Of Justification, Part 1

Of Justification · Part 1

p. 79I Come now to prove the ſum of the Affirmative Propoſition, together ſo far as they reſolve the Queſtion in hand, viz. that works or acts of man have ſuch an Intereſt in our Juſtificaon, and are ſo far conditions as is here aſſerted.

My firſt proof is from thoſe Texts of Scripture which expreſly ſpeak of Juſtification by ſuch acts or works.

If we are juſtified By our words and works, then are they no leſs then conditions of Juſtification. But we are juſtified By them. Ergo. &c.

The Conſequence of the Major is plain, firſt, In that the Prepoſition [By] doth ſignifie no leſs then the Intereſt of ſome means: but theſe Works can be no means, but either a condition or a cauſe, which is more: A cauſe, the perſons that now I deal with, will not affirm them to be: If they do, then they aſcribe much more to them then to be a condition. Secondly, The Intereſt of faith it ſelf is expreſſed by no higher terms then [By,] that is, foreign, or foreign, or foreign: and ſo is the Intereſt of theſe other acts.

The Minor is expreſs, 1. Mat. 12.36, 37. [For by thy words thou ſhalt be juſtified, and by thy words thou ſhalt be condemned]. (foreign:) that is, at the day of Judgement, in the great Juſtification. 2. Jam. 2.24. ye ſee then how that By Works (foreign) a man is juſtified, and not by faith only (foreign) This ſpeaks of Juſtification in this life.

When men argue againſt Juſtification by our words or works, I deſire 1. to underſtand whether it be the words or the ſenſe that they argue againſt. If the words, then it is either againſt the uſe of them ſimply, as being falſe or unmeet: or elſe againſt unſeaſonable uſe of them. For the former they have no ground; for you ſee it is the expreſs language of Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtle. And as to the later, I eaſily grant that no Scripture phraſe ſhould be unſeaſonably uſed. But if it be not the words but the ſenſe that they blame, why then do they harp ſo much on the words themſelves, and raiſe the moſt of the odium from thence? And p. 80what is the unwarrantable ſenſe? I know not of any lower ſenſe that they can put on theſe words, then what importeth the Intereſt of a condition: As for that of Mat. 12. they ſay little to it. And as to that of James, they interpret it differently among themſelves. Firſt, Some of them ſay that James ſpeaks of Juſtification before men, and others ſay he ſpeaks of Juſtification before God. The former are eaſily confuted (as they reſtrain the text to that alone) by the expreſs words of the Text. For, firſt, ver. 23. it expreſly ſpeaks of Righteouſneſs by divine Imputation, and of Gods accepting Abraham into friendſhip. Secondly, The text ſpeaks of that Juſtification which concurreth with Salvation, ver. 14. [can faith ſave him?] Thirdly, It ſpeaks of the Death of faith without works, as to Profiting, ver. 16.17. which is different from manifeſtation. Fourthly, It inſtanceth in the ſecret act of Rahab, and ſuch an act of Abraham, as we read of no men that then juſtified him for, nay they were liker to condemn him. Fifthly, Men may juſtifie an Hypocrite as ſoon as the truly godly, and can but conjecture at the faith by the works. But the ſcope of the text ſhews that it is no ſuch frivolous juſtification that is here meant.

Secondly, They that ſay that it is juſtification before God that is here meant, (as no doubt it is) have yet divers interpretations of the word Works. Some ſay, that by Works is not meant [Works themſelves] indeed, but a working faith. To them I ſay, firſt, I deny it, and wait for better proof then is yet brought. Secondly, The text nameth [works] expreſly twelve times in a few verſes: which is not uſual in ſpeeches ſo tropicall as this is ſuppoſed to be. Thirdly, In many or moſt of the texts, that interpretation would make the words non-ſenſe, as the peruſall will declare. Fourthly, If the word [works] did emphatically ſignifie the [working nature] of faith, or faith not qua fides, but qua operans, it will be all one as to the matter in queſtion, and yield what I deſire.

Others ſay that by works is indeed meant the works themſelves properly; but then they ſay that the text ſpeaks not of the Juſtification of the perſon by them, but of faith by them, for faith, ſay they, alone doth juſtifie the perſon, and works only juſtifie faith. Anſwer, But firſt, this contradicteth the expreſs text: for p. 81verſe 14. It is the Salvation of the perſon that is denyed; and ver. 21. It it the juſtification of Abraham himſelf that is there mentioned; and ver. 24. it is the man that is ſaid to be juſtified by works and not by faith only; and verſe 25. it is Rahab her ſelf that is ſaid to be juſtified by works. Secondly, The anſwer contradicteth themſelves, or granteth what I deſire: for if works juſtifie the faith, they muſt needs juſtifie the perſon in tantum, againſt any accuſation of groſs Infidelity and Hypocriſie. Sometime the perſon is juſtified when his Action cannot be juſtified (as in caſe of ſatisfaction and pardon:) but to juſtifie the action it ſelf, is the higheſt ſort of juſtifying the perſon.

So that all other Interpretations being either overthrown, or reſolved into that which we maintain, I need to ſay to more for the defending of it.

My next proof is from thoſe texts that ſay, we ſhall be Judged according to our works, and rewarded according to our Labour, &c. 2 Cor. 5.9, 10. 1 Cor. 3.8. 1 Pet. 1.16, 17. Matthew 16.27. &c.

If men ſhall be juſtified according to their works, then thoſe works are no lower then a condition of that juſtification: But the Antecedent is true, as I prove thus. If men ſhall be judged according to their works, therefore they ſhall be juſtified according to their works: The reaſon of the Conſequence is evident; becauſe judging is the Genus, which comprehendeth Juſtification and condemnation as its ſpecies. The reaſon alſo of the conſequence of the former Argument is apparent: becauſe the term [of judging according to works] doth in the common uſe of men ſignifie ordinarily that which they call the Meritum cauſae, but never any thing lower then a bare condition: nor can any lower tolerable judiciary ſenſe be put upon them, as might eaſily be ſhewed if it were worth the ſtanding on.

My next proof is from thoſe texts that expreſly promiſe the pardon of ſin on condition of Repentance, Confeſſion, &c. If Repentance, and other acts are made by the Goſpel, conditions of pardon, (and our firſt general Pardon) then are they made conditions of our firſt admiſſion into a ſtate of Juſtification. But the Antecedent is plain, in Act. 2.38. Mar. 14. p. 82Luke 13.35. Iſa. 55.67. and 1.16, 17, 18. Ezek. 33.11, 16. and 18.28, 29, 30, 31, 32. Prov. 28.13. Act. 3.19. with many more. The Conſequence is plain, in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Juſtification; and by others confeſſed a chief part; and by all its confeſſed to be made ours on the ſame terms as is Juſtification it ſelf.

My fourth Proof is from thoſe texts which make theſe kind of Acts to have the place of a condition in order to ſalvation; if they are conditions of ſalvation, then are they no leſs then conditions of our final Juſtification: But the Antecedent is ordinarily acknowledged by the Opponents, and its proved, 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 5.9. 1 Tim. 6.18, 19. Luk. 11.28. and 13.24 1 Cor. 9.24, 25, 26, 27. Rev. 22.14. John 12.26. Rom. 8.13. Mat. 5.20. Mat. 19.29. Mat. 6.1, 2, 4, 6. and 5.12, 46. and 10.41, 42. 2 Theſſ. 1.5, 6. Col. 3.23, 24. Heb. 6.10. 2. Tim. 4.7, 8. Gal. 6.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 2. Cor. 9.6, 9. John 5.22, 27, 28, 29, &c. The Conſequence is proved good, firſt, In that final Juſtification and Glorification have the ſame conditions; as is plain, both in many Scriptures (mentioned) and in the nature of the thing: for that Juſtification is the adjudging us to that Glory; and therefore ſo far as any thing is the cauſe or condition of the Glory it ſelf, it muſt be the reaſon of the ſentence which adjudgeth it to us. Secondly, And ſalvation is as free as Juſtification, and no more deſerved by man: and therefore the Apoſtle equally excludeth works from both, Eph. 2.5, 8, 9. By Grace ye are ſaved, through faith, and that not of your ſelves, it is the gift of God; not of worke, leſt any man ſhould boaſt. ſo Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. more fully. Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works, exclude not ſincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation, then Juſtification by grace through faith without works, doth not (in Scripture ſence) exclude ſincere obedience from being the condition of our final Juſtification, nor Repentance from being the condition of our juſtification as begun: (for there is eadem ratio, and the Text makes the one as free without works, as the other) But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures, Ergo, &c.

My fifth Proof is from thoſe texts that in terms ſeem to aſſign p. 83a cauſality to ſuch obediential acts, which can be interpreted of no leſs then a conditionality; ſuch are Luke 19.17. Mat. 25.31, 23, 34, 35, 40, 46. Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. 2 Chron. 34.26, 27. Pſalm 91.9, 14. Mark 7.29. 1 John 3.22, 23. John 16.27. Rev. 3.10. and 3.4. and 7.14, 15. &c. And though ſome of theſe texts ſpeak not of Divine acceptance to life; yet firſt, ſome do; ſecondly, and the reſt ſpeak of no mercy but what is as freely given as Juſtification. A mans own works are excluded other Means and parts of ſalvation, as well as that.

I run over theſe briefly and generally, both becauſe I expect that the bare texts without my Comments, ſhould work upon the Conſiderate, and becauſe I have been ſo much upon it formerly in other writings (as Confeſs. §. 3. p. …6. cap. 3. & cap 5. §. 2. pag. 117, 118. & alibi paſſim) as that I apprehend in this work more tediouſneſs than neceſſity.

But the chief thing that I further here intend, is to anſwer ſome Objections, that by a Reverend Brother in his ſecond part of his Treatiſe of Juſtification are brought againſt me.

But before I come to his Arguments, its neceſſary that I a little animadvert on his Deſcription of Juſtification, that we may firſt agree upon the ſenſe of our terms, or at leaſt, know how to underſtand one another.

Treat. Of Juſtification. p. 126. [Juſtification is a gratious and juſt Act of God, whereby through Chriſt our Mediator and Surety, a ſinner, but repenting and believing, is pronounced juſt, and hereby put into a ſtate of Reconciliation and favour with God, to the praiſe of Gods glorious attributes, and to the Believers eternal ſalvation. I ſhall not examine this Deſcription by accurate Logical Rules, &c.

Anſw. Firſt, Doubtleſs an accurate, rather then popular definition would as ſoon be expected from you, as from moſt; and here as anywhere in a Treatiſe purpoſely on the Subject. Secondly, Pronunciation doth not go before Conſtitution, not put us into a ſtate of Reconciliation and favour, but find us in it, you ſay your ſelf. pag. 120. To juſtifie, is to conſtitute and to declare or pronounce righteous, And in your firſt Treatiſe of Juſtification. pag. 7. Indeed the Apoſtle, Rom. 5. ſaith, many p. 84are made righteous by the ſecond Adam; which if not meant of inherent holineſs doth imply that the righteouſneſs we have by Chriſt, is not meerly declarative, but alſo conſtitutive; and indeed, one is in order before the other; for a man muſt be righteous, before he can be pronounced or declared ſo to be.]

Treat. p. The Application of (Juſtification) is attributed to the Holy Ghoſt.

Anſw. I know not of any ſuch, except firſt, where Juſtification is taken for Sanctification. Secondly, or as the Holy Ghoſt is made the Author of the Promiſe, though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith alſo.

Treat. 16. The Socinians ſay Chriſt juſtifieth only Inſtrumentally, not principally; even ſo faith is ſaid to ſave: but this cannot be, becauſe Chriſt is God as well at Man, and therefore cannot be inſtrumental, but principal.

Anſw. As they err on one hand, that ſay Chriſt juſtifieth only Inſtrumentally (which flows from their blaſphemous denyall of his God-head) ſo its an error on the other hand, to ſay that Chriſt cannot be Inſtrumental, but principal; I prove the contrary; firſt, If Chriſt may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption, and ruling of mankind, then may he be an Inſtrument. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

Secondly, If Chriſt may be a means, he may be an Inſtrument; but he may be a means, for he is called by himſelf the way to the Father: and a way is a means.

Thirdly, He is called the Fathers ſervant: therefore he may be an Inſtrument.

Fourthly, He is ſaid to come to do his Fathers will, therefore he is his Inſtrument.

Fifthly, All Power is ſaid to be given him, even the Power of judging, John 5.22. and Matthew 28.18, 19. therefore he is the Fathers Inſtrument in judging.

And your reaſon is invalid, (viz. becauſe Chriſt is God) for he is Man as well as God, and ſo may be Inſtrumental.

p. 85Treat. p. 129, 130. It ſounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears, that Chriſt our Mediator did only expiate by his death ſins againſt the Law and Covenant of works, but that thoſe that are againſt the Covenant of Grace, &c.

Anſw. A ſin is againſt the Law of Grace or Goſpel, firſt, becauſe it is againſt ſome object revealed in the Goſpel, which the ſin is againſt, (as Chriſt) Thus ſin was expiated by Chriſt: 2ly. As it is againſt a Precept of the Goſpel and thus it is expiated by Chriſt: 3ly. As it is a breach of a mans own Promiſe or Covenant made to Chriſt upon the Goſpel invitation. And thus it is expiated by Chriſt. 4ly. Or as it hath reſpect to the Goſpel commination, ſo as to make a man the object of the actuall curſe of this New Covenant, or the perſon to whom its proper penalty is become actually due; as every ſin made the penalty of the firſt Law actually due to us. This is it that I have ſaid, that Chriſt doth not expiate, and none but this. Some Divines ſay, the Goſpel hath no proper curſe or commination & penalty. I am paſt doubt that it hath, even non-liberation, a privation of all the ſalvation offered them, and the Remedileſneſs of their ſtate, &c. and I have oft opened this, and proved that only final Impenitency and Infidelity, or the finall non-performance of the conditions of life, are thus peremptorily threatned, and make a man the Subject of the proper actual curſe of this Law of Grace. And if after all explications, you will ſtill carry it in confuſion, or intimate that men hold intolerable Doctrine, omitting their explications, and by generals making that theirs which they diſclaim: our next reply ſhall be patience; or if you think indeed, either that the Law of Grace doth oblige any under the penalty of remedileſs non-liberation, beſides the finally Impenitent and Unbelievers, or that Chriſt dyed to expiate any mans predominant final Impenitency or Unbelief, I will not trouble you with any other conſutation then a denyal of it.

Treat. p. ibid. Repentance is not an ingredient to our Juſtification as faith is; Repentance qualifieth the Subject, but faith immediatly receiveth it.

p. 86Anſwer. The Word Ingredient is more ambiguous then to be worthy the labour of diſcuſſing: But your aſſigned difference I ever did allow. And yet muſt we voluminouſly differ, when I have told you that I allow it? But then I add, that this difference is in the nature of the acts, and in their aptitude to their office. But in the general nature of being Conditions of pardon, which is the neareſt reaſon of their intereſt, they agree, though upon ſeveral reaſons they are made conditions.

Treat. [We are not juſtified by the Habit of faith; but by the Act.]

Anſwer. I ſaid ſo too in my Aphoriſms. But the reaſons of a learned man (Dr. Wallis in his friendly animadverſions) have perſwaded me that it is unſound.

Treat. p. 129. It is aſſerted, that Juſtification called in Titulo, or virtual, is nothing but the Grant of it in the Goſpel: But I ſee not how that can be called our Juſtification.

Anſw. Firſt, That which is aſſerted, is, firſt, That the Goſpel, is the Inſtrument juſtifying. Secondly, That the moral act of the Goſpel-Grant (and Gods Will by it) is Juſtification in ſenſu activo. Thirdly, That the Relation reſulting there-from, is our paſſive Juſtification.

Secondly, Can you ſee how a Princes pardon under his hand-writing can be the Inſtrument of a Traitors pardon; and how the moral or civil Action of that Inſtrument, and of the Prince by it, can be active pardon; and how the Relation effected by it can be paſſive pardon? If you can ſee it there, you may ſee it here: And if you cannot, many a one can.

Treat. It is the ſign or Inſtrument declaring it: not juſtification it ſelf.

An. Who ever ſaid, and where, that paſſive Juſtification (yea or p. 87active) is the Goſpel it ſelf, or the ſign? The Letter is the ſign; The actual ſignification of Gods will thereby is the juſtifying act. The Relation thence reſulting on us, is our paſſive Juſtification. Theſe have been oft recited.

Treat. As the grant or promiſe of our Sanctification is not our Sanctification.

Anſw. Good reaſon: The difference is not to you unknown: Sanctification (paſsive) being a Phyſical effect, muſt have a Phyſical cauſe, and therefore a bare moral cauſe cannot produce it. But pardon or juſtification being but a Relative effect, may be produced per nudam reſultantiam à fundamento. 2. But ſuppoſe God had made a promiſe of Sanctification on condition of faith; would not the Right to Sanctification have reſulted immediately from this promiſe, the condition being performed? And that Right hath the ſame Relative nature, as conſtitutive Juſtification, and pardon it ſelf hath.

Treat. And as on the contrary our condemnation while we abide in ſin, or Gods anger againſt the ſinner, is not the threatning promulged, but that which comes from God himſelf.

Anſw. 1. Our Condemnation per ſententiam Judicis, is not the thing in queſtion, not yet the explication of it; but our conſtitutive condemnation. And that it is not indeed the Letter of the Law, (whoever ſaid ſo) but activè, it is the action of the Law, & paſſivè ſumpta, it is the Relative effect of the Law.

2. From your own Argument reverſt, I unreſiſtibly make good my Cauſe againſt you. Condemnation active is the Laws act, and condemnation Paſsive is the Laws immediate effect: therefore Juſtification is alike produced by the Promiſe or Gift in the Goſpel. The Antecedent is proved, Iohn 3.18. he that believeth on him, is not condemned, (for the Obligation is diſſolved) but he that believeth not, is condemned already.] Which muſt be by ſome Law, it being before Judgement and Execution, 2 Cor. 3 9. The Law in its delivery is called [the miniſtration p. 88of condemnation] and that of the Goſpel [the miniſtration of righteouſneſs] Iam. 2.9. men are ſaid to be [convinced of the Law as tranſgreſſors.] Though Paul confute the falſe conceits of Juſtification by the Law, yet he took them for no unfit phraſes, to ſpeak of [the Law working wrath] Rom. 4.15. [The curſe of the Law] Gal. 3.13. And ſaith, Whatſoever the Law ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law] Rom. 3.19. When the Law comes, ſin reviveth, and we die, Rom. 7.8 9. therefore we are ſaid to be [delivered from the Law,] Rom. 8.2. & Gal. 3.13. Rom. 7.6. And Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given which could have given life, righteouſneſs ſhould have been by the Law. Hence then is mention of being Iuſtified by the Law, Gal. 5.4. and mens being debtors to the Law, Gal. 5.3. And ſomewhat this way is implyed by Nicodemus, Iohn 7.51. doth our Law judge any man before, &c.] In a word, what more common among Divines, then to ſay, [the Law curſeth or condemneth ſinners] And then it is not abhorrent from the nature of a Law of Grace, an act of Oblivion, to abſolve and juſtifie ſinners.

Treat. Neither then could we ſay, that we are juſtified by Chriſt given to us, but by the propoſition laid down in the Scripture, whereas all ſay that the objectum quod of our faith is ens incomplexum, not the promiſe of Chriſt, but Chriſt himſelf promiſed.

