The Imputation of Christs Righteousness, Letter · Letter

The Imputation of Christs Righteousness · Letter · Letter

p. 1Reverend Sir,

If I had not before perceived and lamented the great Sin of Contenders, the dangerous ſnare for ignorant Chriſtians, and the great Calamity of the Church, by making Verbal Differences ſeem Material, and variety of ſome Arbitrary Logical Notions, to ſeem tantum non, a variety of Religions; and by frightning Men out of their Charity, Peace, and Communion, by Bugbear-Names, of this or that Hereſie or dangerous Opinion, which is indeed but a Spectrum or Fantaſm of a dreaming or melancholy Brain, your Juſtificatio Paulina, and your Letter to me, might be ſufficient means of my full Conviction. And if once reading of your Writings do not yet more increaſe my love of the Chriſtian ſimplicity, and plain old Divinity, and the amicable Communion of practical Chriſtians upon thoſe terms, and not medling with Controverſies in a militant way, till by …ong impartial ſtudies they are well underſtood, I p. 2muſt confeſs my non-proficience is very unexcuſable.

With your ſelf I have no great buſineſs: I am not ſo vain as to think my ſelf able to underſtand you, or to be underſtood by you: and I muſt not be ſo bold as to tell you why, much leſs will I be ſo injurious to the Reader, as by a particular examining all your words, to extort a confeſſion that their ſenſe is less or worſe than I could wiſh: For cui bono? What would this do but more offend you? And idle words are as great a fault▪in writing as in talk: If I have been guilty of too many, I muſt not ſo much add to my fault, as a too particular examination of ſuch Books would be. But for the ſake of your Academical Youth, whom you thought meet to allarm by your Caution, I have anſwered ſo much of your Treatiſe as I thought neceſſary to help even Novices to anſwer the reſt themſelves. For their ſakes (though I delight not to offend you) I muſt ſay, That if they would not be deceived by ſuch Books as yours, it is not an Anſwer to them that muſt be their preſervative, but an orderly ſtudying of the Doctrines handled; Let them but learn truly the ſeveral ſenſes of the word [Juſtifica…ion], and the ſeveral ſorts, and what they are, and ſtill conſtrain ambiguous words to confeſs their ſenſe, and they will need no other Anſwer to ſuch Writings.

And as to your Letter (paſſing by the ſpume and paſſion) I think theſe few Animadverſions may ſuffice.

§. 1. Between twenty and thirty years ago, I did in a private Diſputation prove our guilt of the ſins of our nearer Parents; and becauſe many p. 3doubted of it, I have oft ſince in other writings mentioned it: About three years ago, having two Books of Mr. William Allens in my hand to peruſe, in order to a Publication, (a Perſwaſive to Ʋnity, and a Treatiſe of the Two Covenants); in a Preface to the latter, I ſaid, [That moſt Writers, if not moſt Chriſtians, do greatly darken the Sacred Doctrine, by overlooking the Intereſt of Children in the Actions of their nearer Parents, and think that they participate of no guilt, and ſuffer for no original ſin, but Adam's only, &c.] You faſtened on this, and warned ſeriouſly the Juniors, not raſhly to believe one that brings forth ſuch Paradoxes of his (or that) Theologie, which you added to your [O caecos ante Theologos quicunque unquam fuiſtis]: The charge was expreſſed by [aliud inveniſſe peccatum Originale, multo citerius quam quod ab Adamo traductum eſt]. Hereupon I thought it enough to publiſh that old private Diſputation, which many before had ſeen with various Cenſures: Now you ſend me in your Letter the ſtrange tidings of the ſucceſs: You that deterred your Juniors by ſo frighful a warning, ſeem now not only to agree with me, that we are guilty of our nearer Parents ſin, and contract additional pravity from them as ſuch, (which was my Aſſertion) but over-do all others, and Truth it ſelf in your Agreement! Now you take it for an injury to be reported to think otherwiſe herein than I do: yea, and add, [Which neither I, nor any Body elſe I know of, denies as to the thing, though in the extent, and other circumſtances, all are not agreed, and you may in that enjoy your Opinion for me]. This is too kind: I am loth to tell you how many p. 4that I know, and have read, deny it, leſt I tempt you to repent of your Agreement.

But doth the World yet need a fuller evidence, that ſome Men are de materiâ agreed with them, whom they raiſe the Country againſt by their Accuſations and Suſpicions?

