2. Nor by the Works of the Jewish Law which Paul pleadeth against 3. Nor by any Works of Merit in point of Commutative Justice or of distributive Governing Justice according to either of those Laws of Innocency or Jewish 4. Nor by any Works or Acts of Man which are set against or instead of the least part of God's Acts Christ's Merits or any of his part or honour 5. Nor are we at first justified by any Evangelical Works of Love Gratitude or Obedience to Christ as Works are distinguished from our first Faith and Repentance 6. Nor are we justified by Repentance as by an instrumental efficient Cause or as of the same receiving Nature with Faith except as Repentance signifieth our change from Vnbelief to Faith and so is Faith it self 7. Nor are we justified by Faith as by a mere Act or moral good Work 8. Nor yet as by a proper efficient Instrument of our Justification 9. Much less by such Works of Charity to Men as are without true love to God 10. And least of all by Popish bad Works called Good as Pilgrimages hurtful Austerities c. But if any Church-troubling Men will first call all Acts of Man's Soul by the name of WORKS and next will call no Act by the name of Justifying Faith but the belief of the Promise as some or the accepting of Christ's Righteousness given or imputed to us as in se our own as others or the Recumbency on this Righteousness as others or all these three Acts as others and if next they will say that this Faith justifieth us only as the proper Instrumental Cause And next that to look for Justification by any other Act of Man's Soul or by this Faith in any other respect is to trust to that Justification by Works which Paul confuteth and to fall from Grace I do detest such corrupting and abusing of the Scriptures and the Church of Christ And I assert as followeth 1. That the Faith which we are justified by doth as essentially contain our belief of the Truth of Christ's Person Office Death Resurrection Intercession c. as of the Promise of Imputation 2. And also our consent to Christ's Teaching Government Intercession as to Imputation 3. And our Acceptance of Pardon Spirit and promised Glory as well as Imputed Righteousness of Christ 4. Yea that it is essentially a Faith in God the Father and the Holy Ghost 5. That it hath in it essentially somewhat of Initial Love to God to Christ to Recovery to Glory that is of Volition and so of Desire 6. That it containeth all that Faith which is necessarily requisite at Baptism to that Covenant even a consenting-practical-belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and is our Christianity it self 7. That we are justified by this Faith as it is A moral Act of Man adapted to its proper Office made by our Redeemer the Condition of his Gift of Justification and so is the moral receptive aptitude of the Subject or the Dispositio materiae vel subjecti Recipientis Where the Matter of it is An adapted moral Act of Man by Grace The Ratio formalis of its Interest in our Justification is Conditio praestita speaking politically and Aptitudo vel Dispositio moralis Receptiva speaking logically which Dr. Twiss still calleth Causa dispositiva 8. That Repentance as it is a change of the Mind from Unbelief to Faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost is this Faith denominated from its Terminus à quo principally 9. That we are continually justified by this Faith as continued as well as initially justified by its first Act. 10. That as this Faith includeth a consent to future Obedience that is Subjection so the performance of that consent in sincere Obedience is the Condition of our Justification as continued Secondarily as well as Faith or consent it self primarily And that thus James meaneth that we are Justified by Works 11. That God judging of all things truly as they are now judgeth Men just or unjust on these Terms 12. And his Law being Norma judicii now vertually judgeth us just on these terms 13. And that the Law of Grace being that which we are to be judged by we shall at the last Judgment also be judged and so justified thus far by or according to our sincere Love Obedience or Evangelical Works as the Condition of the Law or Covenant of free Grace which justifieth and glorifieth freely all that are thus Evangelically qualified by and for the Merits perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice of Christ which procured the Covenant or free Gift of Universal Conditional Justification and Adoption before and without any Works or Conditions done by Man whatsoever Reader Forgive me this troublesom oft repeating the state of the Controversie I meddle with no other If this be Justification by Works I am for it If this Doctor be against it he is against much of the Gospel If he be not he had better have kept his Bed than to have call'd us to Arms in his Dream when we have sadly warred so many Ages already about mere words For my part I think that such a short explication of our sense and rejection of ambiguities is fitter to end these quarrels than the long disputations of Confounders 4. But when be saith Works make not a Man just and yet we are at last justified according to them it is a contradiction or unsound For if he mean Works in the sence excluded by Paul we are not justified according to them viz. such as make or are thought to make the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt But if he take Works in the sense intended by James sincere Obedience is a secondary constitutive part of that inherent or adherent personal Righteousness required by the Law of Grace in subordination to Christ's Meritorious Righteousness And what Christian can deny this So far it maketh us Righteous as Faith doth initially And what is it to be justified according to our Works but to be judged so far as they are sincerely done to be such as have performed the secondary part of the Conditions of free-given Life 5. His According but not ex operibus at the