Anſw. Its no impoſsible thing to be juſtified both by Chriſt, and by the Promiſe. There is no ground to ſuppoſe co-ordinates to be contraries. Why may not Chriſt given us▪ juſtifie us as the meritorious cauſe, and a principal efficient; and his Goſpel-grant, as his Inſtrument? And accordingly each of them may be the object of faith. The principal object is an ens incomplexum, Chriſt himſelf: but a ſubordinat Object is both the Doctrine Revealing what he is and hath done, and the promiſe which offereth him to us, and telleth us what he will do. If a Princes Son redeem a woman from Captivity, or the Gallows, and cauſe an Inſtrument under his own hand (and the Kings) to be ſent to her, aſſuring her of pardon, and liberty, p. 89and honours with himſelf, if ſhe will take him for her husband, and truſt him for the accompliſhment? Is it not poſsible for this woman to be pardoned and delivered by the King, by the Princes ranſom, by the Prince eſpouſed, and by her marriage with him and by the Inſtrument of pardon or conveyance? You may be enriched by a Deed of Gift and yet it may be an ens incomplexum that is beſtowed on you by that Deed, and enricheth you too. Your Money and your Leaſe, both may give you title to your houſe. The promiſe is Gods Deed of Gift, beſtowing on us Chriſt and pardon, or Juſtification with him.

Treat. Beſides, Abraham was Iuſtified, and he is made the pattern of all that ſhall be Iuſtified: Yet there was no Scripture-grant, or deed of gift in writing, declaring this: God then communicating himſelf to Belivers in an immediate manner.

Anſw. Was there no Goſpel-grant then extant? no deed of Gift of Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs to all that ſhould believe? Nothing to aſſure men of Juſtification by faith, but immediate communications to Believers? If ſo, then either there was no Church, and no ſalvation: or a Church and ſalvation without faith in Chriſt: and either faith in the Meſſiah to come for pardon and life, was a duty, or no duty: If no duty, then — If a duty, then there was a Law enjoyning it, and that Law muſt needs contain or be conjunct with a revelation of Chriſt, and pardon and life to be had by him. I ſuppoſe that whatever was the ſtanding way of Life and Juſtification then to the Church, had a ſtanding precept and promiſe to engage to the duty and ſecure the benefit. I know not of duty without Precept, nor of faith without a word to be believed. But this word was not written! True! but what of that? Was it ever the leſs a Law or Promiſe, the Object of Faith, or Inſtrument of Juſtification? The promiſe of the ſeed might be conveighed by Tradition, and doubtleſs was ſo. Or if there had been no general conditional grant or offer of pardon through Chriſt in thoſe times, but only particular communications to ſome men, yet would thoſe have been nevertheleſs inſtrumental

p. 90Treat. Therefore to call this Grant or Conditional Promiſe in the Scripture, Whoſoever ſhall believe ſhall be juſtified, a tranſient act of God, is very unproper, unleſs in ſuch a ſenſe, as we ſay, ſuch a mans writing is his hand, and that is wholly impertinent to our purpoſe.

Anſw. There are two diſtinct acts of God here that I call Tranſient. The firſt is the Enacting of this Law, or giving this promiſe. If this were not Gods act, then it is not his Law or promiſe. If it be his act, it is either Tranſient, or Immanent. I have not been accuſtomed to believe that Legiſlation, Promiſing, &c. are no acts, or are Immanent acts. The ſecond is the continued Moral Action of the Word, which is alſo Gods Action by that Word as his Inſtrument: As it is the Action of a written Pardon to Acquit, and of a Leaſe to give Title, &c. And ſo the Law is ſaid to abſolve, condemn, command, &c. What it ſaith, it ſaith to them that are under the Law: And to ſay, is to Act. Though phyſically this is no other Action, then a ſign performeth in ſignifying, or a fundamentum in producing the Relation, which is called the neareſt efficient of that Relation. Now either you think that to oblige (the moſt eſſential act of Laws) to abſolve, condemn, &c. are Gods acts by his Word, or not. If not, the miſtake is ſuch as I dare not confute, for fear leaſt by opening the greatneſs of it, I offend you. If yea; then either it is Gods Immanent act, or his Tranſient. The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be. That which is done by an Inſtrument, is no Immanent act in God: To oblige to duty, to give right to Impunity and Salvation, &c. are done by Inſtruments, viz. the Word of God, as it is the ſignifier of his will: therefore they are not Immanent Acts. Moreover, that which is begun in time, and is not from Eternity, is no Immanent Act. But ſuch are the fore-mentioned: becauſe the word which is the Inſtrument, was indited in time. Laſtly, that which maketh a change on the extrinſick object is no Immanent act, but ſuch are theſe Moral acts of the Word: for they change our Relations, and give us a Right which we had not before, &c. therefore they are certainly tranſient p. 91acts. A thing that I once thought I ſhould never by man have been put to prove.

Treat. pag. 130. Its true at the day of Judgement there will be a ſolemn and more compleat Juſtifying of us, as I have elſwhere ſhewed.

Anſw. You have very well ſhewed it: and I take gratefully that Lecture, and this Conceſsion.

Treat. pag. 131. Indeed we cannot then be ſaid to be juſtified by Faith, &c. Hence this kind of Iuſtification will ceaſe in heaven (as implying imperfection.)

Anſw. And I deſire you to obſerve, that if it be no diſhonour to Chriſt, that we be there (through his grace) everlaſtingly juſtified without his Imputed righteouſneſs, or pardon, or faith pro futuro, it cannot be any diſhonour to him here, that we ſhould repent, and believe, and be ſanctified, nor that thoſe ſhould be conditions of further mercy, and ſufficient of themſelves to juſtifie us againſt any falſe charge that we are Impenitent unſanctified Infidels. If a perfect cure diſgrace not our Phyſitian then ſure an imperfect cure and the acknowledgement of it, is no diſhonour to our Phyſitian now.

Treat. pag. 137. Thus all thoſe Arguments, If we be Juſtified by faith, then by our own work, and that this is to give too much to faith, yea more then ſome ſay they do to works, which they hold a condition of our Juſtification; All theſe and the like Objections vaniſh; becauſe we are not juſtified by faith, as Juſtification is conſidered actively, but paſſively.

Anſw. 1. I yet think that I have ſaid enough in my private Papers to you, to confute the conceit of faith's being Paſſive. 2. If I had not, yet you yield me what I deſire: If faith act not, but ſuffer, to our Juſtification, then is it no efficient Inſtrumental cauſe. For all true efficiency is by Action. And ſo you keep but a Metaphorical Inſtrument. But of this more hereafter.

p. 92Treat. pag. 141. We cannot call Remiſsion of ſin a ſtate, as we call Juſtification.

Anſw. I do not believe you: and I can bring many Scriptures againſt you. Put to your ſelf its enough to ask, How can you conſtantly make Remiſſion an Eſſential part of Juſtification, and yet ſay, that we cannot call it a ſtate, as we do Juſtification. In your firſt Treat. of Juſt. Lect. 17. pag. 145. you ſay, Prop. 4. Remiſſion is not to be conſidered meerly as removing of evil, but alſo as beſtowing good. It is not only ablativa mali, but collativa boni, a plentiful vouchſafing of many gracious favours to us, ſuch as a Son-ſhip, and a Right to eternal life, as alſo peace with God, and communion with him.] And why may we not ſay, [A ſtate of Sonſhip or ſalvation] as well as of Juſtification?

Treat. ib. There is a Juſtification of the cauſe, and of the perſon, alwaies to be diſtinguiſhed.

Anſw. There is no Juſtification of his cauſe, which doth not ſo far juſtifie the perſon: Nor any ſentential Juſtification of the perſon, but by juſtifying his cauſe. Though his actions may not be juſtifiable; yet when the cauſe to be tryed is, Whether ſinful actions be pardoned by Chriſt, that cauſe muſt be juſtified, if that man be juſtified. Even as Accuſations are not charged upon the perſon, without ſome cauſe real or pretended.

Treat. pag. 152. Not only Bucer who is known to place Juſtification both in Imputed righteouſneſs and Inherent, thereby endeavouring a Reconciliation with the Papiſts — But Calvin li. 3. cap. 17. ſect. 8. — To this purpoſe alſo Zanchy —.

Anſw. Why then might not I have had as fair meaſure as Lud. de Dieu, Bucer, Calvin, Zanchy? eſpecially when I go not ſo far. And yet I take my ſelf beholden to Guil. Rivet, for helping me to ſome ſcraps of Phil. Codurcus, who drives at this p. 93mark, as you ſay Bucer doth, though I cannot yet get the Book it ſelf.

Treat. pag. 158. O this is excellent, when a man is amazed and in an holy manner confounded at his holineſs, as well as at his offences.

Anſw. So you before ſay, they muſt be aſhamed of their Righteouſneſs as well as their ſins. I do not well underſtand theſe diſtinctions. Nothing in all the world confoundeth me ſo much as the imperfection of my Holineſs: But I dare not think that imperfection to be no ſin, left I muſt think the perfection to be no duty, and ſo come to works of ſupererrogation and Evangelical Counſels. And Holineſs conſidered in it ſelf, and not as ſinful and imperfect, is amiable in my eyes, and I know not how to be aſhamed of it, without being aſhamed of God that is its object and exemplar, and heaven that is the ſtate of its perfection.

Treat. ib. Set ſome few, even a remnant aſide, comparatively, the whole Chriſtian world both Doctors and people, learned and unlearned, faſten on a Juſtification by works. —

Anſw. I hope not ſo many as you fear, or affirm. Firſt, all the Doctors and people of your judgement do not: And if you thought thoſe ſo exceeding few among Chriſtians, you would not take me for ſo ſingular as you do. 2. None of the truly ſanctified are ſuch as you here affirm. 3. The multitude of groundleſs preſumers of Free Grace are not ſuch. And truly though I doubt Juſticiaries are too common, I do not think that ſuch Preſumptuous ones are ſo ſmall a Remnant. 4. The Libertines and Antinomians, and many other Sects of their mind, are none of this great number. 5. I will yet hope for all this, that you cannot prove it of the Doctors and people of half the Chriſtian world. Their hearts God knows. And I will not yet believe that in their Doctrine about Juſtification by works, the Greek Churches, the Armenians, Jacobites, Copti's, Abaſine…, &c. do faſten on ſuch dangerous ſands, or differ ſo much from p. 94you. 6. I heard as eminent Divines as moſt I know (ſome yet living) in a publick meeting ſay, that Biſhop Ʋſher and Mr. Gataker affirmed, that the Papiſts did not fundamentally differ from us in the Doctrine of Juſtification.

Treat. pag. 167. By all theſe ſubtile Diſtinctions, men would be thought—

Anſw. Your ſcope in that page ſeems to be againſt any diſtinguiſhing whatſoever about works, in this propoſition, We are juſtified by faith, and not by works, If ſo, that we muſt not run to any diſtinction, but ſay, that in every motion or ſenſe, Works are excluded, and do juſtifie in none, then I profeſs it is paſt my uttmoſt skill to juſtifie you for accuſing Althamer as you do, for ſaying, Mentiris Jacobe in caput tuum: Yea if he had upon the reading of Mat. 12.36. riſen higher, and ſaid, Mentiris Chriſte in caput tuum. For ſure he that ſaith [By thy words thou ſhalt be juſtified] Or by works a man unjuſtified, and not by faith only] can no way poſſibly be excuſed from that crime, if no diſtinction may verifie his words; but they muſt then be taken as abſolutely falſe: which I will not be perſwaded of.

Treat. pag. 219. Serm. 23. Obſerv. That even the moſt holy and regenerate man is not Iuſtified by the works of grace which he doth. This truth is the more diligently to be aſſerted, by how much the error that confronts it is more ſpecious and refined, and maintained by ſuch abettors, whoſe repute is not ſo eaſily caſt off as the former we ſpake of.

Now you come purpoſely, I perceive to deal with me. I confeſs the repute of Abettors doth much to bear up opinions through the world, even with them that ſpeak moſt againſt implicit faith. But you need not deſpair of caſting off the repute of them you mention Mr. Robertſon and Mr. Crandon can teach any man that will learn that leſſon.

Treat. ib. The Queſtion is not, Whether we are Iuſtified by works, though flowing from grace, as meritorious or efficient of Juſtification. p. 95This the Opinioniſts we have to deal with, do reject with indignation. To make Works either merits or efficient cauſes of our Iuſtification before God, they grant it directly to oppoſe the Scriptures; yea they ſeem to be offended with the Orthodox, as giving too much to faith, becauſe its made an Inſtrument of our Iuſtification: therefore they are to be acquitted at leaſt from groſs Popery.

Anſw. This is one paſſage which I underſtand by your Preface to you Sermons on John 17. you lookt for thanks for: and I do freely thank you for it: for the world is ſuch now, as that I muſt take my ſelf beholden to any man that doth injure me with moderation and modeſty. But you might have done that juſtice to us Opinioniſts, as to have put [any cauſes at all] inſtead of [efficient cauſes] when we had ſo often told you (the Orthodox) that we diſclaimed all true cauſality; and then your Reader would have been ready to hope that we are free alſo from the finer Popery as well as the groſs. But ſince I have heard of late times, what it is that goes under the name of Antichriſtianity and Popery, even with many that are able to call themſelves Orthodox, and others that diſſent from them, worſe then Opinioniſts; I confeſs I begin to have charitable thoughts of a man that is but freed from the charge of groſs Popery: and if thoſe tongues ſhould free him alſo from the imputation of all the finer Popery, I ſhould begin to ſuſpect that ſomewhat is amiſs.

Treat. ib. 2. Although to maintain faith and Obedience to be the conditions, and a cauſa ſine qua non of our Juſtification, be the profeſſed and avowed Doctrine of the Socinians, yet ſome of late have aſſerted the ſame Doctrine, that yet abhor Socinianiſm—.

Anſw. For this alſo I give you the thanks which you expected, on the foreſaid grounds. But if we aſſert the ſame Doctrine with the Socinians, either it is the ſame falſe Doctrine, or the ſame ſound Doctrine. If the later, you might as well have ſaid, the Socinians aſſert that there is a God, and ſo do we: But to p. 96what purpoſe? If the former, then either it is falſe quoad terminos, or quoad ſenſum. The former cannot be ſaid without abſurdity: the words can have no other falſneſs, but an unfitneſs, diſtinct from the ſenſe: And if the terms be any part of Socinianiſm, then Chriſt and James were guilty of Socinianiſm; quod abſit. If it be the ſenſe▪ Firſt, I crave no other favour of the impartial Reader, before he judge, then to read the Socinians explication of themſelves, and to read my explication here, and in my confeſſion. Secondly, And if he will alſo peruſe the Allegations in the end of that confeſſion, let him judge whether the Orthodox be not guilty of Socinianiſm. Or if he be tempted to believe Dr. Owens intimations, as if I had dealt injuriouſly with the Authors there alleadged, I only deſire him to turn to the places cited, and peruſe them in the Authors, and freely cenſure me.

Treat. 220. Neither is the queſtion about the neceſſity of holineſs, &c. — Only the queſtion is upon what account theſe are required in juſtified perſons; whether in ſome cauſality, or concurrence as faith is, only not with ſuch a degree of excellency? Whether good works be required as well as faith, ſo that we may ſay, juſtifying Repentance, juſtifying Law, (Love, it ſhould be) as well as juſtifying faith? This is poſitively and vehmently affirmed by ſome: but certainly thoſe Arguments and Reaſons they bring are too weak to gainſay the Torrent of the Orthodox Divines.

Anſw. Upon the reading of this, I complained of hard meaſure in the Preface to my confeſsion: to which you reply ſomewhat in your Preface to Sermons on John 17. I ſhall recite the reaſons of my complaint. Firſt, I did both at large in private writings to your ſelf, and publiquely to the world, profeſs that I took neither faith nor works for any cauſes at all of our Juſtification; was it juſt then to make this the ſtate of the Queſtion, and ſay I poſitively and vehemently affirmed it? (for you deny not that it is me that you mean, and I know it by paſſages here agreeable to your private letters) Secondly, I never once imagined the difference between faith and holy obedience p. 97or ſanctification, to lie (in order to Juſtification) in the degree of excellency. I never to my remembrance ſo thought, or wrote, or ſpoke. But the difference I laid here, firſt, That (as to actual obedience, yea and Repentance) faith hath a peculiar aptitude to this office, as being a Receptive act, and fited to the object, as that object is fitted to our neceſsity. Secondly, That (as to aſſent, deſire of Chriſt, love to Chriſt offered, accepting him as Teacher, and Lord) they are eſſential acts of faith, and ſo differ not at all, as they are by many ſuppoſed to do. Nay, I rather expected that ſome ſhould have charged me with preferring Holineſs before faith in excellency, while I made faith but the ſeed, and holyneſs as the fruit; faith to be but the covenanting, and Obedience the performance of what we conſented to; and in a word, while I made perfect holineſs the end of faith, becauſe the end is better then the means: And I was glad when I found you ſaying the like, Vindic. Legis, Lect. 4. pag. 45. [13. Holineſs and Godlineſs inherent, is the end of Faith and Juſtification.] But little did I think to have been charged, and that by you, for making the difference to lie in faiths higher degree of excellency, and only in that. Thirdly, I never owned the phraſe of [juſtifying Repentance, juſtifying Love.] nor ever ſaid that we may as well uſe theſe as [juſtifying faith] And when none of theſe things were ever ſaid or written by me, ought you to have left on record to Generations, that [this is poſitively and vehemently affirmed.] On the conſideration of this dealing, I muſt ſay again, O what is man, and what a ſad caſe were we in, if the beſt of men were our Judges! when they will not ſtick deliberately to publiſh to the preſent and future Ages, that we poſitively and vehemently affirm thoſe things, which we never thought nor wrote, but have by Letters and in printed books both poſitively and vehemently, & very frequently profeſſed the contrary. Is here any room for further diſputing? yea, when I have told you of this dealing, you own it ſtill, and defend it in your Preface to your Sermons on John 17. I ſhall therefore before I proceed, examine that Defence.

Preface. pag. 3. [Now when I had endeavoured to ſtate the Queſtion in a moſt candid and fair way between thoſe p. 98that deny a Condition ſine qua non of our Juſtification, and thoſe who affirm. A Reverend and Learned Brother, judging himſelf concerned in this opinion likewiſe, doth complain of the want of Candor and truth in my ſtating of the Queſtion, when I rather expected thanks for my Ingenuity: — Now let any judicious Reader, that is acquainted with controverſie, decide, wherein any (and or truth may be deſired here. For I ſay [cauſality] which is a general word, not efficiency or merit; Again, I ſay, ſome cauſality, Cauſalitas quaedam, which is terminus diminuens: yea I added the word Concurrence, which might ſatisfie any how low I brought the Queſtion.

Anſwer. Will you call to any judicious Reader, to tell you that which I particularly expreſt to you? Again, Then let the judicious Reader judge whether you ſhould have ſaid to the world, any of the forementioned particulars; Firſt, That I give any Cauſality to works as to Juſtification. Secondly, Or that I difference them only in degree of excellency. Thirdly, Or that I affirm, that we may ſay, juſtifying Repentance, juſtifying Love, as well as juſtifying faith. Fourthly, And this is affirmed poſitively, and vehemently: and all this when I had poſitively and vehemently denyed them. Fifthly, Yea, and that only this is the queſtion between us.