But ſurely what paſſion or ſpatling ſoever it hath occaſioned from you, I reckon that my labour is not loſt: I may tell your Juniors, that I have ſped extraordinary well, when I have procured the publiſhed conſent of ſuch a Doctor. Either you were of this mind before or not: If not, it's well you are brought to confeſs the Truth, though not to confeſs a former Error. If yea, then it's well that ſo loud and wide a ſeeming diſagreement is confeſſed to be none, that your Juniors may take warning, and not be frightned from Love and Concord by every melancholy Allarm.

Yea, you declare your conformity to the Litany, [Remember not our Offences, nor the Offences, of our Fore fathers], and many words of indignation you uſe for my queſtioning it. All this I like very well as to the Cauſe; And I matter it not much how it looks at me: If you agree more angrily than others diſagree, the Cauſe hath ſome advantage by the Agreement. Though me-thinks it argueth ſomewhat unuſual, that ſeeming Diſſenters ſhould cloſe by ſo vehement a Colliſion.

But yet you will not agree when you cannot chuſe but agree, and you carry it ſtill as if your Allarm had not been given without cauſe: Muſt we agree, and not agree? What yet is the Matter? Why it is [a new original ſin]. My ordinary expreſſions of p. 5it may be fully ſeen in the Diſputation: The phraſe you laid hold on in a Preface is cited before, [That we participate of no guilt, and ſuffer for no original ſin but Adam's only], I denied. And what's the dangerous Errour here? That our nearer Parents ſin was Adams, I may preſume that you hold not. That we are guilty of ſuch, you deny not: That it is ſin, I find you not denying: ſure then all the difference muſt be in the word [ORIGINAL].

And if ſo, you that ſo hardly believe your loud-noiſed diſagreements to be but verbal, muſt patiently give me leave here to try it. Is it any more than the Name ORIGINAL that you are ſo heinouſly offended at? Sure it is not: Elſe in this Letter purpoſely written about it, you would have told your Reader what it is. Suffer me then to ſummon your Allarm'd Juniors to come and ſee what a Spectrum it is that muſt affright them; and what a Poppet-Play or dreaming War it is, that the Church is to be engaged in, as if it were a matter of Life and Death? Audite juvenes! I took the word [ORIGINAL] in this buſineſs to have ſeveral ſignifications. Firſt, That is called [ORIGINAL] Sin, which was the ORIGO of all other ſins in the Humane World: And that was not Adam's ſin, but Eves.

2. That which was the ORIGO of ſin to all the World, ſave Adam and Eve, communicated by the way of Generation: And that was Adams and Eves conjunct, viz. 1. Their firſt ſinful Acts; 2. Their Guilt; 3. And their habitual pravity (making it full, though in Nature following the Act). This Sin, Fact, Guilt, and Habit, as Accidents p. 6of the Perſons of Adam and Eve, are not Accidents of our Perſons.

3. Our perſonal participation; 1. In the guilt of the ſin of Adam and Eve; 2. And of a vicious privation and habit from them, as ſoon as we are Perſons. Which is called Original ſin, on three accounts conjunct; 1. Becauſe it is a participation of their Original Act that we are guilty of; 2. Becauſe it is in us ab Origine, from our firſt Being; 3. And becauſe it is the Origo of all our Actual Sins.

4. I call that alſo [ORIGINAL] (or part of Original Sin) which hath but the two later only; viz. 1. Which is in us AB ORIGINE, from our firſt perſonal being; 2. Which is the Root or ORIGO in our ſelves of all our Actual Sins: And thus our Guilt and Vice derived from our nearer Parents, and not from Adam, is our Original Sin; That is, 1. Both Guilt and Habit are in us from our Original, or firſt Being; 2. And all our Actual Sin ſpringeth from it as a partial Cauſe: For I may preſume that this Reverend Doctor doth not hold that Adam's ſin derived to us is in one part of the Soul, (which is not partible) and our nearer Parent's in another; but will grant that it is one vitioſity that is derived from both, the latter being a Degree added to the former; though the Reatus having more than one fundamentum, may be called diverſe. That Origo & Active & paſſive dicitur, I ſuppoſe we are agreed. Now I call the vicious Habits contracted from our nearer Parents by ſpecial reaſon of their own ſins, ſuperadded to the degree, which elſe we ſhould have derived from p. 7Adam, a part of our original ſinful Pravity, even a ſecondary part. And I call our guilt of the ſins of our nearer Parents (not Adam's) which you will, either a ſecondary Original Guilt, or Sin, or a ſecondary part of our Original Guilt. See then our dangerous diſagreement: I call that ORIGINAL, which is in us ab Origine, when we are firſt Perſons, and is partly the Root or Origo in us of all our following Actual Sin: though it was not the Original Sin of Mankind, or the firſt of Sins. The Doctor thinks this an Expreſſion, which all Juniors muſt be warned to take heed of, and to take heed of the Doctrine of him that uſeth it. The Allarm is againſt this dangerous word [ORIGINAL]. And let a Man awake tell us what is the danger.