this Faith the Condition of our Title and if we do this we shall be judged evangelically Righteous that is such as have done all that was necessary to their right in Christ and the said Benefits and therefore have such a Right This is plain English and plain Truth wrangle no more against it and against the very Letter of the Text and against your Brethren and the Churches Concord by making Men believe that there are grievous Differences where there are none Reader I was going on to Answer the rest but my time is short Death is at the door Thou seest what kind of Work I have of it even to detect a Learned Man's Oversights and temerarious Accusations The weariness will be more to thee and me than the profit I find little before but what I have before answered here and oft elsewhere And therefore I will here take up only adding one Chapter of Defence of that Conciliation which I attempted in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book of the Two Covenants and this Doctor like an Enemy of Peace assaulteth CHAP. VIII The Concord of Protestants in the Matter of Justification defended against Dr. Tullies Oppositions who would make Discord under pretence of proving it § 1. WHile Truth is pretended by most that by envious striving introduce Confusion and every evil Work it usually falleth out by God's just Judgment that such are almost as opposite to Truth as to Charity and Peace What more palpable instances can there be than such as on such accounts have lately assaulted me Mr. Danvers Mr. Bagshaw c. and now this Learned Doctor The very stream of all his Opposition against me about Imputation is enforced by this oft repeated Forgery that I deny all Imputation of Christ's Righteousness Yea he neither by fear modesty or ingenuity was restrained from writing pag. 117. Omnem ludibrio habet Imputationem He derideth all Imputation Judg by this what credit contentious Men deserve § 2. The conciliatory Propositions which I laid down in an Epistle to Mr. W. Allens Book I will here transcribe that the Reader may see what it is that these Militant Doctors war against Lest any who know not how to stop in mediocrity should be tempted by Socinians or Papists to think that we countenance any of their Errors or that our Differences in the point of Justification by Faith or Works are greater than indeed they are and lest any weak Opinionative Persons should clamour unpeaceably against their Brethren and think to raise a name to themselves for their differing Notions I shall here give the Reader such evidences of our real Concord as shall silence that Calumny Though some few Lutherans did upon peevish suspiciousness against George Major long ago assert That Good Works are not necessary to Salvation And though some few good Men whose Zeal without Judgment doth better serve their own turn than the Churches are jealous lest all the good that is ascribed to Man be a dishonour to God and therefore speak as if God were honoured most by saying the worst words of our selves and many have uncomely and irregular Notions about these Matters And though some that are addicted to sidings do take it to be their Godly Zeal to censure and reproach the more understanding sort when they most grosly err themselves And though too many of the People are carried about through injudiciousness and temptations to false Doctrines and evil Lives yet is the Argument of Protestants thus manifested 1. They all affirm that Christ's Sacrifice with his Holiness and perfect Obedience are the meritorious Cause of the forgiving Covenants and of our Pardon and Justification thereby and of our Right to Life Eternal which it giveth us And that this Price was not paid or given in it self immediately to us but to God for us and so that our foresaid Benefits are its Effects 2. They agree that Christ's Person and ours were not really the same and therefore that the same Righteousness which is an Accident of one cannot possibly be an Accident of the other 3. They all detest the Conceit that God should aver and repute a Man to have done that which he never did 4. They all agree that Christ's Sacrifice and Merits are really so effectual to procure our Pardon Justification Adoption and right to the sealing Gift of the Holy Ghost and to Glory upon our Faith and Repentance that God giveth us all these benefits of the New-Covenant as certainly for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness as if we had satisfied him and merited them our selves and that thus far Christ's Righteousness