And what do your defences do to juſtifie ſuch dealing? [you ſaid only Cauſality in general, and not Efficiency or Merit] And did not I openly and privately to you deny Cauſality in general, and not only Merit or Efficiency? and is that poſitive or vehement affirming it? Secondly, you ſaid, Cauſalitas quaedam, which is terminus diminuens.] If quoad eſſe cauſalitatis it be terminus diminuens, then the meaning is, that I make them no cauſes. But do you think any Reader will Engliſh Cauſalitas quaedam, by [no Cauſality] But doubtleſs you mean that it is Terminus diminuens as to the quality or nobility of the cauſe. But firſt, I never heard before that quaedam was terminus diminuens; and if no Readers muſt underſtand you, but thoſe that know this to be true, I think it will be but few. Secondly, But what if that were ſo? Did you not know that I denyed even all cauſality, how diminute ſoever quaedam can expreſs, if it be but p. 99real. Thirdly, But you added [Concurrence] But it was in Concurrence with the ſeveral unjuſt paſſages before mentioned: and ſure the neighbour-hood of that word hath not force enough to make them all true.

Preface. [My Reverend Brother ſaith, He vehemently diſclaimeth all Cauſality of works in Juſtification: ſurely his meaning is all Proper cauſal efficiency, and ſo did I in the ſtating of it: But to deny Cauſality in a large ſenſe, is to contradict himſelf.

Anſwer. If ſo, what hope of Juſtice? Muſt I in paper after paper diſclaim all true Cauſality, and will you not only perſwade the world of the contrary, but perſiſt in it, whether I will or not, and ſay I mean a [proper cauſal efficiency] Reader, I have no other remedy left, but to adviſe thee, that if yet after this it be affirmed the next time that I diſclaim not all true cauſality, or mean not as I ſay, thou believe not the affirmation.

Preface. [For in his Aphoriſ. 74. Theſ. They both, viz. Faith and Works juſtifie in the ſame kind of cauſality, or mediate it (ſhould be media,) and improper cauſes, or as Dr. Twiſs cauſae diſpoſitivae, but with this difference, Faith as the principal, Obedience as the leſs principal. Here is cauſality, though improper; Here is a cauſa diſpoſitiva: and yet ſhall I be blamed after I had removed Efficiency and Merit?

Anſwer. This is but to add injuſtice. When I have written at large that faith and works are no true cauſes of Juſtification, and after tell you that a condition is commonly called cauſa ſine qua non, which is cauſa fatua, and no cauſe at all, but meerly nominal, having by cuſtom obtained that name, and that Dr. Twiſs calls this cauſa diſpoſitiva: when I ſay that they have only a cauſality improperly to called, which indeed is no cauſality. Is it juſtice for you ſtill to perſwade the world that I mean ſome cauſality, though not efficiency? The thing I renounce: the name is not it that you only charge me with: if p. 100you had, I was not the maker of it. It was called cauſa ſine qua non, before I was born: I muſt comply with common language, or be ſilent: eſpecially when I tell you, I take it for no Cauſe. You give me ſuch juſtice as the hoaſt of the Crown Tavern in Cheap-ſide had, who (as Speed ſaith,) was hanged for ſaying merrily, that his Son was Heir of the Crown, and his expoſition would not ſave his life. I pray you hereafter remove more then Efficiency and Merit. I take not works to be either the material or formal cauſe of Juſtification, no nor the final, though you (in the words before cited) affirm it ſuch. Who then gives more to works, you or I? The final cauſe is ſo called, becauſe it cauſeth us to chooſe the means to it; Juſtification is not a means of our uſing, but an act of God. Therefore works are not properly the end of it, as to us.

And yet let me ſay this to you, leſt you ſhould miſtake me: As vehemently as I diſown all true cauſality of works to our Juſtification, I intend not to fall out with all men that call them cauſes. As firſt, Not with Piſcator nor ſuch other that call them cauſes of our final abſolution and ſalvation. Secondly, Nor with thoſe that call them meritorious in the ſame ſenſe as the Fathers did, though they unfitly uſe the word. Thirdly, Nor with thoſe that will ſay, that becauſe they pleaſe God, and ſo are the object of his complacency and will, they may therefore, ſpeaking after the manner of men, be called Procatarctike cauſes of his act of Juſtification: and ſo that the Amiableneſs and deſirableneſs of faith and holineſs, is the cauſe why he aſſigned them to this Noble place and office. Fourthly, Nor with them that ſay, faith is a moral or a Metaphorical, paſſive or active Inſtrument of Juſtification. Though I ſay not as theſe men, I will not quarrel with them.

Preface. But I need not run to this; for my Arguments militate againſt works, at works juſtifying under any pretended Notion whatſoever.

Anſwer. By the help of this, I ſhall interpret all your Arguments. And if ſo, then they militate againſt the act of faith juſtifying under the pretended notion of an Inſtrument, unleſs p. 101you will ſay that faith is no Act, or Inſtrumentality is no pretended notion.

Preface. And this maketh me admire how my learned Brother could let fall one paſſage wherein he may be ſo palpably and ocularly convinced to the contrary by the firſt looking upon my Arguments; that which he ſaith is [the ſtrength of my Arguments, lies upon a ſuppoſition, that conditions have a moral efficiency]— There is no one of theſe ten Arguments brought againſt Juſtification by works, as a Condition ſine qua non, that is built upon this ſuppoſition, or hath any dependance on it, only in the fourth Argument after their ſtrength is delivered, I do ex abundanti, ſhew that a Condition in a Covenant ſtrictly taken hath a moral efficiency.

Anſwer. Firſt, you confeſs it is your Aſſertion, that ſuch Conditions have a moral efficiency. Secondly, I never ſaid that you made that a Medium in all your Arguments, nor that you intended that as their ſtrength; but that their ſtrength lyeth on that ſuppoſition; and if I have miſtaken in that, I will not ſtand in it: But I think to ſhew you that without that ſuppoſition your Arguments have no ſtrength: which if I do, then judge at what you marvailed.

But its a farther act of injuſtice in you, in alleadging me Apol. pag. 8. ſaying that ſome conditions are impulſive cauſes, when I told you it is not qua conditions, but only as materially there is ſomewhat in them that is meritorious. I doubt not but the ſame thing may be the matter of a cauſe and a condition.

I ſhall now return to your Lect. of Juſtification, and there ſpeak to the other paſſage in your preface, about juſtifying Repentance and Love, &c.

Treat. pag. 220. [This therefore I ſhall (God willing) undertake to prove, that good works are not a condition, or a cauſe ſine qua non of our Juſtification.

Anſwer. But remember that it is Juſtification, either as begun p. 102in conſtitution, or continued, or as pronounced by the Judges Sentence, that the Queſtion comprehendeth, and not only the putting us into a juſtified ſtate; And its works under any notion that you ſpeak of, and not only under the reduplication, quà works.

Treat. p. 221. Firſt I ſhall inſtance in the great pattern and example of our Juſtification, Abraham; from whom the Apoſtle concludeth a Juſtification of all Believers in the like manner he was. Now that Abraham was not Iuſtified by works, or his working, though a godly man, the Apoſtle, &c.

Anſw. 1. I diſtinguiſh between works in Pauls ſenſe, and works in Iames his ſenſe. And becauſe you ſay ſo much againſt diſtinguiſhing of works, (before) as deceitful; I will firſt prove the neceſſity of diſtinguiſhing. 1. Works in Pauls ſenſe are ſuch as make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt. Works in Iames his ſenſe are not ſuch: therefore they are not the ſame. Works in Pauls ſenſe, are actions as valuable offered to God, and juſtifying by their value. But works in Iames his ſenſe, are none ſuch. Proved. The works that James ſpeaks of muſt neceſſarily be done: Works in Pauls ſenſe, we may not ſo much as imagine that we can do; viz. ſuch as make the Reward of Debt, and not of Grace. Though the matter of ſuch works may be done, which Juſticiaries thus conceive of, yet under ſuch a notion, no man may once imagine that he hath them.

2. Works in Pauls ſenſe are ſuch as ſtand in competition with Chriſt, or at leaſt, would be co-partners with him in a co-ordination. But works in James his ſenſe are none ſuch, but ſuch as ſtand in a due ſubordination to Chriſt; ſuch undoubtedly there are: And ſuch James ſpeaks of.

That Paul ſpeaks of works as Competitors with Chriſt, or as co-ordinate, an hundred Texts will prove; and the caſe is ſo plain, that I think it not worth the inſiſting on, ſeeing the impartial reading over the Epiſtles may ſatisfie.

2. I diſtinguiſh of Juſtifying, quoad modum procurandi, or of the diſtinct Intereſts of mens actions therein, ſignified in the prepoſition [By.] Paul ſpeaks of Juſtification [By] p. 103works, as by valuable deſerving cauſes, or procatarctike cauſes, moving God to juſtifie us by their worth, or by ſome true cauſality procuring it. But Iames ſpeaks of Works as ſuppoſing the perfect Satisfaction and Merit of Chriſt, and that all that is valuable to the cauſal procurement of our Juſtification is to be found in him alone, and therefore he leaves no cauſality herein to works but takes them as a meer condition, which ceaſe ſuſpending when performed. For the efficiency of a condition, is only in ſuſpending till performed: And ſo Rebellion can ſuſpend; when the ceaſing of that Rebellion by obedience, doth not cauſe, but only ceaſe ſuſpending.

Now I anſwer to your Minor, that Abraham was not juſtified by works in Pauls ſenſe, but he was in Iames's ſenſe, unleſs you will own the ſaying which you chide Althamer for. (Though I muſt ſay that in his Conciliationes Loc. Script. Althamer deals more mannerly with Iames.) Abraham was not juſtified by works, as making the Reward of debt, and not of grace: for he had no ſuch works: But Abraham was juſtified 1. By the act of faith, as a condition: therefore by an act under ſome notion. I know of few Divines that deny that faith is a condition of Juſtification. 2. However you confeſs your ſelf that Abraham was Juſtified by faith as an inſtrument: and you ſay that it was by the act of faith (and not the habit.) And though you take this to be but a nominal act, and really a Paſſion, yet ſo do not others: for herein you are more ſingular (a thouſand to one, as far as I am able to underſtand) then I am in the Doctrine which you charge with ſingularity. 3. The faith that Abraham was juſtified by, was not only a bare apprehenſion of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, but a receiving of Chriſt as Chriſt, which is called, Works, by your party. 4. It was either By or Becauſe of his External Obedience, that Abraham was juſtified. Proved. 1 By Iames 2.21. Was not Abraham our Father juſtified by works, when he had offered Iſaac his ſon upon the Altar? 2. From Gen. 22.12, 16, 18. By my ſelf have I ſworn ſaith the Lord, for becauſe thou haſt done this thing, and haſt not with-held thy ſon, thine only ſon, that in bleſſing I will bleſs thee, &c. And in thy ſeed ſhall all the Nations of the earth be bleſſed, becauſe thou haſt obeyed my voice▪ But then I muſt add, that p. 104this was none of Abrahams firſt Juſtification, for he was juſt before this; but it was a renewed Acceptance and Approbation of God, and a kind of ſentential Declaration thereof, by the voice of the Angel. But a Juſtification it was, and ſo James calls it.

Now let us hear your Replies.

Treat. pag. 221. This cannot be a ſolid Anſwer. 1. Becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaketh generally of works in this deſcription of Iuſtification, though in other places he ſometimes ſaith [the works of the Law] yet Abraham could not be Inſtanced in for ſuch works, &c. — When we read the Holy Ghoſt ſpake generally of all works, who are we that we ſhould limits it to ſome? — By their interpretation, the believer ſhould be oppoſed only to ſome kind of works and faith, &c.

Anſw. 1. The ordinary ſtrain of the Apoſtles ſpeech, being expreſſive of the works of the Law, is Expoſitory of the reſt, 1. Becauſe a few paſſages muſt be uſually expounded by many. 2. And becauſe a few (much more abundance of) limiting paſſages, muſt expound thoſe where the reſtriction is not expreſſed.

2. Have not I ever yielded to you that all works are excluded from Juſtifying as works? but it follows not that therefore they are (as you may ſay) excluded under any Notion whatſoever.

3. And why might not Abraham be inſtanced in? Your proof is none. 1. Is it not a good Argument Negative, Abraham was not juſtified by works, therefore we are not? And a good Argument to prove the Antecedent: Becauſe he had no works that could juſtifie: No nor thoſe which were then truſted on to Juſtification. 2. Doth not Paul ſhew that he ſpeaks of theſe, when he proves his aſſertion, 1. Becauſe Abraham was then in uncircumciſion, Rom. 4.10. (what's that to Goſpel obedience?) 2. Becauſe the Law was long after the promiſe, and was not then given, Gal. 3.17. 3. Paul maketh it all one to be juſtified by works, and to be juſtified by the Law; as abundance of paſſages ſhew. A multitude of particular Texts do p. 105expreſly ſhew that it is a Legal Iuſtification only that he ſpeaks of, and that he directly intendeth only Legal works. I will now inſtance but in one, viz. Rom. 4.13. compared with Gen. 22.18. [For the promiſe that he ſhould be heir of the world, was not to Abraham and his ſeed by the Law, but through the righteouſneſs of faith.] Now compare with this, the words of the promiſe it ſelf, [And in thy ſeed ſhall all the Nations of the earth be bleſſed, becauſe thou haſt obeyed my voice.] So ver. 16, 17. Becauſe thou haſt done this thing, &c.]

4. Its not eaſie to conceive how any man can expect a Legal or Phariſaical Iuſtification by Evangelical works without a groſs contradiction: For example; to be juſtified Legally by Evangelical faith, deſire, love, thanks, joy, ſelf-denyal, confeſſion, &c. are all palpable contradictions: And ſuch a mans faith muſt be thus expreſt; I expect to merit Iuſtification legally, by believing in Chriſt as the ſole Meriter of my Iuſtification and ſalvation, or by deſiring Chriſt, or by loving Chriſt as the ſole Meriter of my ſalvation: Or by thanking him, or rejoycing in him as the Sole-meriter of my ſalvation? Or I expect legally to merit Iuſtification, by denying that I can merit it, by any righteouſneſs of my own; or by confeſſing that I deſerve damnation by my ſins, or by praying or ſeeking for ſalvation by free gift, as merited only by Chriſt.] All theſe are palpable contradictions; and no man can hold both that knoweth what he doth.

5. Yet I will ſuppoſe that though no man can ſo truſt to his works for legal Juſtification, that are apprehended by him as Formally Evangelical, yet perhaps he may do it by ſome works that are Materially Evangelical, and fancied by him to be what they are not. And ſo I ſtill ſay, that though it were Legal works that Paul did directly diſpute againſt, yet conſequentially and indirectly he diſputeth againſt works commanded only in the Goſpel, if men will do them to Legal ends, and fancy them to be of the value legally to juſtifie them.

6. I will therefore ſuppoſe ſome men to be ſo unreaſonable, as to expect a Legal Juſtification, by their believing or confeſſing that Chriſt only can Legally juſtifie them, and not themſelves; and ſo I will grant you, that Paul doth (conſequentially) exclude all works, even Evangelical works from Juſtification: p. 106But though he exclude all works, yet not in every notion, nor doth he exclude All intereſt of All works in our Juſtification. All works as valuable offerings, he excludes, and ſo as meritorious, not only in point of Commutative Juſtice, but alſo in point of Legal worth and Legal Juſtice, as the Phariſees ſuppoſed them meritorious: All works he excludes from all proper Cauſality. But he doth not exclude all works from having any Intereſt at all in ſubordination to Chriſt. Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no Intereſt in our Pardon, in ſub-ordination to Chriſt? If you ſay, No, not any, you contradict God, and your ſelf, and all the Chriſtian world. If you ſay, Yea, but they juſtifie not qua works; you ſay nothing to the controverſie: For I have over and over as loud as you, profeſſed that they juſtifie not formaliter as works. If you ſay they have any Intereſt: 1. Tell us better what it is. 2. And then you confute your general aſſertion. There's no Chriſtian that I know but will confeſs that the Goſpel works have the intereſt of Declaring ſigns in our final Iuſtification. And few will deny that Repentance hath the intereſt of a neceſſary qualification, or condition to our firſt Juſtification. Now would you perſwade us that Paul excludeth this kind of Intereſt, or oppoſeth faith to it? If not againſt the ſignal intereſt of works, then not againſt all Intereſt; therefore if Pauls general excluſion will conſiſt with your ſignal Intereſt, then I ſhall maintain that it will conſiſt with the fore-explained Conditional intereſt.

I will not therefore be guilty of your charge of limiting the Holy Ghoſt. If he ſpake of all works, I will believe he means All works. But 1. If he over and over near an hundred times at leaſt, explain himſelf as ſpeaking of the Law, I will not ſhut my ears againſt that explication. And 2. I will grant it is alſo all Evangelical Works, at leaſt by conſequence: But I need not therefore grant that becauſe he excludeth All Work, therefore he excludeth All kind of Intereſt of all works; but only that ſort which he diſputeth againſt.

Beſides all this, I muſt diſtinguiſh of Juſtification, Legal and Evangelical, reſpective to the promiſes and threatnings of the Law and Goſpel, which do differ. No works at all did juſtifie Abraham, from the charge of the Law, Thou art a ſinner, p. 107as being the Righteouſneſs of the Law, and the matter of that Juſtification. Nor will any works at all ſo juſtifie us. But it doth not follow, that therefore no works will juſtifie a man from the falſe accuſation of being an Impenitent, Unbeliever, and ſo having no part in Chriſt, whoſe Righteouſneſs muſt ſtop the mouth of the Law: Or that no works are the matter of the righteouſneſs required in this Conſtitution, [He that believeth ſhall be ſaved: Repent that your ſins may be blotted out.] Which are here required as the condition of our freedom from the Law, by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt. In a word, Paul beſtows a large diſpute to prove that no works of ours do anſwer the expectation of the Law, and ſo cannot juſtifie us themſelves from its Accuſation. Its an ill conſequence, that therefore Paul proveth that no works of mans do anſwer the ſpecial conſtitution or condition of the Goſpel [Repent and Believe in Chriſt, &c.] and ſo are not the Condition of our intereſt in that perfect righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is the only valuable cauſe of our foreſaid Juſtification.

Treat. 222. Again, that works of all ſorts are excluded, is plain, if you conſider the Object of Iuſtification, who it is that is here ſaid to be juſtified, and that is, the ungodly. By the ungodly is one meant that hath not a ſufficient and adequate holineſs: ſo that Abraham though regenerated, yet as to Iuſtification is ungodly, he cannot ſtand before God, or endure, if all his imperfections be enquired after. Now certainly he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iuſtification, cannot be called ungodly; for he doth all that is required.

Anſw. 1. Again, I grant all works excluded: but not in all their relations; nor are all their Intereſts in Juſtification excluded. 2. This Argument I ſhould not have expected from you. You confeſs that by ungodly, is meant ſuch, though Regenerate and holy, that have not an adequate holineſs: Adequate; To what? to the Law? or to the conſtitution of the condition in the Goſpel? Marvel not if I deny the Conſequence of your Argument, and if I be unable to digeſt your reaſon for it. You ſay, [He that fulfilleth the Condition of Iuſtification, cannot be called ungodly.] But what Condition? I confeſs he that p. 108fulfilleth the Laws condition cannot be called ungodly, nor be unjuſtifiable by that Law. But he that performeth the Goſpel-Condition of liberation, may be called ungodly in the ſenſe you now mentioned, that is, unjuſtifiable immediatly for his works by the Law: or one that hath not an holineſs adequate to the Law. Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly. I ſuppoſe you clearly ſee that your Argument makes as much againſt any Condition of Juſtification in us, as againſt works being the condition. For againſt faith it ſelf, being any Condition, you may equally argue, [Its the ungodly that are juſtified: But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iuſtification, is not to be called ungodly. Ergo, &c.] But if you take ungodlineſs (as you do) for unadequate holineſs (to the Law) I deny your Minor. Can no man but the Perfectly obedient, perform the condition of pardon in the Goſpel?