But I would bring him yet to agreement even de nomine, though it anger him. 1. Let him read the Artic. 9. of the Church of England, and ſeeing there Original Sin is ſaid to be that corruption of Nature whereby we are far gone from Original Righteouſneſs, and are of our own Nature inclined to evil, ſo that the fleſh luſteth againſt the Spirit. The luſt of the fleſh called foreign, which ſome do expound the Wiſdom, ſome Senſuality, ſome the Affection, ſome the deſire of the Fleſh, not ſubject to the Law of God]: Seing a degree of all this ſame Luſt is in Men from the ſpecial ſins of their Fore-fathers, as well as from Adam's; Is not this Degree here called Original Sin? (why the Church omitted the Imputed Guilt aforeſaid, I enquire not).

2. If this will not ſerve, if he will find me any Text of Scripture, which uſeth the Phraſe, [ORIGINAL Sin], I will promiſe him hereafter to p. 8uſe it in no other ſenſe, than the Scripture uſeth it.

3. If that will not ſerve, if the Maſters of Language will agree, (yea, to paſs by our Lexicons, if the Doctors of that Univerſity will give it us under their hands) that the word [ORIGINAL] is unaptly and dangerouſly applyed to that ſinful Guilt and Pravity which is in us ab Origine Noſtrae exiſtentiae, and is the internal Radix vel Origo of all our Actual Sin, in part of Cauſality, I will uſe that Epithete ſo no more.

4. If all this will not ſerve, if he himſelf will give me a fitter Epithete, I will uſe it: And now we over-agree in Doctrine, a word ſhall not divide us, unleſs he will be angry becauſe we are agreed, as Jonas was that the Ninivites were ſpared, becauſe it ſeemed to diſgrace his Word.

§. II. pag. 4, 5, &c. You invite me to, [a full entire retractation of my Doctrine of Juſtification (you add, By Works) and the ſecondary Original Sin].

1. Will you take it well if I retract that which you profeſs now to hold, and know none that denyeth, then there is no pleaſing you: If I muſt be thought to wrong you for ſeeming to differ from you, and yet muſt retract all: What, yours and all Mens?

2. Do you mean the words or the ſenſe of Juſtification (as you call it) by Works? For the words, I take you for a ſubſcriber to the 39 Articles; and therefore that you reject not the Epiſtle of St. James: And for the ſenſe, I confeſs it is a motion ſuitable to the Intereſt of your Treatiſe, (though not of the Truth): He that cannot confute the Truth, p. 9would more eaſily do his Work, if he could perſwade the Defenders of it to an Entire Retractation. Hereupon, pag. 5. you recite my words, of the difficulty of bringing ſome Militant Divines to yield: Your Admonition for Self-Application of them is uſeful, and I thank you for it: But is it not a ſtreight that ſuch as I am in, between two contrary ſorts of Accuſers? When Mr. Danvers, and Multitudes on that ſide, Reproach me daily for Retractations, and you for want of them? How natural is it now to Mankind, to deſire to be the Oracles of the World, and that all ſhould be Silenced, or Retracted, which is againſt their Minds? How many call on me for Retractation? Mr. Tombes, and Mr. Danvers, for what I have Written for Infants-Baptiſm: The Papiſts for what I have Written againſt them: And how many more? And as to what I have Retracted, One reproached me for it, and another either knoweth not of it, or perſwadeth others that it is not done.

You ſay, pag. 6. [A great out-cry you have made of me, as charging you with things you have Retracted— And pag. 7. What's the reaſon you have not hitherto directed us to the particulars of your Recantation; what, when, where?— You direct one indeed, to a ſmall Book, above Twenty years a-go retracted.— All I can pick up of any ſeeming Retractation, is that you ſay, that Works are neceſſary at leaſt to the continuation of our Juſtification.