is ours in its Effects and imputed to us in that we are thus used for it and shall be judged accordingly 5. They all agree that we are justified by none but a practical or working Faith 6. And that this Faith is the Condition of the Promise or Gift of Justification and Adoption 7. And that Repentance is a Condition also though as it is not the same with Faith as Repentance of Unbelief is on another aptitudinal account even as a willingness to be cured and a willingness to take one for my Physician and to trust him in the use of his Remedies are on several accounts the Conditions on which that Physician will undertake the Cure or as willingness to return to subjection and thankful acceptance of a purchased Pardon and of the Purchasers Love and future Authority are the Conditions of a Rebel's Pardon 8. And they all agree that in the first instant of a Man's Conversion or Believing he is entred into a state of Justification before he hath done any outward Works and that so it is true that good Works follow the Justified and go not before his initial Justification as also in the sense that Austin spake it who took Justification for that which we call Sanctification or Conversion 9. And they all agree that Justifying Faith is such a receiving affiance as is both 〈…〉 Intellect and the Will and therefore as in 〈…〉 participateth of some kind of Love to the justifying Object as well as to Justification 10. And that no Man can chuse or use Christ as a Means so called in respect to his own intention to bring him to God the Father who hath not so much love to God as to take him for his end in the use of that means 11. And they agree that we shall be all judged according to our Works by the Rule of the Covenant of Grace though not for our Works by way of commutative or legal proper merit And Judging is the Genus whose Species is Justifying and Condemning and to be judged according to our Works is nothing but to be justified or condemned according to them 12. They all agree that no Man can possibly merit of God in point of Commutative Justice nor yet in point of Distributive or Governing Justice according to the Law of Nature or Innocency as Adam might have done nor by the Works of the Mosaical
words to jeer away Conviction you tell me We must have some better account of you quem quibus than what you have given us yet I shall take leave to present our indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and truer state of the Question far more suitable both to my plain meaning and the clear purport of your Direction Let the Case be this There is One who of late hath raised much dust among us about the grand Article of Justification Whether it be by Faith without Works or by Faith and Works too All our old Renowned Divines on this side and beyond the Seas are unanimously agreed that Justification is by Faith alone i. e. without Works This one Person hath often published his Judgment to the contrary so that a poor Academical Doctor may very rationally enquire of you Who in this case is to be preferred That one or those many Answ There was a Disputant who would undertake to conquer any Adversary When he was asked How He said he would pour out upon him so many and so gross untruths as should leave him nothing to answer congruously but a Mentiris and then all the World would judg him uncivil and condemn him for giving such an unreverent answer But you shall not so prevail with me but I will call your Reader to answer these Questions 1. Whether it be any truer that This is the clear purport of my Direction than it is that I say There is but one Star in the Firmament because I say that one Star is more Luminous than many Candles 2. Whether if a diseased Reader will put such a Sense upon my words his Forgery be a true stating of the Question between him and me with out my consent 3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is either Vnicus or Primus or Singular in the definition of Justification or the interest of Works be any truer than that he is the only ejected Minister in England While the writings of Bucer Ludov. Crocius Joh. Bergius Conrad Bergius Calixtus Placeus le Blank Dave Gatak Wott Prest Ball and multitudes such are visible still among us 4. Whether he deals truly wisely or friendly with the holy Scripures and the Protestants who would perswade the Ignorant that this is the true state of the Controversie Whether it be by Faith without Works or by Faith and Works too that we are justified While the Scripture speaketh both and all Protestants hold both in several senses And whether this easie stating of Controversies without more Explication or Distinction be worthy an Academical Disputant 5. Whether it be true or notoriously false that All our Renowned Divines on this side and beyond the Seas are agreed of that in this Question of the interest of Works which this one contradicteth 6. Whether this Doctors naked Affirmation hereof be better proof than that one Mans citation of the words of above an Hundred yea many Hundred as giving as much to Works as he doth is of the Contrary 7. Whether it be an ingenuous way beseeming Academics to talk at this rate and assert such a stating of the Question and such consent without