Treat. ib. So that this is very conſiderable, that all thoſe whom God juſtifieth, he juſtifieth them not for any thing they have of their own, or any conditions they have performed; but as ſuch who are ſinners in a ſtrict examination, and ſo deſerve condemnation, and therefore no works of grace are looked upon.

Anſw. I have anſwered this fully in Colvinus. 1. Though Proteſtants oft ſay, that God ſaveth men for their obedience, and Scripture uſe the term [becauſe] oft, yet I am willing to yield to you that men be not ſaved nor juſtified for any thing of their own, or for any conditions: But yet he would not juſtifie them without the performance of ſome conditions; but would condemn them for the non-performance, even with a ſpecial condemnation, diſtinct from that which is for their ſins againſt the Law.

2. Colvinus was the firſt man, and you are the ſecond that ever I read (to my remembrance) ſaying that God juſtifieth men as ſinners. A quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia. If as ſinners, then all ſinners are juſtified. If not as performers of any Condition, then not as Believers! Theſe things want proof.

p. 109Treat. ib. Laſtly, that all works are excluded, is evident by the Apoſtles allegation out of David, who makes mans bleſſedneſs to be in this, that God imputeth righteouſneſs without works.

Anſw. 1. This is ſufficiently anſwered in the former. 2. Paul hence immediately concludeth that Righteouſneſs comes not only on the Circumciſion: whence you may ſee what works he means. 3. Your ſelves expound the foregoing term ungodly, of men that have not adequate holineſs, though ſincere; therefore you muſt ſo take this equipollent term [without works] for [without that adequate holineſs]: but it follows not, that therefore its without any humane act. 4. Yet ſtill I grant this alſo, that its without any humane act, conſidered as the matter of a Legal righteouſneſs, or as oppoſite to Chriſt, or co-ordinate with him: but not without any humane act, as ſubordinate to Chriſt, and as the matter of that Evangelical righteouſneſs which is required in this Conſtitution [Repent and Believe the Goſpel] viz. ſincerely.

Treat. pag. 223. And indeed it is at laſt confeſſed, that its faith only that makes the contract between God and the ſoul: that good works are not required to this initial conſenting unto Chriſt, ſo as to make him ours, but in the progreſs. This is that in effect, which the Papiſts affirm in other words, That the firſt Juſtification is only by faith, but the ſecond by good works.

Anſw. How would you have your Reader underſtand theſe two inſinuations? 1. Have I ſo oft aſſerted that which you call my Confeſſion, and put it into an Index of diſtinctions, leaſt it ſhould be over-lookt, and told you as much ſo long ago in private writings, and do you now come out with an [Its at laſt confeſſed.] I hope you would not intimate that ever I denyed it: or that ever I wrote Book of that ſubject, wherein I did not expreſly averre it. But then (that you think not better of me then I deſerve) I muſt tell you, that when I ſtill excluded works from our begun Juſtification, it was external Obedience, and not Repentance, nor thoſe acts of faith (even the Receiving p. 110Chriſt as Lord and Teacher) which thoſe that oppoſe me call works.

2. If you take it but for an argument to convince ſuch as I, that [the Papiſts hold it: Ergo▪ &c.] I muſt complain that it is uneffectual: But if you intend it for another effect on other perſons, viz. to affright them with the ſound of ſo horrid a name, or drive them away by the ſlink of it, then you may poſſibly attain your ends. But you ſhould have attempted it only by truth. Is it true, that [this is that in effect, which the Papiſts affirm in other words?] Yea is it not a notorious truth, that it is quite another thing which the Papiſts affirm in ſomewhat like words? 1. The world knows that the Papiſts by the firſt Juſtification, mean the firſt infuſion of renewing ſpecial grace. 2. And that by the ſecond Juſtification, they mean, the adding of further degrees of Sanctification, or actuating that which before was given. 3. That they hold, faith juſtifieth in the firſt Juſtification conſtitutivè. 4. And that works or holineſs juſtifie conſtitutivè in the ſecond Juſtification, even as Albedo facit album, vel doctrina indita facit doctum. On the other ſide, I have told you often privately and publikely, that, 1. By Juſtification I mean not Sanctification, nor any Phyſical, but a Relative change. 2. That by firſt and ſecond, I mean not two ſtates, or works, but the ſame ſtate and works as begun, and as continued. 3. That faith juſtifieth neither conſtitutivè & inhaerenter, nor as any cauſe, but as a Receiving Condition. 4. And that works of external obedience are but a diſpoſitive condition, and an excluſion of that ingratitude that would condemn. And now judge on ſecond thoughts, whether you here ſpeak the words of Truth or Equity.

Treat. ib. Againſt this general excluſion of all works, is oppoſed ver. 4. where the Apoſtle ſaith, To him that worketh the Reward is of debt; from whence they gather that works only which are debts, are excluded.

Anſw. I never uſed or heard ſuch a collection. All good works are debts to God; but our collection is, that works which are ſuppoſed by men to make the reward of Debt, and not of Grace, are excluded.

Treat. But if this be ſeriouſly thought on, it makes ſtrongly againſt them; for the Apoſtles Argument is à Genere: if it be by works, its of Debt: therefore there are not works of Debt, and works of no Debt.

Anſw. 1. If the Apoſtle argue à Genere, then he argueth not from an Equivocal term; and therefore of no works but what fall under his Genus. 2. And the Apoſtles Genus cannot be any thing meerly Phyſical, becauſe his ſubject and diſcourſe is moral: and therefore it is not every act that he excludeth. 3. Nor can it be every Moral Act that is his Genus: but only Works in the notion that he uſeth the word; that is, All ſuch Works as Workmen do for hire, who expect to receive wages for the worth or deſert of their works.

I ſhall therefore here confute your aſſertion, and ſhall prove that All works do not make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace: and conſequently that Paul meaneth not either every Act, or every Moral Act, here; but only works ſuppoſed Rewardable for their value! (What you mean by Works of Debt, and Works not of Debt, I know not: they are not Scripture words, nor my words; For ſtill I ſay, All Good works are of Debt to God from man.)

Argument 1. Ex natura rei; There are many Moral Acts that make not the Reward from men to be of Debt, and not of Grace: Much leſs will ſuch Works make the Reward from God to be of Debt, and not of Grace. The Conſequence is grounded on theſe two or three Reaſons. 1. God is infinitely above us; and therefore leſs capable of being obliged by our works then man. 3. God is our abſolute Proprietary, and we are wholly his; and therefore we can give him nothing but his own. 3. God is our Supreme Rector, and we are bound to a perfect fulfilling of his Law: and we are ſinners that have broak that Law, and deſerve eternal death: therefore we are leſs capable of obliging him by our works as our Debtor, then of obliging men (and indeed uncapable.) 4. Gods Reward is Eternal Glory, and mans is but ſome tranſitory thing: therefore we are leſs capable of making God our Debtor for Juſtification p. 112and Salvation, then man for a trifle. This proves the Conſequence.

Now the Antecedent I prove by Inſtances. 1. If a man be ready to drown in the water, and you offer to help him out, if he will lay hold of your hand: this act of his is Actus humanus vel moralis, and yet makes not the deliverance to be of Debt, and not of Grace. 2. If a man be in priſon for Debt and you ranſom him, and offer him deliverance on condition he will but conſent to come forth on the account of your Ranſom: this moral Action makes not his Deliverance to be of Debt, and not of Grace. 3. If a man be condemned for Treaſon, and upon Ranſom made, you procure and offer him a pardon, on condition he will take it, or if you ſay, If you will give me thanks for it, or take it thankfully; or, If alſo you confeſs your Treaſon; or, If alſo you crave pardon of the Prince; or, If alſo you confeſs me your benefactor; or, If alſo you will profeſs your purpoſe to take up rebellions arms no more; or, If alſo you will openly profeſs the Princes Soveraignty, and renounce the Leaders of the Rebells, whom you have followed; Ʋpon any one, or on all theſe conditions, you ſhall have a free and full pardon; without any coſt or ſuffering of your own. Do you think that any of theſe do make the pardon to be of Debt, and not of Grace? 4. If you give a man a Lordſhip on condition he take it as a free Gift from you, and pay you yearly a grain of ſand, or do ſome act of homage (as to ſay I thank you) which hath in it no conſideration of value, but only of acknowledgment of dependance, doth this make your Gift to be not of Grace? 5. If you give a beggar a piece of gold, on condition he will take it, and put off his hat, and ſay, I thank you. I will not believe, that any of theſe Acts do make the Reward to be not of Grace. But if you bid them, Go and do me ſo many daies work for it, importing ſomewhat profitable or valuable for yourſelf, then the caſe is altered.

Argument 2. Thoſe works which a man cannot be juſtified without, make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace: But there are ſome works that a man cannot be juſtified without, Jam. 2.24. Matthew 12.37. what ever they be, ſome they are.

p. 113Argument 3. Thoſe works which a man cannot be ſaved without, make not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace. But there are ſome works that we cannot be ſaved without. Therefore there are ſome works that make not the Reward of Debt and not of Grace.

The Major is proved by the expreſs excluſion of works in this ſenſe, from ſalvation: both as begun, and as conſummate, 2 Tim. 1.9. who hath ſaved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but his own purpoſe and grace, &c. Epheſ. 2.8, 9. For by Grace ye are ſaved, through faith, and not of your ſelves, it is the gift of God: not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt, Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. Not by works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy he ſaved us by the waſhing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, — that being juſtified by his Grace, we ſhould be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life, Rom. 6.23. For the wages of ſin is death, but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord,] Act. 4.12. Neither is there ſalvation in any other, Mat. 25.34. Come ye bleſſed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you, &c.] whence Expoſitors conclude againſt works.

The Minor may be proved by an hundred texts, Mat. 25.35. For I was hungry, &c. Rev. 22.12. and 2.23. Mark 13.34. Rev. 20.13. Jam. 2 14. 1 Pet. 1.17. He will judge every man according to his works, &c.

Argument 4. Thoſe works which Grace commandeth, and cauſeth the Godly to perform, do not make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of debt. But there are ſome ſuch works. Ergo, &c.

The Major is evident: What Saint dare ſay, that he hath a work that makes not the Reward of Grace, eſpecially when it is a work of Grace?

The Minor is as true as Scripture is true, 2 Cor. 9.8. Col. 1.10. 2 Theſſ. 2.17. 2 Tim. 2.21. Tit. 3.1. Heb. 13.21. Mat. 5.16. Heb. 10.24. 1 Pet. 2.12. Tit. 2.14. and 3.8, 14. Epheſ. 2.10. &c. — Dare any ſay that God hath not commanded good works? or yet, that he hath commanded us in the Goſpel, ſo to p. 114work that the Reward may not be of grace, but debt? Will any ſay that the Saints do no good works? or elſe that they do ſuch good works as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt? I hope not.

Argument 5. Repentance is a moral Act: Repentance maketh not the Reward to be of debt, and not of grace: therefore there are ſome works that make not the Reward to be not of grace, but of Debt. The ſame I ſay of Faith it ſelf, and other Acts.

But perhaps ſome one elſe will object, that though its true that there be ſuch works, yet they have no Intereſt in the buſineſs of our Juſtification, and therefore Paul doth hence exclude them. Anſwer. Firſt, It ſufficed to my laſt purpoſe to prove that there are works which will not bear his deſcription, and therefore are not they that he means. Secondly, But that thoſe other works have ſome Intereſt in the buſineſs of our Juſtification, I have proved in the beginning. Repentance hath the promiſe of Pardon: ſo hath faith, &c. But I'le not unſeaſonably here digreſs to this, but refer you to what is ſaid before and after, and elſewhere more at large.

Argu. 6. In ver. 5. the oppoſite term [he that worketh not] doth not ſignifie him that performeth no moral act. Therefore in the fourth verſe, [he that worketh] doth not ſignifie him that doth perform any moral act. The conſequence is undeniable from the evident immediate oppoſition, between him that worketh, and him that worketh not. The Antecedent I prove, Firſt, From the words of the Text, which mention one act, even believing, as oppoſite to working, and implyed in, or conſiſtent with not working. [To him that worketh not, but believeth.] Secondly, Becauſe elſe it would ſubvert the Goſpel. What ſenſe would you make of it if you ſhould interpret this and ſuch texts as this of all moral Acts? Such as Chriſtian ears would abhor. If [working] be the Genus, and the Text will hold as extended to Believing, Repenting, &c. as the ſpecies, and that even in their due Evangelical notion: Let us try them a little in ſuch an Expoſition. ver. 4, 5. [to him that worketh, that is, Repenteth, Believeth, &c. the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. But to him that worketh not, (that p. 115is, that Repenteth not, Loveth not God▪ Deſireth not Chriſt or Grace, believeth not in Chriſt,) but believeth in him that juſtifieth the ungodly, his faith (ſuppoſing he have it not) is imputed to him for righteouſneſs.] Is this a ſweet and Chriſtian ſenſe? If we ſhould run over an hundred ſuch Texts by ſuch an Interpretation, you would hear no ſweeter Melody.

Let us hear ſome modern Expoſitors, (for I will give you no thanks to grant me the Ancients, without citing them)

1.Calvin, (that excellent Expoſitor) ſaith thus [Optrantem vocat qui ſ…is meritis aliquid promeratur: non operantem, cui nihil debetur operum merito. Neque enim fideles vult eſſe ignavos; ſed tantum Mercenarios eſſe vetat, qui à Deo quicquam repoſcant, quaſi jure Debitum.] Is not this one of the Opinioniſts, that ſo far joyneth with the Socinians and Papiſts?

2. Bullinger (and Marlorate citing him) makes the Apoſtle to argue thus [Si quis ſit qui promereatur aliquid opere ſuo, res promerita, non imputatur illi gratis; ſed ut debita redditur: Fides reputatur in juſtitiam, non quod aliquod tale promereamur, ſed quia Domini bonitatem apprehendimus. Ergo, &c.

3. Beza: Atqui ei qui operatur, foreign: Id eſt, ei qui ex opore ſit aliquid promeritus. Cui opponitur, foreign, qui non operatur, id eſt, qui opus nullum adfert cujus mercadem flagitet, ſed gratuita Dei promiſſione nititur — Juſtificatio enim gratiae eſt in Chriſto, iſta vero Meriti eſt in nobis.

4. Piſcator in Schol. Sic argumentatur Paulus: Ei qui operibus meretur, merces non imputatur. ver. 4. Atqui Abrahamo juſtitia fuit imputata; ver. 3. Ergo Abrahamus juſtitiam non eſt meritus operibus.

5. Peter Martyr alſo is a down right Opinioniſt; In loc. pag. (mihi) 168. Et cum audimus à Paulo, Operanti & non operanti, nequaquam ſic accipere debemus, quaſi illi qui crodant non operentur. Nam de illa tantum operations loguitur, qua moreamur, ant mereri velimus Juſtitiam. Etherl… conſideratu dignum, eſt, quod apud Theologos ſehelaſticos jam inveteravit us dicant meritum à Paulo appellari debitum: Quare cum hic p. 116Paulus à Juſtificatione debitum auferet, neceſſariò▪ etiam tollit meritum, ſi propriè ac verè de illo velimus loqui.

6. Aretius in loc. Tertium Argumentum ex vi relativorum, opera poſtulant mercedem ſuo jure, ac debito non ex gratia, ſed Abrahamo juſtitia debito, non ſao jure, ſed ex gratia eſt collata: Ergo, &c. —ver. 5. Nam ſi opera non opus fuiſſet imputatione, ſed tanquam foreign poſtulaſſet meritorum ſuorum debitum mercedem.

7. Anton. Faeyus in loc. Argumentatur Apoſtollus ex locati & conduct… inter homines recepto jure: qui enim locat operam ſuam, paſciſcitur cum conductore, ut congruens operae pretium ipſi numeretur: adeo ut non obtineat mercedem gratis, ſed ex operae cum ipſa mercede foreign — Argumentum ergo eſt à diſparatis: ſunt enim diſparata merces & donum, ut & operans & non operans. Operans accipit mercedem debitam: non operaens accipit donum. Eſt enim inter Deum & homines foreign illa quae eſt inter donantem, & donatarium. — Quod ad nomen mercedis ſpectat, apparet illam duplicom eſſe: nempe mercedem debitam ex proportione operae cum re, per proportionem Geometricam: ut cum operario pro diurna opera datur quod aequum eſt, ex mutuo ſtipulatu. (This he thinks is here meant). A lia merces eſt non debita, ſed gratuita: eſt que tanquam fructus vel commodum quoddam — (This he thinks not here meant.)

Operantem vocat illum qui legis operibus Juſtitiam venatur: non quod unquam ullus extiterit qui ſic operatus eſt, ut mercedem debitam merito poſſit poſtulare, ſed ex hypotheſi loquitur, hoc modo; ſiquis operaretur ut decet, mercedem debitam poſſet exigere.

8. Dav. Paraeus in loc. Explicat quid ſit fidem imputari pro juſtitia: minime videlicet idem quod actum vel opus fidei ſuo merito reputari pro juſtitia (ſic enim nihil confeciſſit,) ſed credenti iuſtitiam ex gratia imputari nullo merito aut debito— Operantem non vocat cum qui bona opera facit, ſed qui bonis operibus confidit, juſtitiam quarit, ſeu qui operatur debitae mercedis cauſa. Nam & credentes bene operantur, non vero ut Mercenarii: nec operibus Juſtitiam & vitam mereri volunt. Qui enim ſic operatur excluditur à gratia, &c. — Ita, inquit res habet p. 117inter homines: qui laborat pro mercede, in vinea, militia, ruri, vel domi, ei merces per acto labore non imputatur vel donatur ex gratia, ſed redditur ex debito ut meritum; idque ex ordine juſtitiae foreign quae ſancit aequalitatem Arithmeticam laboris & mercedis. Talis enim labor eſt meritum, opus indebitum, mercedem ex indebita faciens debitam propter juſtitiam. — Abrahae igitur promiſſa & imput…tio fuit juſtitiae merces, nullo operum merito, ſed mera gratia. — Qui vero non operatur, nempe pro mercede, h. e. qui non quaerit Juſti…iam operum meritis.

9. Dr. Willet in loc Q. 12. By him that worketh is underſtood, him that worketh with an intent thereby to merit or to be juſtified: For he that believeth alſo worketh; but he is ſaid, not to work ſecundum quid, becauſe he doth it not to the end to merit by.

10. Dav. Dickſon in loc. Ratio 3. Mercenario operanti, ſeu Juſtitiam ex operibus quaerenti, merces non poteſt eſſe gratuita, ſed ex debito ſeu merito retribuenda eſt.

11. Cartwright cont. Rhem. in loc. For if the Reward ſhould be given according to works, God ſhould be a Debtor unto man: But it is abſurd to make God a Debtor to man. 2. He ſpeaketh not of that Reward that ignorant men challenge to themſelves; but of the Reward that God ſhould in juſtice give, if men had deſeerved it by their works.