Anſw. Either this is Written by a Wilful, or a Heedleſs miſtaking of my words. The firſt I will not ſuſpect; it muſt therefore be the ſecond, (for I muſt not judg you Ʋnable to underſtand plain Engliſh). And is it any wonder if you have p. 10many ſuch Miſtakes in your diſputes of Juſtification, when you are ſo heedleſs about a matter of Fact? Where did I ever ſay, that I had Recanted? Or that I Retracted any of the Doctrine of Juſtification, which I had laid down? Cannot you diſtinguiſh between Suſpending, or Revoking, or Retracting a particular Book, for the ſake of ſeveral Crude and Incongruous Expreſſions, and Retracting or Recanting that Doctrine of Juſtification? Or can you not underſtand words, that plainly thus Diſtinguiſh? Why talk you of what, and when, and where, and conjecture at the words, as if you would make the Reader believe, that indeed it is ſome confeſſed Errors of mine, which you Confuted? and that I take it for an Injury, becauſe I▪ Retracted them? And ſo you think you ſalve your Confutation, whatever you do by your Candour and Juſtice: But you have not ſo much as Fig-leaves for either. It was the Aphoriſms, or Book, that I ſaid was above Twenty years a go Revoked: When in my Treatiſe of Infant-Baptiſm, I had craved Animadverſions on it, and promiſed a better Edition, if I Publiſhed it any more; I forbad the Reprinting it, till I had time to Correct it; and when many called for it, I ſtill deny'd them. And when the Cambridg Printer Printed it a ſecond time, he did it by Stealth, pretending it was done beyond Sea. In my Confeſſion Twenty years ago, I gave the Reaſons, Preface, pag. 35. [I find that there are ſome Incautelous Paſſages in my Aphoriſms, not fitted to their Reading, that come to ſuck Poyſon, and ſeek for a Word to be Matter of Accuſation and Food for their Cenſuring opinionative Zeal.— And pag. 42. If any Brother underſtand not any word in p. 11my Aphoriſms which is here Interpreted, or miſtake my ſenſe about the Matter of that Book, which is here more fully opened; I muſt expect, that they interpret that by this. And if any one have ſo little to do as to write againſt that Book (which is not unlikely) if he take the Senſe contrary to what I have here and elſe-where ſince then Publiſhed, I ſhall but neglect him as a Contentious, Vain Wrangler, if not a Calumniator]. I Wrote this ſharply, to forwarn the Contentious, not knowing then that above Twenty years after, Dr. Tully would be the Man. Pag. 43. [If any will needs take any thing in this Book to be rather a Retractation, than an Explication, of what I have before ſaid, though I ſhould beſt know my own Meaning; yet do ſuch commend me, while they ſeem to blame me: I never look to write that which ſhall have no need of Correction.— And Cap. 1. pag. 2. [Leſt I ſhould prove a further Offence to my Brethren, and a Wrong to the Church, I deſired thoſe who thought it worth their Labour, to vouchſafe me their Animadverſions, which I have ſpent much of theſe Three laſt years in conſidering, that I might Correct what-ever was diſcovered to be Erroneous, and give them an account of my Reaſons of the reſt. I have not only ſince SƲPPRESSED that Book which did offend them, but alſo laid by thoſe Papers of Ʋniverſal Redemption, which I had written, leſt I ſhould be further offenſive, &c.] In my Apologie elſe-where I have ſuch-like Paſſages, ever telling Men that [It was the firſt Book I wrote in my Ʋnexperienced Youth; that I take the Doctrines of it to be ſound and needful, ſave that in divers places they are unskilfully and incautelouſly worded. (As the Word [Covenant] is oft put for [Law,] &c.) And that p. 12I wrote my Confeſſion, and Diſputes of Juſtification, as an Expoſition of it; and that I Retracted, or Suſpended, or Revoked, not the Doctrine, but the Book, till I had Corrected it, and did diſown it as too unmeet an Expreſſion of my Mind, which I had more fully expreſt in other Books.

And is not this plain Engliſh? Doth this warrant a Wiſe and Righteous Man, to intimate that I accuſe him of writing againſt that Doctrine of Juſtification which I Recanted, and to call for the What, and Where, and When? Yea, and tell me, that I [refer you to a ſmall Book] when inſtead of referring you to it, I only blame you for referring to that alone, when I had ſaid as before?