one word of notice or mention of the Books in which I state the Question and bring all this evidence of consent 8. If such a Doctor will needs enquire whether the secret thoughts of the Writer meant not himself when he pretendeth but to accuse the Rule there given and should enquire but of the meaning of the words whether it savour more of Rationality or a presumptuous usurping the Prerogative of God § XVI Pag. 27. Though your approach be wrathful you are constrained to come nearer yet and you cannot deny my Rule of Direct in other Points but only those of High and difficult speculation And do you deny it there You will deal with it but as the application of that Rule to the Definition of Justification And shall we lose your favour by forcing you to lay by your Opposition as to all the rest But here you say you exceedingly differ from me Or else you would be ashamed of so much Combating in the dark Exceeding oft signifieth some extream Your Reasons are 1. You hold not the Doctrine of Justification to be properly of Speculative concern but wholly Practical Where yet you confess that in all Practical knowledg there be some antecedent contemplations of the Nature Properties End Object and that to know the certain number of Paces bâ—me-ward is a Speculative nicety Answ And can you find no fairer a shift for disagreement I would such as you made not the Doctrine of Justification too little Practical I am far from thinking that it is not Practical But is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature Properties End Object or some of these which you call Contemplations Make not plain things dark Sir The use of Art is not to shut the Windows and confound Mens Minds I take all Theologie to be together Scientia-affectiva-practica for our Intellect Will and Practice must be possest or ruled by it But it is first Scientia and we must know before we can will and practise And though all right knowledg tend to Practice yet forgive me for telling you that I think that many holy Persons in Scripture and Primitive times loved and practised more than you or I who knew not how to form an exact Logical Definition And that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit spiritually by Scripture Notions may practise them as fully as he that knoweth and speaketh them in the Notions of Aristotle or else the School-Men excel the Apostles Though ambling be an easie Pace which Horses are taught by Gives and Fetters it followeth not that a Horse cannot travel as far in his natural pace When you have said all Logical defining shall be a work of Art and the Church should not be torn and Souls shall not be damned for want of it He that Loveth Believeth Hopeth Obeyeth and by doing them hath a reflecting perception what they are and hath but such a knowledg of the Gospel as may be had without a proper Definition shall be saved Pag. 28 29. you say Nor is the Doctrine of Justification so high and difficult but that the meanest Christian may understand it sufficiently to Salvation so far as words can make it intelligible Answ Your own blows seem not to hurt you I thank you for granting so much hope to the meanest Christians But what 's this to your Case 1. Do the meanest Christians know how to define Justification and all the Grace which they have 2. Are they acquainted with all the Words that should make it intelligible Pag. 29. you add You have done little service to your weaker Christians to perswade them otherwise as well as to the great blessed Charter of Salvation and to lead them out of the plain road into Woods and Mazes to that one Man of extraordinary Judgment and Clearness no body must know what his Name is or where he dwells and
who am thus publickly by visible Calumny traduced truly to tell you where you mistake and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more than me and if also I offer peaceably to wash my own face this is hard fronted Calumny dragging a Doctor in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot which might occasion his degrading and turning out c. This over-tenderness of your honour as to other mens words and too little care of the means of it as to your own hath a cause that it concerneth you to find out Had you the tenth part as many Books written against you as are against me by Quakers Seekers Infidels Antinomians Millenaries Anabaptists Separatists Semi-separatists Papists Pseudo-Tilenus Diocesans Conformists and many Enemies of Peace to whom it was not I but your self that joyned you it would have hardened you into some more patience If you will needs be militant you must expect replies And he that will injuriously speak to the World what he should not speak must look to hear what he would not hear But you add Sir the Name and Quality of a DOCTOR and Master of a Literate Society might have been treated more civilly by you Answ 1. I am ready to ask you forgiveness for any word that any impartial man yea or your Reverend Brethren of that Academy themselves whom I will allow to be somewhat partial for you shall notifie to me to be uncivil or any way injurious 2. But to be free with you neither Doctorship Mastership nor â—carlet will Priviledg you to fight against Truth Right and Peace and