12. Hemi…gius (even a Lutheran) ſuppoſeth the Argument to be thus. Imputatio gratuita non eſt operantis merces: juſtitia credentis eſt imputatio gratuita: ergo juſtitia credentis non eſt operantis merces. Major probatur per contrarium; Merces operanti, id eſt, ei qui aliquid operibus promeretur, datur ex debito. — Probatio haec per conceſſionem Rhetoricam intelligenda eſt. Nequaquam enim Paulus ſentit, quod quiſquam ex debito fiat juſtus revera, ſed quae ſit natura rerum indicat — Imputare eſt aliquid gratia conferre, non ex debito tribuere. — Merces proprie eſt quod debebatur ex merito: hoc eſt. Debiti ſolutio.

Yea in his blow at the Majoriſts he confeſſeth the truth [8. Evertitur corum dogma, qui clamant, opera neceſſaria ad ſalutem, quae ſalus cum à Juſtificatione ſeparari nequit, non habet p. 118alias cauſas aut merita, quam ipſa Juſtificatio. Hoc tamen fatendum eſt, quod opera neceſſariò requirantur in Juſtificatis, ut iter intermedium, non ut cauſa aut merita.

13. Mich. Ragerus (a Lutheran) in loc. Imputatio fidei opponitur imputationi ex merito; imputatio fidei fit ſecundum gratiam: E. fides in negotio Juſtificationis, non conſideratur ut opus morale: quid enim per modum operis imputatur, ſecundum debitum & meritoriè imputatur— [Et qui operatur] ſive operans renatus ſit, ſive non, dummodo eâ intentione operetur, ecque fine, ut mercedem reportet & opera ſua cenſorio Dei judicio oppoſita velit.

14. In like manner Georg Calixtus (a Lutheran) in loc. pag. 26.28, &c.

To theſe I might add many other Proteſtant Expoſitors, and the votes of abundance of Polemical Divines, who tell the Papiſts that in Pauls ſenſe its all one [to be juſtified by works: to be juſtified by the Law: and to be juſtified by merits.]

But this much may ſuffice for the vindication of that Text, and to prove that all works do not make the Reward to be of Debt▪ and not of Grace, but only meritorious mercenary works, and not thoſe of gratitude, &c. beforenamed.

Treat. ibid. [The ſecond Argument may be from the peculiar and expreſs difference that the Scripture giveth between faith and other graces, in reſpect of Juſtification. So that faith and good works are not to be conſidered as concurrent in the ſame manner, though one primarily, the other ſecondarily: ſo that if faith when its ſaid to Juſtifie, doth it not as a condition, but in ſome other peculiar notion, which works are not capable of, then we are not Juſtified by works as well as faith. Now its not lightly to be paſſed over that the Scripture ſtill uſeth a peculiar expreſſion of faith, which is incommunicable to other graces. Thus Rom. 3.25. Remiſſion of ſins is through faith in his blood, Rom. 4.5. Faith is counted for Righteouſneſs, Rom. 5.1. Galatians ….16. &c.

Anſwer. Firſt, This is nothing to the Queſtion, and deſerves p. 119no further anſwer. The Queſtion is not now whether faith and works juſtifie in the ſame manner: thats but a conſequent (rightly explained) of another thing in queſtion; your ſelf hath here made it the queſtion, whether Works be Conditions of Juſtification? And that which I affirmed is before explained. I grant, that if faith juſtifie not as a condition, but proxime in any other reſpect, then Faith and Repentance, &c. juſtifie not in the ſame manner: ſo that the ſameneſs of their Intereſt in the general notion of a condition, ſuppoſeth faith to be a condition; but if you can prove that it is not, I ſhall grant the difference which you prove. Now it is not our queſtion here, whether faith be a condition, or an Inſtrument; but whether other works (as you chooſe to call them) or humane acts be conditions.

Secondly, Scripture taketh not faith in the ſame ſenſe as my Oppoſers do, when it gives it the peculiar expreſſions that you mention. Faith in Pauls ſenſe, is a Belief in Jeſus Chriſt (in all the reſpects eſſential to his perſon and office) and ſo a hearty Acceptance of him for our Teacher, Lord and Saviour; (Saviour I ſay both from the guilt and power of ſin) and as one that will lead us by his word and ſpirit into Poſſeſſion of eternal Glory which he hath purchaſed.] So that it includeth many acts of Aſſent, and a Love to our Saviour, and deſire of him; and it implyeth ſelf-denial, and renouncing our own righteouſneſs, and all other Saviours, and a ſenſe of our ſin and miſery, at leaſt, Antecedents or concomitants; and ſincere Affiance and Obedience in gratitude to our Redeemer, as neceſſary conſequents: And this faith is ſet by Paul, in oppoſition to the bare doing of the works of Moſes Law (and conſequently of any other works with the ſame intention) as ſeparated from Chriſt who was the end and life of it, or at leaſt, co-ordinate with him; and ſo as the immediate matter of a legal Righteouſneſs; and conſequently as mercenary, and valuable in themſelves, or meritorious of the Reward. This is Pauls faith. But the faith diſputed for by my Opponents, is the Act of recumbency or Affiance on Chriſt at Juſtifier or Prieſt, which they call the Apprehenſion of Chriſts righteouſneſs; and this as oppoſed to the Acceptance of Chriſt as our Teacher▪ and King▪ our Husband, p. 120Head, &c. (further then theſe contain his Prieſthood:) and oppoſed to Repentance, to the love of our Saviour, to denying our own righteouſneſs, confeſſing our ſins, and confeſſing Chriſt to be our only Saviour, Thankfulneſs for free grace, &c. all which are called works by theſe men, and excluded from being ſo much as Conditions attending faith in our Juſtification or Remiſſion of ſin.

The caſe may be opened by this ſimilitude. A Phyſitian cometh to a populous City in an Epidemical Plague: There is none can ſcape without his help: he is a ſtranger to them, and they have received falſe informations and apprehenſions of him that he is but a mountebank and deceiver; though indeed he came of purpoſe in love and compaſſion to ſave their lives, having a moſt coſtly receipt which will certainly cure them. He offereth himſelf to be their Phyſitian, and freely to give them his Antidote, and to cure and ſave them, if they will but conſent, that is, if they will take him for their Phyſitian, and thankfully take his medicine; His enemies diſſwade the people from believing in him, and tell them that he is a Deceiver, and that if they will but ſtir themſelves, and work, and uſe ſuch dyet and medicines as they tell them of, they ſhall do better without him; and a third party that ſeem to be friends, tell them, though you do take him for your Phyſitian yet muſt you work your ſelf to health, and take thoſe other medicines as well as his, if you will be cured. But the Phyſitian ſaith, its only your truſting in me that can cure you. Now here we are at a loſs in the interpreting of his conditions. Some ſay, that they muſt be cured barely by believing or truſting in him, and not by taking his perſon in the full relation of a Phyſitian, or at leaſt, not by taking his medicine, which they abhor, nor by exerciſing or ſweating upon it, or obſerving the dyet and directions which he giveth them. But I rather interpret him thus; in requiring you to take him for your Phyſitian, it is implyed, that you muſt take his medicines, how bitter ſoever, and that you muſt order your ſelves according to his directions, and muſt not take cold, nor eat or drink that which he forbiddeth you; for though it be only his precious medicine that can cure you, yet if you will take thoſe things that are deſtructive to you, it may hinder the working of it, and an ill p. 121dyet or diſordered life may kill you. The working therefore that he excluded, was not this implyed obſervance of his directions, but your own Receipts and Labourings, as above-ſaid.

3. I further anſwer to your obſervation, that the ſame Scripture that ſaith, [We are juſtified by faith] doth alſo ſay, that Except ye Repent, ye ſhall all periſh. Luke 13.3, 5. And Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Ieſus Chriſt for the Remiſſion of ſins, Acts 2.38. and mentioneth the Baptiſm of Repentance for the Remiſſion of ſin; and joyneth the preaching of Repentance and Remſſion, Luke 24.47. Repent and be Converted, that your ſins may be blotted out, &c. Luke 6.37. Forgive and it ſhall be forgiven you, Jam. 5.15. The prayer of faith ſhall ſave the ſick — and if he have committed ſins they ſhall be forgiven him, Mat. 6.14, 15. If you forgive men their treſpaſſes, your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you forgive not, &c. Mark 11.11, 25. Forgive, that your Father may forgive you. 1 Iohn 1.9. If we confeſs our ſins, he is faithful and juſt to forgive us our ſins, &c. Iſa. 55.6, 7, &c. And he that ſaith, We are Juſtified by faith, ſaith alſo, that [by works a man is juſtified, and not by faith only;] and that [by our words we ſhall be juſtified.]

4. Laſtly, to your argument from the peculiar attributions to faith, I ſay, that we do accordingly give it its prerogative, as far as thoſe attributions do direct us, and would do more, if it were not for fear of contradicting the Scripture.

Treat. pag. 224. From theſe expreſſions it is that our Orthodox Divines ſay, that faith juſtifieth as it is an Inſtrument, laying hold on Chriſt, &c. ad pag. 226.

Anſw. Though I could willingly diſpatch with one man at once, yet becauſe it is the matter more then the perſon, that muſt be conſidered, I muſt crave your Patience as to the Anſwering of this Paragraph, till I come to the Diſpute about faiths Inſtrumentality, to which it doth belong, that ſo I may not trouble the preſent Diſpute by the Interpoſition of another.

p. 122Treat. pag 226 The third Argument is, If in the continuance and progreſs of our Juſtification we are juſtified after the ſame manner we were at firſt, then its not by faith and works, but by faith only as diſtinct to works, Rom. 1.17. Galat. 3.11. —

Anſw. 1. I grant the whole, underſtanding faith and works as Paul doth, but not as you do.

2. By [the ſame manner] either you mean, [the ſame ſpecifically (as ſpecified from the Covenant and Object) as diſtinct from Jewiſh Righteouſneſs, or from all falſe waies, or all Mercenary meritorious works (ſo intended), or any manner that is not ſubordinate to Chriſt, and implyed in Believing.] And thus your Antecedent is true, and your Conſequence (in your ſenſe of faith and works) is falſe; Or elſe you mean [the ſame manner] in oppoſition to any additional act implyed in our firſt believing as its neceſſary Conſequent.] And thus your Minor or Antecedent is falſe. If you will not believe me, believe your ſelf, who as flatly ſpake the contrary Doctrine, as ever I did, being not as it ſeems in every Lecture of the ſame thoughts; pag. 118. you write it for obſervation in a different Character, thus [For though holy works do not juſtifie, yet by them a man is continued in a ſtate of Juſtification: ſo that did not the Covenant of grace interpoſe, groſs and wicked waies would out off our Juſtification, and put us in a ſtate of Condemnation.] But becauſe you may avoid your own authority at pleaſure many waies, I ſhall give you a better authority that cannot be avoided.

1. In our firſt Juſtification, we were not juſtified by our words: but in our laſt Juſtification at Judgement we ſhall, Mat. 12.36, 37. therefore they ſo far differ in the manner.

2. In our firſt Juſtification we were not juſtified by our works; but afterwards we are, in ſome ſenſe, or elſe James ſpoke not by the Spirit of God, Jam. 2.24. The Major is plain, in that the works of Abraham, Rahab and ſuch like, that Iames ſpeaks of, were not exiſtent at their firſt Juſtification.

p. 1233. In our firſt Juſtification we are not Judged, (and ſo Juſtified) according to our works. But in the laſt we are: therefore they differ in the manner.

4. In our firſt Juſtification we are not juſtified by the mouth of the Iudge, in preſence paſſing a final irreverſible ſentence on us: but in the laſt we are: therefore they differ in the manner.

5. Our firſt pardon is not given us on condition of our firſt forgiving others: but the continuance is, Matth. 18.35. & 6.14, 15.

6. Our firſt pardon is not given us if we confeſs our ſins: (For we may be pardoned without that): but the renewed or continued pardon is, if we be called to it, 1 John 1.9.

7. Reconciliation and final Juſtification is given to us in title, If we continue in the faith grounded and ſettled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Goſpel, &c. Col. 1.23.

8. In our firſt Believing we take Chriſt in the Relation of a Saviour, and Teacher, and Lord, to ſave us from all ſin, and to lead us to glory. This therefore importeth that we accordingly ſubmit unto him, in thoſe his Relations, as a neceſſary means to the obtaining of the benefits of the Relations. Our firſt faith is our Contract with Chriſt, or Acceptance of him as our Saviour: And all contracts of ſuch nature, do impoſe a neceſſity of performing what we conſent to and promiſe, in order to the benefits. To take Chriſt for my Saviour, is to take him to ſave me, viz. from the power and guilt of ſin; therefore if I will not be ſaved by him when I have done, but had rather keep my ſin, then I did but nominally and hypocritically take him for my Saviour. To take him for my Teacher and become his Diſciple, importeth my Learning of him, as neceſſary to the benefit.

And in humane contracts it is ſo. Barely to take a Prince for her husband may entitle a woman to his honours and lands: But conjugal fidelity is alſo neceſſary for the continuance of them: for Adultery would cauſe a divorce. Conſent and liſting may make a man your Souldier: but obedience and ſervice is as neceſſary to the Continuance, and the Reward. Conſent may make a man your ſervant, without any ſervice, and ſo give p. 124him entertainment in your family. But if he do not actually ſerve you, theſe ſhall not be continued, nor the wages obtained. Conſent may enter a Scholar into your School: but if he will not Learn of you, he ſhall not be continued there. For all theſe after-violations croſs the ends of the Relations. Conſent may make you the ſubject of a Prince, but obedience is neceſſary to the continuance of your Priviledges. All Covenants uſually tye men to ſomewhat which is to be performed to the full attainment of their ends. The Covenant-making may admit you, but its the Covenant-keeping that muſt continue you in your priviledges, and perfect them. See more in my Confeſſ. pag. 47.

3. But I further anſwer you, that according to the ſenſe of your party, of the terms [faith and works] I deny your conſequence: For with them [Faith] is [Works]: And though in Pauls ſenſe we are not at all juſtified by works; and in Iames his ſenſe we are not at firſt juſtified by works: Yet in the ſenſe of your party, we are juſtified by works even at firſt. For the Accepting of Chriſt for our King and Prophet, is Works with them: and this is Pauls faith, by which he and all are juſtified. Repentance is works with them: And this is one of Gods Conditions of our pardon. The Love and Deſire of Chriſt our Saviour is works with them: but this is part of the faith that Paul was juſtified by. The like I may ſay of many acts of Aſſent, and other acts.

Treat. Lect. 24. p. 227. Argu. 4. He that is juſtified by fulfilling a Condition, though he be thereunto enabled by grace, yet he is juſt and righteous in himſelf: But all juſtified perſons, as to Iuſtification, are not righteous in themſelves, but in Chriſt their Surety and Mediator.

Anſw. 1. If this were true in your unlimited latitude, Inherent Righteouſneſs were the certaineſt evidence of damnation. For no man that had inherent Righteouſneſs, i. e. Sanctification, could be juſtified or ſaved. But I am loth to believe that.

2. This Argument doth make as much againſt them that take p. 125Faith to be the Condition of Juſtification, and ſo look to be juſtified by it as a Condition, as againſt them that make Repentance or Obedience the Condition: And it concludeth them all excluders of the true and only Juſtification. I am loth to diſſent from you: but I am loather to believe that all thoſe are unjuſtified, that take faith for the Condition of Juſtification. They are hard Concluſions that your Arguments infer.

3. Righteouſneſs in a mans ſelf is either Qualitaetive, or Relative, called imputed. As to the later, I maintain that all the juſtified are Righteous in themſelves by an Imputed Relative Righteouſneſs, merited for them by Chriſt, and given to them. And this belief I will live and die in be the grace of God. Qualitative (and Active) Righteouſneſs is threefold. 1. That which anſwers the Law of works, [Obey perfectly and live.] 2. That which anſwers the bare letter of Moſes Law, (without Chriſt the ſenſe and end) which required an operous task of duty, with a multitude of ſacrifices for pardon of failings, (which were to be effectual only through Chriſt whom the unbelieving Jews underſtood not.) 3. That righteouſneſs which anſwers the Goſpel impoſition Repent and Believe. As to the firſt of theſe, A righteouſneſs fully anſwering the Law of nature. I yield your Minor, and deny your Major. A man may be juſtified by fulfilling the condition of the Goſpel which giveth us Chriſt to be our Righteouſneſs to anſwer the Law, and yet not have any ſuch righteouſneſs qualitative in himſelf, as ſhall anſwer that Law. Nay it neceſſarily implyeth that he hath none: For what need he to perform a Condition, for obtaining ſuch a Righteouſneſs by free gift from another, if he had it in himſelf. And as to the ſecond ſort of Righteouſneſs, I ſay, that it is but a nominal righteouſneſs, conſiſting in a conformity to the Letter without the ſenſe and end, and therefore can juſtifie none: beſides that none fully have it. So that the Moſaeical Righteouſneſs, ſo far as is neceſſary to men, is to be had in Chriſt, and not in themſelves. But the performance by themſelves of the Goſpel Condition, is ſo far from hindring us from that gift, that without it none can have it. But then as to the third ſort of righteouſneſs qualitative, I anſwer, He that performeth the p. 126Goſpel Condition of Repenting and Believing himſelf, is not therefore Righteous in himſelf with that righteouſneſs qualitative which anſwereth the Law of works. But he that performeth the ſaid Goſpel Conditions, is Righteous in himſelf. 1. Qualitatively and actively, with that righteouſneſs which anſwers the Goſpel Conſtitution, [He that believeth ſhall be ſaved, &c.] which is but a particular Righteouſneſs, by a Law of Grace, ſubordinated to the other as the Condition of a free gift. 2. And Relatively, by the Righteouſneſs anſwering the Law of Works, as freely given by Chriſt on that Condition. This is evident, obvious, neceſſary, irrefragable truth, and will be ſo after all oppoſition.

Treat. pag. 228. Yea I think if it be well weighed, it will be found to be a contradiction, to ſay they are Conditions, and yet a Cauſa ſine qua non of our Juſtification; for a cauſa ſine qua non, is no Cauſe at all: but a Condition in a Covenant ſtrictly taken, hath a Moral efficiency, and is a Cauſa cum qua, not a ſine qua non.

Anſw. 1. You do but think ſo; and that's no cogent Argument. I think otherwiſe, and ſo you are anſwered. 2. And Lawyers think otherwiſe, (as is before ſhewed, and more might be) and ſo you are over-anſwered. A Condition qua talis (which is the ſtricteſt acception) is no Cauſe at all; though the matter of it may be meritorious, among men, and ſo cauſal. If you will not believe me, nor Lawyers, nor cuſtom of ſpeech, then remember at leaſt what it is that I mean by a Condition, and make not the difference to lie where it doth not. Think not your ſelf ſounder in matter of Doctrine, but only in the ſenſe of the Word [Condition]; but yet do ſomewhat firſt to prove that too; viz. that a Condition as ſuch, hath a moral efficiency. Prove that if you are able.

Treat. ib. If Adam had ſtood in his integrity, though that confirmation would have been of grace, yet his works would have been a cauſall Condition of the bleſſedneſs promiſed. In the Covenant of Grace, though what man doth is by the gift of God, yet look upon p. 127the ſame gift as our duty, and as a Condition, which in our perſons is performed, This inferreth ſome Moral Efficiency.

Anſw. 1. See then all you that are accounted Orthodox, the multitude of Proteſtant Divines that have made either Faith or Repentance Conditions, what a caſe you have brought your ſelves into. And rejoyce then all you that have againſt them maintained that the Covenant of Grace hath on our part no Conditions; for your Cauſe is better then ſome have made you believe: and in particular, this Reverend Author. Yea ſee what a caſe he hath argued himſelf into, while he hath argued you out of the danger that you were ſuppoſed in: For he himſelf writeth againſt thoſe that make Repentance to be but a ſign, and deny it to be a Condition to qualifie the ſubject for Iuſtification. Treat. of Iuſtif. part. 1. Lect. 20. And he ſaith that in ſome groſs ſins there are many Conditions requiſite (beſides humiliation) without which pardon of ſin cannot be obtained: and inſtanceth in reſtitution. pag. 210. with many the like paſſages.

2. Either you mean that Adams works would have been Cauſall quatenus a Condition performed, or elſe quatenus meritorious ex natura materia, or ſome other cauſe: The firſt I ſtill deny, and is it that you ſhould prove, and not go on with naked affirmations: The ſecond I will not yield you, as to the notion of meritorious, though it be nothing to our queſtion. The ſame I ſay of your later inſtance of Goſpel Conditions. Prove them morally efficient, qua tales, if you can.

Treat. ib. And ſo, though in words they deny, yet in deed they do exalt works to ſome kind of cauſality.

Anſw. I am perſwaded you ſpeak not this out of malice: but is it not as unkind and unjuſt, as if I ſhould perſwade men, that you make God the Author of ſin indeed, though you deny it in words? 1. What be the Deeds that you know my mind by to be contrary to my words? Speak out, and tell the world, and ſpare me not. But if it be words that you ſet againſt words. 1. Why ſhould you not believe my Negations, as well as my p. 128(ſuppoſed) affirmations. Am I credible only when I ſpeak amiſs, and not at all when I ſpeak right? A charitable judgementi 2. And which ſhould you take to be indeed my ſenſe? A naked term [Condition] expounded by you that never ſaw my heart? and therefore know not how I underſtand it, further then I tell you; Or rather my expreſs explication of that term in a ſenſe contrary to your ſuppoſition. …ear all you that are impartial, and judge: I ſay [A Condition is no Cauſe] and [Faith and Repentance are Conditions]. My Reverend Brother tells you now, that in word I deny them to be efficient Cauſes, but in deed I make them ſuch, viz. I make them to be what I deny them to be. Judge between us, as you ſee cauſe. Suppoſe I ſay that [Scripture is Sacred] and withall I add that by Sacred, I mean that which is related to God, as proceeding from him, and ſeparated to him: and I plead Etymologie, and the Authority of Authors, and Cuſtom for my ſpeech. If my Reverend Brother now will contradict me only as to the fitneſs of the word, and ſay that ſacer ſignifieth only execrabilis, I will not be offended with him, though I will not believe him: but ſhould ſo good and wiſe a man proclaim in print, that ſacer ſignifieth only execrabilis, and therefore that though in word I call Scripture Sacred, yet in deed I make it execrable, I ſhould ſay this were unkind dealing. What! plainly to ſay that a Verbal controverſie is a Real one; and that contrary to my frequent publiſhed profeſſions! What is this but to ſay Whatever he ſaith, I know his heart to be contrary. Should a man deal ſo with your ſelf now, he hath ſomewhat to ſay for it: For you firſt profeſs Repentance and Reſtitution to be a Condition (as I do) and when you have done, profeſs Conditions to have a Moral Efficiency (which I deny): But what's this to me, that am not of your mind?

Treat. pag. 229. A fifth Argument is that which ſo much ſounds in all Books. If good works be the effect and fruit of our Juſtification, then they cannot be Conditions, or Cauſa ſine qua non of our Iuſtification. But, &c.

Anſw. 1. I deny the Minor in the ſenſe of your party; Our p. 129firſt Repentance, our firſt deſire of Chriſt as our Saviour, and Love to him as a Saviour, and our firſt diſclaiming of all other Saviours, and our firſt accepting him as Lord and Teacher, and as a Saviour from the Power of ſin, as well as the guilt; all theſe are works with you; and yet all theſe are not the effects of our Relative Juſtification; nor any of them.

2. As to External acts and Conſequent internal acts, I deny your Conſequence, taking it of continued or final Juſtification; though I eaſily yield it as to our Juſtification at the firſt. 1. All the acts of juſtifying faith, beſides the firſt act, are as truly effects of our firſt Juſtification as our other graces or gracious acts are. And doth it therefore follow that they can be no Conditions of our continued Juſtification? Why not Conditions as well as Inſtruments or Cauſes? Do you think that only the firſt inſtantaneous act of faith doth juſtifie, and no other after through the courſe of our lives? I prove the contrary from the inſtance of Abraham: It was not the firſt act of his faith that Paul mentioneth when he proveth from him Juſtification by faith. As its no good Conſequence [Faith afterward is the effect of Iuſtification before; therefore it cannot afterward juſtifie, or be a Condition.] So its no good Conſequence as to Repentance, Hope, or Obedience, 2. It only follows that they cannot be the Condition of that Juſtification whereof they are the effect, and which went before them (which is granted you.) But it follows not that they may not be the Condition of continued or final Juſtification. Sucking the breſt, did not cauſe life in the beginning: therefore it is not a means to continue it: It followeth not. You well teach that the Juſtification at the laſt Judgement is the chief and moſt eminent Juſtification. This hath more Conditions then your firſt pardon of ſin had, yea as many as your ſalvation hath, as hath been formerly proved, and may be proved more at large.

Treat pag. 230. By this we may ſee that more things are required to our Salvation, then to our Iuſtification; to be poſſeſſors of heaven, and (than it ſhould be) to entitle us thereto.

p. 130Anſw. 1. Its true, as to our firſt Juſtifying; and its true as to our preſent continued ſtate: becauſe perſeverance is ſtill requiſite to ſalvation. But its not true as to our final ſentential Juſtification: There is as much on our part required to that, as to ſalvation it ſelf. 1. The promiſe makes no difference. 2. The nature of the thing doth put it paſt doubt. For what is our final Juſtification, but a Determination of the Queſtion by publick ſentence, on our ſide, Whether we have Right to ſalvation or not? The 25. of Matthew ſhews the whole.

2. I argue againſt you from your own Doctrine here, thus; If Juſtification be it that gives us Right or Title to ſalvation, then that which is the Condition of our Right to ſalvation, is the Condition of our Juſtification: the Antecedent here is your own Doctrine, and is partly true: And the Conſequence is undenyable; whereto I add, [But the Doing of Chriſts Commandments is the Condition of our Right to ſalvation: therefore alſo of our Right to Juſtification, viz. as Conſummate. The Minor I prove, from Rev. 22.14. Bleſſed are they that do his Commandements, that they may have Right to the tree of life, and may enter in, &c.] Whoſoever ſhall call on the name of the Lord ſhall be ſaved, Rom. 10.13. Acts 2.21. We are ſaved by hope, Rom. 8.24. Who ſo walketh uprightly ſhall be ſaved, Prov. 28.18. Baptiſm doth ſave us, 1 Pet. 3.21. [In doing this thou ſhall both ſave thy ſelf and them that hear thee.] 1 Tim. 4.16. If he [have not works, can faith ſave him?] Iames 2.14.

Treat. ib. Its true, that Iuſtification cannot be continued in a man, unleſs he continue in good works: Yet for all that, they are not Conditions of his Iuſtification: they are Qualifications and Determinations of tht ſubject who is juſtified; but no Conditions of his Iuſtification. As in the generation of man, &c. Light is neceſſarily required, and dryneſs, as qualties in fire, yet, &c.

Anſw. 1. Its well you once more confeſs that the thing is neceſſary! Our queſtion then is only of the nature, and reaſon of that neceſſity? Whether it be neceſſitas medii ad finem, as to p. 131the continuance or conſummation of our Juſtification? This I hope you will never deny. If medii, then what medium is it? not a cauſe. If not a condition, then tell us what, if you can.

Secondly, You ſay nothing to the purpoſe, when you give us Inſtances of Natural properties and qualifications. For beſides that ſome of them are not media (as Light to burning) the reſt that are media, are Phyſically neceſſary ad finem: But Firſt, We are not diſcourſing of Phyſicks, and Phyſical neceſſities: but of Morals, and moral neceſſity. Secondly, You cannot here pretend (or at leaſt prove) that there is an abſolute Phyſical neceſſity ad finem to every one of the things in queſtion to their end. Thirdly, Much leſs that this is the neareſt reaſon of their Intereſt, and that God hath not morally ſuperadded the neceſsity of a Condition by his Conſtitution.

I prove that the neceſſity is moral. Firſt, It is impoſed by way of Precept, which cauſeth a moral neceſſity. Secondly, The Precept hath varied at the pleaſure of God, there being more Duties now, then formerly were, and ſome ceaſed that were then impoſed.

Yea, That its a condition having neceſſity ad finem, is evident. Firſt, Becauſe it is the modus promiſſionis impoſed on us by God as Promiſer in a conditional form of words, as neceſſary to our attaining of the benefit promiſed. [If thou confeſs with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus, and believe in thy heart that God raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved, Rom. 10.9. If you forgive men their treſpaſſes, your heavenly Father will forgive you, &c.] Mat. 64.15. Secondly, And it is not of Phyſical neceſsity; for then God could not ſave us without it, but by a Miracle. Whereas he ſaved men before Chriſt by believing in a Meſſiah in general, without beliveing that this Jeſus is he, and without believing that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, buried, roſe again, aſcended, &c. And he ſaveth Infants, that themſelves believe not at all; ſo that when you ſay it is a qualification of the ſubject, you mean either [the ſubject as juſtified] and that is nothing to the buſineſs: for then the queſtion is not what Relation p. 132our actions have to that which is paſt, but to that which is future. Or elſe you mean the ſubject as to be Juſtified at Judgement, or here to be ſo continued. And then the queſtion ſtill remaineth, whether thoſe qualifications are means or no means? And if means, of what ſort, if not conditions?

Treat. pag. 231. The ſixth Argument: If Juſtification be by works as a condition, then one man is more or leſs Juſtified then another; and thoſe works are required to one mans Juſtification which are not to another, ſo that there ſhall not be two godly men in the world Juſtified alike. For if faith Juſtified as a work, then he that had a ſtronger faith, would be more Juſtified then he that hath a weaker.

Anſwer. Firſt, I grant the concluſion, if you had taken Works in Pauls ſenſe, for the works of a hirling, or any that are ſuppoſed to juſtifie by their value.

Secondly, I deny your firſt conſequence: And I give you the reaſon of my denyal (I hope a little better then yours for the proof of it) Firſt, It is not the degree of Repentance or Obedience that is made the Condition of our continued and final Juſtification: but the Sincerity. Now the ſincerity is the ſame thing in one as in another; therefore one is no more juſtified hereby then another. Secondly, You might as well ſay, that different degrees of faith, make different degrees of Juſtification. But that is not juſt, becauſe it lies all on the ſincerity; therefore it is as unjuſt here for the ſame reaſon.

Your Reaſon is ſuch as I expected not from you. [For if Faith (ſay you) juſtifie as a work] But who ſaith it doth juſtifie as a work? Your Reader that ſuſpecteth nothing, but fair in your words, may think I do; when I have again and again in terminis diſavowed it. And do you think it is a cogent reaſon indeed, [If works or faith juſtifie as a condition, there will be various degrees of Juſtification: Becauſe if it juſtifie as a work, there will be various degrees.] The reaſon of the Conſequence is as ſtrange to me, as a baculo ad angulum. Once more: Firſt, Faith doth not juſtifie as a Phyſical act: Secondly, Nor as a Moral act, or virtue in general. Thirdly, Nor as a mercenary p. 133meritorious act. Fourthly, But as an act adapted to the object, and ſpecially fitted to this gratious deſign, it is choſen to be the condition, and repentance and ſelf-denyal accordingly to attend it. Fifthly, And as the appointed condition, we are juſtified by it. Sure therefore it doth not juſtifie as a work. But how they will avoid your conſequence that ſay it juſtifieth as an Inſtrument, let them ſee.

As to your Conſequence, I anſwer▪ Firſt, That which is abſolutely neceſſary, is ſincere Repentance and ſincere Obedience; and this is the ſame in all. Secondly, But the matter of both theſe, viz. the ſins repented of, and the duties of Obedience may differ in many particulars in ſeveral perſons. One may not have the ſame ſins to Repent of as another, and one may have ſome particular duties more then another: though in the main, all have the ſame ſin and duty. But this difference is no abſurdity, nor ſtrange thing. When Chriſt mentioneth the final Juſtification of ſome, Mat. 25. and gives the reaſon from their works [for I was hungry and ye fed me, &c.] I read of none that took it for an abſurdity, becauſe. Firſt, The poor. Secondly, Infants. Thirdly, Thoſe that dye before they have opportunity, do no ſuch works.

Treat. pag. 231. The ſeventh Argument. This Aſſertion according to the ſenſe of the late Writers (that are otherwiſe Orthodox, for I mean not the Socinians) will bring in a Juſtification two waies, or make a twofold Juſtification, whereof one will be needleſs. For they grant an Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs in reſpect of the Law; he fulfilled that, and ſatisfied Gods Juſtice, that the Law cannot accuſe us. And beſides this, they make an Evangelical perſonal Righteouſneſs by our own Evangelical works. Now certainly this later is wholly ſuperfluous; for if Chriſts Righteouſneſs be abundantly able to ſatisfie for all that righteouſneſs which the Law requireth of us; what is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings, and ſupply that righteouſneſs alſo? ſurely this is to make the ſtars ſhine, when the Sun is in its full luſtre. Thus it may be obſerved, while men for ſome ſeeming difficulty avoid the good known way of truth, they do commonly bring in Aſſertions of far more difficulty p. 134to be received. In this caſe its far more eaſie to maintain one ſingle Righteouſneſs, viz. the Obedience of our Lord Chriſt, then to make two, &c.

Anſw. Firſt, This twofold Righteouſneſs is ſo far from being needleſs, that all ſhall periſh in everlaſting torment that have not both. I doubt not but you have both your ſelf; and therefore do but argue with all this confidence againſt that which you muſt be ſaved by, and which you carry within you. As if you ſhould argue that both a heart and a brain are needleſs, and therefore certainly you have but one. But the beſt is, concluding you have but one, doth not really prove that you have but one; for if it did, it would prove you had neither; and then you were but a dead man in one caſe, and a loſt man in the other. Firſt, Did ever any man deny the neceſſity of inherent Righteouſneſs, that was called a Proteſtant? Object. But thats nothing to its neceſſity to Juſtification. Anſw. Firſt, its the very being of it that you plead againſt as needleſs, if your words are intelligible. 2ly. Its as groſs a contradiction to talk of a Righteouſneſs that makes not righteous, or will not juſtifie in tantum, according to its proportion, as to talk of whitneſs that makes not white, or Paternity that makes not a father, or any form that doth not inform, or is a form, and is not a form.

Secondly, If there be two diſtinct Laws or Covenants, then there is a neceſsity of two dſtinct Righteouſneſſes to our Juſtification. But the Antecedent is certain. I ſuppoſe it will be granted that Chriſts righteouſneſs is neceſſary to anſwer the Law of works. And I ſhall further prove that a perſonal righteouſneſs given from Chriſt, is neceſſary to fulfill the condition of the new Covenant or Law of Grace, believe and be ſaved, &c.

Thirdly, Chriſt did not himſelf fulfill the condition of the Goſpel for any man, nor ſatisfie for his final non-performance; therefore he that will be ſaved, muſt perform it himſelf or periſh. That Chriſt performed it not in perſon, is paſt doubt. It was not conſiſtent with his ſtate and perfection to repent of ſin, who had none to repent of; to return from ſin to God, who never fell from him; to beleve in Chriſt Jeſus, that is, to accept himſelf as an offered Saviour, and to take himſelf as a Saviour p. 135to himſelf, that is, as one that redeemed himſelf from ſin, to deny his own righteouſneſs, to confeſs his ſin, to pray for pardon of it, &c. Do you ſeriouſly believe that Chriſt hath done this for any man? For my part, I do not believe it. Secondly, That he that hath not ſatisfied for any mans final predominant Infidelity and Impenitency, I know you will grant, becauſe you will deny that he dyed for any ſin of that perſon (or at leaſt, your party will deny it.) Thirdly, All that ſhall be ſaved, do actually perform theſe conditions themſelves. I know you will confeſs it, that none (adult) but the Penitent, Believers, Holy, ſhall be ſaved. This ſort of Righteouſneſs therefore is of neceſſity.

Fourthly, The Benefits of Chriſt obedience and death are made over to men by a conditional Promiſe, Deed of gift, or act of oblivion. Therefore the condition of that Grant or Act muſt be found before any man can be juſtified by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt. It is none of yours till you repent and believe: therefore you muſt have the perſonal Righteouſneſs of faith and repentance, in ſubordination to the imputed righteouſneſs, that it may be yours. And will you again conclude, that [Certainly this later is wholly ſuperfluous]. Hath not God ſaid? ]He that believeth, ſhall be ſaved; and he that believeth not, ſhall be damned.] And Repent and be converted, that your ſins may be blotted out. &c.] Is it not neceſſary that theſe be done then, both as duty commanded, and as a condition or ſome means of the end propounded and promiſed? And is this wholly ſuperfluous? In Judgement, if you be accuſed to have been finally impenitent, or an Infidel, will you not plead your perſonal faith and repentance, to juſtifie you againſt that accuſation? or ſhall any be ſaved that ſaith, [I did not repent or believe, but Chriſt did for me?] If it be ſaid that [Chriſts ſatisfaction is ſufficient; but whats that to thee that performedſt not the conditions of his Covenant, and therefore haſt no part in it?] Will you not produce your faith and repentance for your Juſtification againſt this charge, and ſo to prove your Intereſt in Chriſt? Nay is it like to be the great buſineſs of that day to enquire whether Chriſt have done his part or no? or yet to enquire, whether the world were ſinners? or rather to judge them according to the terms of grace which were revealed p. 136to them, and to try whether they have part in Chriſt or not; and to that end, whether they believed, repented, loved him in his members, improved his Talents of Grace or not? Or can any thing but the want of this perſonal righteouſneſs then hazard a mans ſoul?

But you ask [If Chriſts righteouſneſs be able to ſatisfie, what is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings? &c.] Anſw. Either you ask this queſtion as of a penitent Believer, or the finally impenitent Ʋnbeliever. If of the former, I ſay, Firſt, All his ſins Chriſts righteouſneſs pardoneth and covereth; and conſequently all the failings in Goſpel duties. Secondly, But his predominant final Impenitency and Infidelity Chriſt pardoneth not, becauſe he is not guilty of it; he hath none ſuch to pardon; but hath the perſonal righteouſneſs of a performer of the conditions of the Goſpel: And for the finally impenitent Infidels, the anſwer is, becauſe they rejected that Righteouſneſs which was able to ſatisfie, and would not return to God by him; and ſo not performing the condition of pardon, have neither the pardon of that ſin, nor of any other which were conditionally pardoned to them.