to vent gross mistakes and by gross untruths in matter of fact such as is your Omnem ludibrio habet imputationem to abuse your poor Brethren and keep the longconsuming flà mes still burning by false representing those as Popish and I know not what who speak not as unaptly as your self and all this without contradiction Were you a Bp. my Body and Estate might be in your power but Truth Justice and the Love of Christians and the Churches peace should not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretense of reverence to your Name and Quality I am heartily desirous that for ORDER-sake the Name and Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently used But if they will think that Errour Injustice and Confusion must take sanctuary under bare Ecclesiastical or Academical Names and robes they will find themselves mistaken Truth and Honesty will conquer when they pass through Smithfield flames Prisons confine them not Death kills them not No siege will force an honest Conscience by famine to give up He that cannot endure the sight of his own excrements must not dish them up to another mans Table lest they be sent him back again And more freedom is allowed against Peace-Breakers in Frays and Wars than towards men that are in a quieter sort of Controversie § XX. P. 36.37 You say For your various Definitions of Justification Constitutive Sentential Executive in Foro Dei in foro Conscientiae c. What need this heap of distinctions here when you know the question betwixt us is of no other Justification but the Constitutive in foro Dei that which maketh us righteous in the Court of Heaven I have nothing to do with you yet in any else as your own Conscience will tell you when you please If you have not more Justice and civility for your intelligent Readers I wish you would shew more Compassion to your Ignorant Homagers and not thus abuse them with your palpable Evasions Answ Doth the question Whether the several sorts of Justification will bear one and the same Definition deserve all this anger and the much greater that followeth 1. Seeing I am turned to my Reader I will crave his impartial judgment I never received and agreed on a state of the question with this Doctor He writeth against my books In those Books I over and over and over distinguish of Justification Constitutive Sentential and Executive besides those subordinate sorts by Witness Evidence Apology c. I oft open their differences He writeth against me as denying all Imputation of Christs Righteousness and holding Popish Justification by works and never tells me whether he take the word Justification in the same sense that I do or in which of those that I had opened And now he passionately appealeth to my Conscience that I knew his sence What he saith my Conscience will tell me it is not true It will tell me no such thing but the clean contrary that even after all his Disputes and Anger and these words I profess I know not what he meaneth by Justification 2. What Constitutive in foro Dei that which maketh us Righteous in the Court of Heaven meaneth with him I cannot conjecture He denyeth not my Distinctions but saith what need they I ever distinguished Making Righteous Judging Righteous Executively useing as Righteous The first is in our selves The second is by Divines said to be in foro Dei an act of Judgment the third is upon us after both now he seemeth to confound the two first and yet denyeth not their difference and saith he meaneth Constitutive in foro He that is made Righteous is such in se and as such is Justifiable in foro We are Made Righteous by God as free Donor and Imputer antecedently to judgment We are in foro sentenced Righteous by God as Judg so that this by sentence presupposeth the former God never Judgeth us Righteous and Justifieth us against Accusation till he have first Made us Righteous and Justified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and Donation Which of these meaneth he I ask not my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I but his Intelligent Reader He taketh on him to go the Commonest way of Protestants And the Commonest way is to acknowledg that a Constitutive Justification or making the man Just antecedent to the Actus forensis must need go first but that it is the second which Paul usually meaneth which is the actus forensis the sentence of the Judg in foro contrary to Condemnation And doth the Doctor think that to make Righteous and to sentence as Righteous are all one and that we are made Righteous in foro otherwise than to be just in our selves and so Justifiable in foro before the Sentence or do Protestants take the Sentence to be Constituting or Making us Righteous All this is such talk as had I read it in Mr. Bunnyan of the Covenants or any of my Ignorant Homagers I should have said the Author is a stranger to the Controversie into which he hath rashly plunged himself but I have more reverence to so learned a man and therefore blame my dull understanding 3. But what if I had known as I do not yet what sort of Justification he meaneth Doth he not know that I was then debating the Case with him whether the Logical Definitions of Justification Faith c. are not a work of Art in which a few well-studied