If this Doctrine be the avoiding the good known way, there is a good known way beſides that which is revealed in the Goſpel: And if this be ſo hard a point for you to receive, I bleſs God, it is not ſo to me. And if it be far more eaſie to maintain one ſingle righteouſneſs, viz. imputed only; it will not prove ſo ſafe as eaſie. If one righteouſneſs may ſerve, may not Pilate and Simon Magus be juſtified, if no man be put to prove his part in it? and if he be, how ſhall he prove it, but by his performance of the conditions of the Gift.

Treat. pag. 232. Argu. 8. That cannot be a condition of Juſtification, which it ſelf needeth Juſtification: But good works being imperfect, and having much droſs cleaving, need a Juſtification to take that guilt away.

Anſw. Firſt Again, hearken all you that have ſo long denyed the Covenant to have any conditions at all: Here is an Argument to maintain your cauſe: for it makes as much againſt p. 137faith as any other acts (which they call works) for faith is imperfect alſo, and needs Juſtification, (a pardon I ſuppoſe you mean; I had rather talk of pardoning my ſins, then juſtifying them, or any imperfections what ever.)

Secondly, But indeed its too groſs a ſhift to help your cauſe. The Major is falſe, and hath nothing to tempt a man to believe it that I can ſee. Faith and Repentance are conſiderable. Firſt, As ſincere. Secondly, As imperfect: They are not the conditions of pardon as imperfect, but as ſincere. God doth not ſay [I will pardon you if you will not perfectly believe,] but [If you will believe.] Imperfection is ſin: and God makes not ſin a condition of pardon and life. I am not able to conceive what it was that in your mind could ſeem a ſufficiennt reaſon for this Propoſition, that nothing can be a condition that needs a pardon. Its true, that in the ſame reſpect as it needs a pardon; that is, as it is a ſin, it can be no condition. But faith as faith, Repentance as Repentance is no ſin.

Treat. ibid. Its true, Juſtification is properly of perſons, and of actions indirectly and obliquely.

Anſw. The clean contrary is true, as of Juſtification in general, and as among men, ordinarily. The action is firſt accuſaſable, or juſtifiable, and ſo the perſon as the cauſe of that Action. But in our Juſtification by Chriſts ſatisfaction, our Actions are not juſtifiable at all, ſave only that we have performed the condition of the Gift that makes his righteouſneſs ours.

Treat. pag. 233. This queſtion therefore is again and again to be propounded: If good works be the condition of our Juſtification, how comes the guilt in them that deſerveth condemnation to be done away? Is there a further condition required to this condition? and ſo another to that with a proceſſus in infinitum?

Anſw. Once may ſerve turn, for any thing regardable that I can perceive in it. But if ſo, again and again you ſhall be anſwered; The Goſpel giveth Chriſt and life upon the ſame condition p. 138to all; This condition is firſt a duty, and then a condition. As a duty we perform it imperfectly and ſo ſinfully: for the perfection of it is a duty, but the perfection is not the condition, but the ſincerity. Sincere Repentance and faith is the condition of the pardon of all our ſins: therefore of their own Imperfections, which are ſins. Will you ask now [If faith be imperfect, how comes the guilt of that Imperfection to be pardoned? is it by a further condition, and ſo in infinitum?] No: it is on tht ſame condition: ſincere repentance and faith are the conditions of a pardon for their own Imperfections. Is there any difficulty in this, or is there any doubt of it? Why may not faith be a condition, as well as an Inſtrument of receiving the pardon of its own Imperfection? I hope ſtill you perceive that you put theſe queſtions to others as well as me, and argue againſt the common Judgement of Proteſtants, who make that which is imperfect, to be the condition of pardon. [Repent and be baptized (ſaith Peter) for the remiſſion of ſin; Of what ſin? is any excepted to the Penitent Believer? certainly no: It is of all ſins. And is not the imperfection of faith and repentance a ſin? The ſame we ſay of ſincere obedience as to the continuance of our Juſtification, or the not loſing it, and as to our final Juſtification. If we ſincerely obey, God will adjudge us to ſalvation, and ſo juſtifie us by his final ſentence, through the blood of Chriſt from all the imperfections of that obedience: what need therefore of running any further towards an infinitum?

Treat. ibid. The Popiſh party and the Caſtellians are ſo far convinced of this, that therefore they ſay our good works are perfect. And Caſtellio makes that prayer for pardon not to belong to all the godly.

Anſw. It ſeems they are partly Quakers. But they are unhappy ſouls, if ſuch an Argument could drive them to ſuch an abominable opinion. And yet if this that you affirm, be the cauſe, that Papiſts have taken up the doctrine of perfection, I have more hopes of their recovery then I had before; nay, becauſe they are ſome of them men of ordinary capacities, I take it as if it were done already. For the Remedy is moſt obvious; p. 139Underſtand, Papiſts, that it is Faith and Repentance and Obedience to Chriſt in Truth, and not in Perfection that is the Condition of your final Juſtification at Judgement, and you need not plead for perfection any more. But I hardly believe you, that this is the cauſe of their error in this point.

And you may ſee that if Proteſtants had no more Wit then Papiſts, they muſt all be driven by the violence of your Argument, to hold that Faith and Repentance are perfect.

And ſeeing you tell us of Caſtellio's abſurdity, I would intreat you to tell us, why it is that you pray for pardon your ſelves; either you take Prayer to be Means to obtain pardon, or you do not: If not, then 1. Pardon is none of your end in praying for pardon. 2. And then if once it be taken for no means, men cannot be blamed if they uſe it but accordingly. But if you do uſe it as a means, then what means is it? Is Prayer any cauſe of Pardon? ſay ſo, and you ſay more then we that you condemn, and fall under all thoſe cenſures that per fas aut nefas are caſt upon us. If it be no cauſe of pardon; Is it a condition ſine qua non, as to that manner of pardoning that your prayer doth intend? If you ſay yea, you conſequentially recant your diſputation (or Lecture) and turn into the tents of the Opinioniſts. But if it be no condition of pardon, then tell us what means it is if you can. If you ſay, it is a duty. I anſwer, Duty and Means are commonly diſtinguiſhed, and ſo is neceſſitas praecepti & medii. Duty as ſuch, is no means to an end, but the bare reſult of a command. Though all Duty that God commandeth is alſo ſome means, yet that is not qua Duty. And ſo far as that Duty is a means, it is either a Cauſe, (near or remote) or a Condition, either of the obtainment of the benefit, ſimply, or of the more certain, or ſpeedy, or eaſie attainment of it, or of obtaining ſome inferiour good, that conduceth to the main. So that ſtill it is a Cauſe or a Condition, if a means. If you ſay, It is an Antecedent. I ſay, qua tale, that is no means, but if a Neceſſary antecedent, that which is the reaſon of its neceſſity may make it a means. If you go to Phyſical prerequiſites (as you talkt of a mans ſhoulders bearing p. 140the head that he may ſee, &c.) you go extra oleas; Its a moral means that we treat of, and I think you will not affirm Prayer to be a means of phyſical neceſſity to pardon. If it were, it muſt be a Phyſical cauſe, near or remote, or a Diſpoſitio materiae of natural neceſſity, &c. If you ſay, that prayer for pardon, is diſpoſitio ſubjecti, I anſwer, thats it that we Opinioniſts do affirm: But it is a diſpoſitio moralis, and neceſſary ut medium ad finem: and that neceſſity muſt be conſtituted by the Promiſer or Donor: and that can be only by his modus promiſſionis, which makes it in ſome meaſure or other a condition of the thing promiſed. So that there is no lower moral medium then a meer condition ſune qua non, that my underſtanding can hitherto find out, or apprehend.

Treat ibid. Paul Judgeth them dung and droſs in reference to Juſtification; yea all things, &c.

Anſw. 1. But what are thoſe All things? 2. And what Reference to Juſtification is it? If All things ſimply in all relation to Juſtification, then he muſt judge the Goſpel dung and droſs as to the Inſtrumental collation of Juſtification; and the Sacraments dung and droſs as to the ſealing of it; and the Miniſtry dung and droſs, as to the preaching and offering it, and beſeeching men to be reconciled to God: and Faith to be dung and droſs, as to the receiving of it; as well as Repentance and Faith to be dung and droſs as conditions of it; or Prayer, Obedience, as conditions of continuing it.

2. Its evident in the text that Pauls ſpeaks of All things that ſtand in oppoſition to Chriſt, and that ſtand in competition with him, as ſuch; and not of any thing that ſtands in a neceſſary ſubordination to him as ſuch.

3. He expreſly addeth in the text, [for the excellency of the knowledge of Chriſt Jeſus my Lord] this therefore is none of the [all things that are dung] for the All things are oppoſed to this. And it containeth that faith, which is works with the Opponents: for this is more then a recumbency on Chriſt as Prieſt: It is the Knowledge of him as Lord alſo. I am confident I ſhall never learn to expound Paul thus [I eſteem All p. 141things, even the knowledge of Chriſt Jeſus as Lord and Prophet, as dung for the Knowledge of him as Prieſt.] Alſo Paul here excepteth his ſuffering the loſs of that All. I am confident that the [All] that Paul ſuffered the loſs of, comprehended not his Self-denyal, Repentance, Prayer, Charity, Hope, &c.

4. It is not only in reference to Juſtification that Paul deſpiſeth All things; but it is to the winning of Chriſt (who doubtleſs is the Principle of Sanctification as well as Juſtification) and to be found in him, which containeth the ſum of his felicity. If a man ſhould be ſuch a ſelf-contradicter as to ſet Repentance, or Faith in Chriſt, or Prayer in his Name, or Hope in him, &c. againſt winning Chriſt, and againſt being found in him, or againſt the knowledge of him, let that man ſo far eſteem his faith, hope, prayer, &c. as dung. If you ſhould ſay, [I account all things dung for the winning of God himſelf as my felicity.] Would you have me interpret you thus, [I account the love of God dung, and prayer to him, and ſtudious obeying him, and the word that revealeth him, &c. even as they ſtand ſubordinate to him.] This ſame Paul rejoyced in the teſtimony of his conſcience, that in ſimplicity and godly ſincerity he had had his converſation among them: and he beat or ſubdued his body, and brought it into ſubjection, leſt he ſhould be Reprobated after he was juſtified, and he prayed for pardon of ſin, and tells Timothy, [In doing this thou ſhalt ſave thy ſelf, &c.] therefore theſe things thus uſed, were none of the All things, that he oppoſed to the knowledge of Chriſt, as dung.

Treat. pag. 234, 235. Others would avoid this Objection, by ſaying, that Goſpel graces, which are the Conditions of the Covenant, are reducible to the Law, and ſo Chriſt in ſatisfying the Law, doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them. And they judge it abſurb to ſay, that Chriſt hath ſatisfied for the ſins of the ſecond Covenant, or breaches, which is ſaid to be only final unbelief.

Anſw. As this is brought in by head and ſhoulders, ſo is it recited lamely, without the neceſſary diſtinctions and explications p. 142adjoyned, yea without part of the Sentence it ſelf: and therefore unfaithfully.

Treat. But this anſwer may be called Legion; for many errours and coctradictions are in it. 1. How can juſtifying faith qua talis in the act of Juſtifying, and Repentance, be reducible duties to the Law taken ſtrictly? Indeed as it was in a large ſenſe diſcovered to the Jews, being the Covenant of Grace, as I have elſewhere proved (Vindic. Legis) ſo it required Juſtifying Faith and Repentance. But take, it in the ſenſe as the Abettor of this opinion muſt do, juſtifying faith and repentance muſt be called the works of the Law.

Anſw. Its eaſilier called Legion then faithfully reported, or ſolidly confuted. 1. Let the Reader obſerve how much I incurr'd the diſpleaſure of Mr. Blake, for denying the Moral Law to be the ſufficient or ſole Rule of all duty, and how much he hath ſaid againſt me therein; and then judge how hard a task it is to pleaſe all men: when theſe two neighbours and friends, do publikely thus draw me ſuch contrary waies, and I muſt be guilty of more then ordinary errour whether I ſay Yea or Nay. And yet (which is the wonder) they differ not among themſelves.

2. But ſeeing your ends direct you to fetch in his controverſie, ſo impertinent to the reſt, its requiſite that the Abettor do better open his opinion, then you have done, that the Reader may not have a Defence of he knows not what.

My opinion ſo oft already explained in other writings, is this.

1. That the Law of Nature as continued by the Mediator, is to be diſtinguiſhed from the Remedying Law of Grace, called the New Teſtament, the Promiſe, &c. (Whether you will call them two Laws, or two parts of one Law, is little co the purpoſe; ſeeing in ſome reſpect they are two, and in ſome but one.)

2. That this continued Law of Nature hath its Precept and Sanction, or doth conſtitute the Dueneſs, 1. Of Obedience in general to all that God hath commanded or ſhall command. p. 1432. And of many duties in particular. 3. And of everlaſting death as the penalty of all ſin. So that it ſaith, The wages of ſin is death.

3. That to this is affixed the Remedying Law of Grace, like an act of Oblivion, which doth 1. Reveal certain points to be believed. 2. And command the belief of them, which other particular duties in order to its ends. 3. And doth offer Chriſt, and Pardon, and Life, by a Conditional Donation enacting that whoſoever will Repent and Believe ſhall be Juſtified, and perſevering therein with true obedience, ſhall be finally adjudged to everlaſting life, and poſſeſſed thereof. Its tenor is, He that Repenteth and Believeth ſhall be ſaved, and he that; doth not ſhall be damned.

4. That the ſenſe of this Promiſe and Threatning is, He that Repenteth and Believeth at all in this life, though but at the laſt hour, ſhall be ſaved; and he that doth it not at all ſhall be damned. Or he that is found a penitent Believer at death, &c. And not, he that believeth not to day or to morrow ſhall be damned, though afterward he do.

5. That the threatning of the Law of Nature was not at firſt Peremptory and Remedileſs; and that now it is ſo far Remedyed, as that there is a Remedy at hand for the diſſolving of the Obligation, which will be effectual as ſoon as the Condition is performed.

6. That the Remedying Law of Grace, hath a peculiar penalty, that is, 1. Non-liberation, A privation of Pardon and life which was offered (For that's now a penal privation, which if there had been no Saviour, or Promiſe, or Offer, would have been but a Negation.) 2. The certain Remedileſneſs of their miſery for the future, that there ſhall be no more ſacrifice for ſin. 3. And whether alſo a greater degree of puniſhment, I leave to conſideration.

7. I ſtill diſtinguiſhed between the Precepts and the Sanction of the Law of Grace or New Covenant, and between ſin as it reſpecteth both: And ſo I ſaid, that Repentance and Faith in Chriſt (even as a means to Juſtification) are commanded in ſpecie in the Goſpel, which conſtituteth them duties, but commanded conſequently in genere in the Law of nature under the generall p. 144of Obedience to all particular precepts: and whether alſo the Law of Nature require the duty in ſpecie, ſuppoſing God to have made his ſupernatural preparations in providing and propounding the objects, I left to enquiry. Accordingly I affirmed that Impenitency and Infidelity, though afterward Repented of, as alſo the Imperfections of true faith and repentance, are ſins againſt the General precept of the Law of Nature, and the ſpecial precept of the Law of Grace, and that Chriſt dyed for them, and they are pardoned through his blood, upon condition of ſincere Repentance and Faith.

8. Accordingly diſtinguiſhing between the reſpect that ſin hath to the precept and prohibition on one ſide, and to the promiſe and threatning on the other, I affirmed, that the foreſaid Impenitency and Infidelity that are afterwards repented of, and the Imperfections of true Faith and Repentance are condemned by the Remediable threatning of the Law of Nature only, and that the perſon is not under the Actual obligation of the peculiar Threatning of the Law of Grace; that is, that though as to the Goſpel Precept, theſe ſins may be againſt the Goſpel as well as the Law, yet as to the Threatning, they are not ſuch violations of the New Covenant, as bring men under its actual curſe; for then they were remedileſs. And therefore I ſaid, that its only final Impenitency and Unbelief, as final, that ſo ſubjects men to that Curſe or Remedileſs peremptory ſentence. The reaſon is, becauſe the Goſpel maketh Repenting and Believing at any time before death, the Condition of promiſed pardon: and therefore if God by death make not the contrary impenitency and unbelief final, it is not that which brings a man under the Remedileſs Curſe; (except only in caſe of the Blaſphemy againſt the Holy Ghoſt, which is ever final.)

9 Accordingly I affirm that Chriſt never bore, or intended to bear the peculiar Curſe of his own Law of Grace. 1. As not ſuffering for any mans final impenitency and unbelief, which is proved in his Goſpel conſtitution, which giveth out pardon only on Condition of Faith and Repentance: and therefore the non-performance of his Condition is expreſly excepted from all pardon, and conſequently from the intended ſatisfaction, and price of pardon. 2. In that he did not bear that ſpecies of p. 145puniſhment, as peculiarly appointed by the Goſpel, viz. To be denyed Pardon, Juſtification and Adoption, and to be Remedileſs in miſery, &c.

10. Alſo I ſaid, that all other ſins are pardonable on the Goſpel Conditions; but the non-performance (that is, final) of thoſe Conditions is everlaſtingly unpardonable (and conſequently no ſin pardoned for want of them.)

Reader, this is the face of that Doctrine which Reverend Brethren vail over with the darkneſs and confuſion of theſe General words; that I ſay, [Chriſt hath not ſatiſfied for ſins againſt the ſecond Covenant.] And all theſe explications I am fain to trouble the world with, as oft as they are pleaſed to charge me in that confuſion. But what remedy? This is the Legion of errours and contradictions; which I leave to thy impartial judgement, to abhor them as far as the Word and Spirit ſhall convince thee that they are erroneous, and to bleſs thoſe Congregations and Countries that are taught to abhor them, and to rejoyce in their felicity that believe the contrary.

Treat. pag. 235. 2. If ſo, then the works of the Law are Conditions of our Juſtification, and thus he runneth into the extream he would avoid.

Anſw. 1. The works which the Law requireth to Juſtification, that is, perfect obedience, are not the Conditions of Juſtification. 2. Nor the fulfilling of the Moſaical Law of Sacrifices, &c. 3. But from among duties in general required by the Moral Law, after the ſpecial Conſtitution of the Goſpel, God hath choſen ſome to be the Conditions of life. And if you believe not this, I refer you to Mr. Blake, who will undertake to prove more.

2. But your aſſertion is groundleſs. I ſaid not that they are works of the Law. What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Goſpel duty? Do I call the duty, a work of the Law, becauſe I ſay the Law condemneth the neglecters of it?

3. But are you indeed of the contrary opinion, and againſt that which you diſpute againſt? Do you think that the Law doth not threaten unbelievers, when the Goſpel hath commanded p. 146faith? Have I ſo much ado to perſwade the men of your party, that the Goſpel hath any peculiar threatning or penalty, and that it is truly a Law (which the Lutherans have taught too many) and now do you think that its only the Goſpel that Curſeth impenitent unelievers, and that maketh puniſhment due for the remnant of theſe ſins in penitent Believers? Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and ſelf-contradiction.

Treat. ib. But above all, this is not to be endured, that Chriſt hath not ſuffered for the breaches of the New Covenant, and that there is no ſuch breach but final impenitency: For are the defects of our Repentance, faith and love in Chriſt, other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace? our unthankfulneſs, unfruitfulneſs, yea ſometimes with Peter, our grievous revolts and apoſtacies; What are thoſe but the ſad ſhakings of our Covenant-intereſt, though they do not diſſolve it? But it is not my purpoſe to fall on this, becauſe of its impertinency to my matter in hand.

Anſw. I rather thought it your purpoſe to fall upon it, though you confeſs it impertinent to your matter in hand. For I thought you had purpoſed before you had Printed of Preached.

Reader, I ſuppoſe thee one that hath no pleaſure in darkneſs, and therefore wouldſt ſee this intolerable errour barefaced. To which end, beſides what is ſaid before, underſtand, 1. That I uſe to diſtinguiſh between a threefold breach of the Covenant. 1. A ſin againſt a meer precept of the Goſpel, which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant. 2. A ſin againſt our own Promiſe to God when we Covenant with him. 3. A violation of Gods conſtitution, [Believe and be ſaved, and he that believeth not ſhall be damned] making us the proper ſubjects of its Actual Curſe or Obligation to its peculiar puniſhment. 2. On theſe diſtinctions I uſe to ſay as followeth; 1. That Chriſt ſuffered for our breaches of Goſpel precepts. 2. And for our breaches of many promiſes of our own to God. 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Goſpel Conditions, which left us under a non-liberation for that time, p. 147(and therefore we had no freedom from ſo much as was executed.) 4. But not for ſuch violation of the New Covenant, or Law of Grace, as makes us the actual ſubjects of its Curſe or Obligation to Remedileſs puniſhment. Theſe are my uſual limitations and explications. And do I need to ſay any more now in defence of this opinion, which my Reverend Brother ſaith is not to be endured? 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teaching to confound all theſe, under the general name of Covenant-breaking? 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine, and like to make Congregations bleſſed, that our defects of repentance, unfruitfulneſs, and unthankfulneſs, &c. are ſuch violations of the Law of Grace, or the Conditions of the Goſpel, as bring us under its actual obligation to Remedileſs puniſhment? That is, in plain Engliſh, to ſay, We ſhall all be damned.

Treat. ib. Argument 9. If works be a condition of our Juſtification, then muſt the godly ſoul be filled with perpetual doubts, and troubles, whether it be a perſon juſtified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perverſneſs from the fore-named Doctrine: but the very Genius of it tends thereunto. For if a Condition be not performed, then the mercy Covenanted cannot be claimed: As in faith; if a man do not believe, he cannot ſay, Chriſt with his benefits are his. Thus if he have not works, the Condition is not performed, but ſtill he continueth without this benefit. But for works; How ſhall I know when I have the full number of them? Whether is the Condition of the ſpecies or individuums of works? Is not one kind of work omitted when its my duty, enough to invalidate my Juſtification? Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one as all, ſeeing that one is required as a Condition?

Anſw. Your Argument is an unproved Aſſertion, not having any thing to make it probable. 1. Belief in Chriſt as Lord and Teacher, is Works with the Opponents. Why may not a man know when he believeth in Chriſt as King and Prophet, and is his Diſciple, as well as when he believeth in him as Prieſt?

2. Repentance is Works alſo with the Opponents. Why may not a man know when he Repenteth, as well as when he believeth.

p. 1483. Do you not give up the Proteſtant cauſe here to the Papiſts in the point of certainty of ſalvation? We tell them that we may be certain that our faith is ſincere. And how? why by its fruits and concomitants, and that we take Chriſt for Lord as well as Saviour, or to ſave us from the power of ſin as well as the guilt? And is it now come to that paſs that theſe cannot be known? What not the ſigns by which faith it ſelf ſhould be known, and therefore ſhould be notiora? This it is to eye man, and to be ſet upon the making good of an opinion.

4. Let all Proteſtants anſwer you, and I have anſwered you. How will they know when they Repent and Believe, when they have performed the full of theſe? believed all neceſſary Truths? Repented of all ſins that muſt be Repented of? Whether it be the ſpecies or individual acts of theſe that are neceſſary! Will not the omiſſion of Repentance for one ſin invalidate it? Or the omiſſion of many individual acts of faith? are not thoſe acts conditions? &c. Anſwer theſe, and you are anſwered.

5. But I ſhall anſwer you briefly for them and me. Its no impoſſible thing to know when a man ſincerely believeth, repenteth and obeyeth, though many Articles are Eſſential to the Aſſenting part of faith, and many ſins muſt be Repented of, and many duties muſt be done. God hath made known to us the Eſſentials of each. It is not the Degree of any of them, but the Truth that is the Condition. A man that hath imperfect Repentance, Faith and Obedience, may know when they are ſincere, notwithſtanding the imperfections. Do you not believe this? Will you not maintain it againſt a Papiſt when you are returned to your former temper? what need any more then to be ſaid of it?

6. Your Argument makes as much againſt the making uſe of theſe by way of bare ſigns, as by way of Conditions. For an unknown ſign is no ſign to us.

7. And how could you over-look it, that your Argument flyeth too boldly in the face of Chriſt, and many a plain Text of Scripture? Chriſt ſaith, John 15.10. If ye keep my Commandments, ye ſhall abide in my love, even as I have kept, &c. 14. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatſoever I command you, Mat. p. 1497.21. Not every one that ſaith Lord, Lord, ſhall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 23, 24. Whoſoever heareth theſe ſayings of mine, and doth them, &c. Mat. 5. throughout. verſe 20. Except your righteouſneſs exceed the righteouſneſs of the Scribes and Phariſees, ye ſhall in no caſe enter into the Kingdom of heaven. 1 John 3.10. In this the children of God are manifeſt, and the children of the Devil: whoſoever doth not righteouſneſs is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.] An hundred ſuch paſſages might be cited. And will you meet all theſe with your objections, and ſay, [How ſhall I know when I have the full number? &c.] Know that you have ſincere Faith, Repentance and Obedience, and you may know you perform that Condition of the Goſpel: elſe not.

Treat. pag. 236. That if good works be a Condition of Juſtification, then none are juſtified till their death; becauſe in every good work is required perſeverance, in ſo much that perſeverance is that to which the promiſe is made, Mat. 24.6. Heb. 10.38. Rev. 2.7, 20. So that it is not good works ſimply, but perſevered in that is required: and therefore no Juſtification to the end of our daies, ſo that we cannot have any peace with God till then. Neither doth it avail to ſay, Juſtification is not compleat till then; for it cannot be at all till then, becauſe the Condition that gives life to all is not till then.

Anſw. 1. And is not perſeverance in faith as neceſſary as perſeverance in obedience? Read Col. 1.23. John 15.2, 3, &c. and many the like, and judge. Will you thence infer that none are juſtified till death?

2. But a little ſtep out of the darkneſs of your Confuſion, will bring the fallacy of your Argument to the light, and there will need no more to it. The Goſpel conveyeth to us ſeveral benefits: ſome without any Condition, and ſeveral benefits on ſeveral Conditions. 1. Our firſt Actual pardon and Juſtification, and right to life, is given on Condition of our firſt Faith and Repentance: and not on Condition of External works of Obedience, nor yet of the perſevering in faith it ſelf, much leſs in that p. 150Obedience. 2. Our ſtate of Juſtification is continued on condition of the continuance of Faith and Repentance, with ſincere Obedience. 3. Our particular following ſins have a particular pardon, on Condition of the Continuance of the habits and renewing of the acts of that faith and repentance, for known obſerved ſins. 4. Our full Juſtification by Sentence at Judgement, is on the ſame condition as Glorification, viz. On perſeverance in Faith, Repentance, Hope, Love and ſincere Obedience.

Prove now if you can that perſeverance is the Condition of our firſt pardon. Prove if you can that final perſeverance is the Condition of our continuance in a juſtified ſtate till now. You ſay, Juſtification and peace cannot be ours till the condition be performed. But what condition? of that gift? or of another gift? If of that, its granted: but its ſtill denyed that perſeverance is any of the Condition of our firſt pardon? If of another gift; its no reaſon of your Conſequence. If you ſpeak of final Juſtification and Salvation, I grant you all thus far, that you have no full Right of poſſeſſing them but on perſeverance▪ nor no Right at all, or certainty of Salvation, but on ſuppoſition of perſeverance as neceſſary to the poſſeſſion. And therefore if you can prove that we have no certainty of perſeverance, I will yield that we have no certainty of ſalvation.

Treat. Thus we have aſſerted this truth by many Arguments; and though any one ſingly by it ſelf may not convince, yet altogether may ſatisfie — Now to the great Objections —

Anſw. I heartily wiſh that wiſer Readers may find more truth and ſatisfaction in them then I can do, if it be there to be found; and to that end that they make their beſt of them all.

Treat. James ſaith, Abraham was juſtified by works— ſo that in outward appearances theſe two great Apoſtles ſpeak contradictions, which hath made ſome deny the Canonical authority of James's Epiſtle. Yea one ſaid blaſphemouſly, Althameirius, Mentiris Jacobe in caput tuum. But this is to cut, not untie the knot. —

p. 1511. The ſcope of the Apoſtle Paul is to treat upon our Juſtification before God, and what is the Inſtrument and means of obtaining it— But the Apoſtle James takes Juſtification for the Declaration and Manifeſtation of it before men.—

Anſw. This is not the only ſenſe of James (as I have proved before, to which I refer you) no nor any part of the ſenſe of the word Juſtification with him, though he mention ſhewing faith by works to men, as an argument for his main concluſion, yet he nowhere expoundeth the word Juſtification by it. James expreſly ſpeaks of Imputation of Righteouſneſs by God, and of that Juſtification which is meant in the words of Gen. concerning Abraham, even the ſame words that Paul expoundeth; and of that Juſtification which inferreth ſalvation.

Treat. Paul informeth us that faith only juſtifieth, and James, what kind of faith it is, even a lively working faith.

Anſw. I have anſwered this in the beginning of this Diſputation.

Treat. Its ſaid, They dare not go againſt the plain words of the Apoſtle. But its not the foreign but foreign, not the words, but the ſenſe—

Anſw. Our Queſtion is, How the ſenſe of James ſhall be known? Will you ſay, not by the words, but by the ſenſe? The words are to expreſs the ſenſe; and we muſt take heed of forcing them as much as we can. As to your ſaying of the Anthropomorphites, and Hoc eſt corpus meum; I anſwer; the Tropical ſenſe is oft the plaineſt; and in particular in theſe inſtances. If any man point to ſeveral pictures, and ſay, This is Caeſar, and this is Pompey, &c. I ſhall by uſe of ſpeech (the interpreter of words) take the tropical ſenſe to be the plaineſt, and not the literal; viz. That this is Caeſars Image, and not that it is his perſon. And ſo here.

2. Give me any cogent Evidence that I muſt leave the plain ſenſe, and I am ſatisfied.

p. 1523. Remember I pray you, that its not the words, but the ſenſe that you except againſt. Do not you except hereafter againſt the ſaying that (we are Juſtified by works, and not by faith only] as James doth; but againſt the ill ſenſe that you can prove to be put upon the words.

Treat. pag. 238. Laſtly, They are forced to add to the Apoſtle; for they ſay, works juſtifie as the Condition of the Goſpel, which the Apoſtle doth not ſpeak a Word of.

Anſw. 1. We ſay not that Jams calls them a condition; therefore we add not to him as his.

2. Every Expoſition and application is an addition of another ſort, but not as of the ſame.

3. I uſe not the active phraſe that Works juſtifie, agreeing ſo far with you, who note a difference between theſe ſayings, Faith juſtifieth, and we are juſtified by faith: for all that Mr. Blake deſpiſeth the obſervation, which perhaps he would ſcarce have done, if he had known that you had being guilty of it alſo.

4. Scripture ſuppoſeth Grammer, Logick, Phyſicks, &c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part. If James tell you that we are juſtified by works, he doth not ſay that foreign is a verb, and foreign is a noun, and ſo of the reſt; but he warranteth you to ſay ſo without any unjuſt addition, ſuppoſing that Grammer ſo call them; If the Scripture ſay, that God created the Heavens and the earth, it doth not ſay here in terms, that God was the efficient cauſe: but it warranteth you to ſay ſo: If it ſay, that Chriſt dyed for us, and was a Sacrifice for our ſins, and hath obtained eternal redemption for us; yet it ſaith not that he is the meritorious cauſe, or the material cauſe of our Juſtification: But it will warrant you to ſay ſo, without the guilt of unjuſt additions. If you may ſay as a Grammarian and a Logitian, when you meet with ſuch words in Scripture, [Theſe are Paronyma, and theſe Synonyma, and theſe Homonyma, and this is an univerſal, that a ſingular, that a particular, and that an indefinite; this is an efficient cauſe, that a material, formal or final; this is a noun, that a verb, the other a p. 153participle or an adverb; I pray you then why may not I ſay, when I read in Rom. 10.9. that [If thou confeſs with thy mouth, and believe in thy heart, &c.] that [If] is a conjunction conditional? Is this adding to the Scripture unjuſtly? If I did, when ever I read that we are juſtified by faith, collect thence that faith is an Inſtrumental cauſe, as if by were only the note of an Inſtrument, then you might have accuſed me of unwarrantable addition, or collections, indeed.

Laſtly, If you have a mind to it, I am content that you ſay by the unſcriptural names (or additions as you ſpeak) of nouns, pronouns, verbs, antecedents, conſequents, efficient, or material cauſes, &c. and I will lay by the name of a condition, as you do of an Inſtrument: and we will only uſe the Scripture phraſe, which is, If you forgive men, your Father will forgive you; if we confeſs our ſins, he is faithfull and juſt to forgive: we are juſtified by faith without the works of the Law: A man is juſtified by works, and not by faith only: By thy Words thou ſhalt be juſtified. Every man ſhall be judged according to his works,] &c. Let us keep to Scripture phraſe if you deſire it, and you ſhall find me as backward as any to lay much ſtreſs upon terms of Art.

Having gone thus far, I ſhall in brief give you a truer reconciliation of Paul and James then you here offer us. 1. They debate different queſtions. 2. And that with different ſorts of perſons. 3. And ſpeak directly of different ſorts of works. 4. And ſomewhat differ in the ſenſe of the word Faith. 5. And ſomwhat about the word Juſtification. 6. And they ſpeak of works in ſeveral Relations to Juſtification.

1. The Queſtion that Paul diſputed was principally Whether Juſtification be by the works of the Moſaical Law, and conſequently by any mercenary works, without Chriſt, or in Co-ordination with Chriſt, or any way at all conjunct with Chriſt? The queſtion that James diſputed, was, Whether men are juſtified by meer believing without Goſpel-Obedience?

2. The perſons that Paul diſputed againſt, were, 1 The unbelieving Jews, that thought the Moſaical Law was of p. 154ſuch perfection to the making of men righteous, that there needed no other, much leſs ſhould it be abrogate. Where ſpecially note, that the righteouſneſs which the Jews expected by that Law, was not (as is commonly imagined) a righteouſneſs of ſinleſs obedience, ſuch as was required of Adam; but a mixt Righteouſneſs, conſiſting of accurate Obedience to the Moſaical Law in the main courſe of their lives, and exact ſacrificing according to that Law for the pardon of their ſins committed, (wherein they made expreſs confeſſion of ſin) ſo that theſe two they thought ſufficient to juſtifie, and lookt for the Meſſias but to free them from captivity, and repair their Temple, Law, &c. And 2. Paul diſputed againſt falſe Teachers, that would have joyned theſe two together (the Righteouſneſs of Moſes Law, and Faith in Chriſt) as neceſſary to life.

But James diſputed againſt falſe Chriſtians, that thought it enough to ſalvation barely to believe in Chriſt, (or lived as if they ſo thought) its like miſunderſtanding Pauls Doctrine of Juſtification as many now do.

3. The works that Paul ſpeaks of directly, are the ſervices appointed by Moſes Law ſuppoſed to be ſufficient, becauſe of the ſuppoſed ſufficiency of that Law. So that its all one with him to be juſtified by the Law, and to be juſtified by works; and therefore he ofter ſpeaks againſt Juſtification by the Law expreſly, and uſually ſtileth the works he ſpeaks of, the works of the Law: yet by conſequence, and a parity of Reaſon, he may well be ſaid to ſpeak againſt any works imaginable that are ſet in oppoſition to Chriſt, or competition with him, and that are ſuppoſed meritorious, and intended as Mercenary.

But James ſpeaks of no works, but Obedience to God in Chriſt, and that as ſtanding in due ſubordination to Chriſt.

4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Juſtification, Paul means our Aſſent to all the eſſential Articles of the Goſpel, together with our Acceptance of Jeſus Chriſt the Lord, as ſuch, and affiance in him; that is, To be a Believer; and ſo to have faith, is with Paul, to be a Diſciple of Chriſt, or a Chriſtian: Though ſometime he ſpecially denominates that faith from one part of p. 155the object (the promiſe) ſometime from another (the blood of Chriſt) ſometime from a third (his obedience.) And in other caſes he diſtinguiſheth Faith from Hope and Charity: but not in the buſineſs of Juſtification, conſidering them as reſpecting Chriſt and the ends of his blood.

But James by faith means a bare ineffectual Aſſent to the Truth of the Chriſtian Religion, ſuch as the Devils themſelves had.

5. Paul ſpeaks of Juſtification in its whole ſtate, as begun and continued. But James doth principally, if not only ſpeak of Juſtification as continued. Though if by works any underſtand a diſpoſition to work in faith, or conjunct with it (as Dr. Iackson doth) ſo his words are true of initial Juſtification alſo.

6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned. Paul ſpeaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal perſonal Righteouſneſs, in part or whole. But James ſpoak of Works, not as anſwering the Law, but as fulfilling the condition of the Goſpel, and implyed (as promiſed or reſolved on) in our firſt believing, and ſo as ſubſervient to the Sacrifice, Merit and Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as the avoiding of poiſon or dangerous meats (that may kill, though the conrtary cannot cure) is ſubſervient to the curing medicine of a Phyſician, and implyed in our taking him for our Phyſician at firſt.

And ſo much briefly to ſatiſfie you and the world of the Reaſons of my Diſſent from you, that I may not differ from ſo Dear and Reverend a Brother, without making it appear, that neceſſity did compel me.

That which I have paſſed over, being about the Inſtrumentality of Faith, I ſhall ſpeak to, (if God will) together with Mr. Blakes Reaſonings on that Subject, in another Diſputation.

p. 156Oppon. Works are not a Condition, much leſs a Cauſe of our Juſtification, under any Notion whatſoever they are taken: i. e. Neither Faith in Chriſt as Lord and Teacher, becoming his Diſciples, Repentance, Love, Hope, Prayer for Pardon, Confeſſion, Self-denyal, ſincere Obedience, &c. are Cauſes or Conditions of Juſtification, as begun, continued, or as it is moſt eminent in the ſentence at Judgement. Conſ. Erg. This Faith, Repentance, Prayer, Obedience, &c. are not truly means of our Juſtification now or at Judgement.

Ergo. Not means to the pardon of ſin, and freedom from puniſhment.

Ergo. Not means of Salvation from Hell, or of that Glory to which the final Juſtification will adjudge us.

Ergo. 1. They are not neceſſary neceſſitate medii, and 2. No Man muſt uſe them as means to his preſent pardon, or Juſtification, or final Juſtification or ſalvation.

Ergo. No means muſt be uſed for preſent or final Juſtification or Salvation, but only the Inſtrumental receiving, or apprehending of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, or of Chriſt as Prieſt. Ergo.—

Object. There are means beſides Cauſes and Conditions.

Anſw. Beſides Cauſas & Conditiones proximas, there are: but beſides Cauſas & Conditiones & proximas & remotas, in this caſe there are none that I know of: if there be, name them.