When many Divines have publiſhed the firſt Edition of their Works imperfectly, and greatly corrected and enlarged them in a Second (as Beza his Annotations, Polanus his Syntagma, and many ſuch) all Men take it for an Injury for a Neighbour twenty years after, to ſelect the firſt Edition to confute as the Author's Judgment: Much more might I, when I publiſhed to the World, that I Suſpended the whole Book, and have theſe twenty four years hindred the Printing of it; profeſſing that I have in many larger Books, more intelligibly and fully opened the ſame things.

Yea, you fear not pag. 23. to ſay, That I tell you of about 60 Books of Retractations, in part at leaſt which I have Written]; when never ſuch a word fell from me. If I ſay, That one that hath publiſhed his Suſpenſion of a ſmall Book written in Youth, not for the Doctrine of it, but ſome unfit Expreſſions, and hath ſince in al-moſt thirty Years time, written about ſixty Books, in many or p. 13moſt of which is ſomewhat of the ſame Subject, and in ſome of them he fullier openeth his Mind; ſhould be dealt with by an Adverſary, according to ſome of his later and larger Explications, and not according to the Mode and Wording of that one Suſpended Book alone: Shall ſuch a Man as you ſay, that I [tel you of about ſixty Books of Retractations]? Or will it not abate Mens reverence of your diſputing Accurateneſs, to find you ſo untruſty in the Recitation of a Man's words? The truth is, it is this great Defect of Heed and Accurateneſs, by haſty Temerity, which alſo ſpoileth your Diſputations.

But, pag. 7. the Aphoriſms muſt be, [The moſt Schollar-like, and Elaborate (though Erroneous) Book in Controverſie, you ever Compoſed]. Anſw. 1. Your Memory is faulty: Why ſay you in the next, that I appeal to my Diſputation of Juſtification and ſome others; but you cannot Trudg up and down, to every place I would ſend you, your Legs are too weak? Either you had read all the ſixty Books which you mention (the Controverſal at leaſt) or not: If not, How can you tell that the Aphoriſms is the moſt Elaborate? If yea, Why do you excuſe your Trudging, and why would you ſelect a Suſpended Book, and touch none that were Written at large on the ſame Subject? 2. By this (I ſu… poſe to make your Nibble to ſeem a Triumph) you tell your Reader again, how to value your Judgment. Is it like that any Dunce that is diligent, ſhould Write no more Schollar-like at Sixty years of Age than at Thirty? And do you think you know better what of mine is Elaborate, than I do? Sure that Word might have been ſpared; p. 14When I know that one printed Leaf of Paper hath coſt me more Labour than all that Book, and perhaps one Scheme of the Diſtinctions of Juſtification, which you deride. If indeed you are a competent Judg of your own Writings, Experience aſſureth me, that you are not ſo of mine. And pag. 25. you ſay, You deſire not to be preferred before your Betters, leaſt of all when you are ſingular; as here I think you are.

§. III. Pag. 9. You are offended for being put in the Cub, with divers mean and contemptible Malefactors.]

Anſw. O for Juſtice! 1. Was not Bellarmin, or ſome of the Papiſts and the Socinians, as great Malefactors, with whom (as you phraſe it) you put me in the Cub? 2. Are they Malefactors ſo far as they agree with you in Doctrine, and are you Innocent? What is the Difference between your Treatiſe, in the part that toucheth me, and that of Mr. Eyres, Mr. Crandon, and ſome others ſuch? Dr. Owen, and Dr. Kendale, indeed differed from you; the latter ſeeking (by Biſhop Ʋſher) an amicable Cloſure, and the former (if I underſtand his Book on the Hebrews) leſs differing from me in Doctrine, than once he either did, or ſeemed to do. (And if any of us all grow no Wiſer in thirty years Study, we may be aſhamed). But to give you your due Honour, I will name you with your Equals, as far as I can judg, viz. Maccovius, Cluto, Coccejus, and Cloppenburgius, (I mean but in the Point in Queſtion; it's no Diſhonour to you to give ſome of them Precedencie in other things). It may be alſo Spanhemius, was near you. But p. 15(if I may preſume to liken my Betters) no Men ſeem to me to have been ſo like you, as Guilielmus Rivet, (not Andrew), Mr. George Walker, and Mr. Roborough. (I hope this Company is no Diſhonour to you). And very unlike you are Le Blank, Camero, Davenant, Dr. Hammond, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Anthony Wotton, and in Complexion Scotus and Ockam, and ſuch as they: If yet I have not Choſen you pleaſing Company, I pray you choo ſe ſo your ſelf.

But you ſay on, [Had you not (in your Memory many Scores of greateſt Eminence and Repute in the Chriſtian World, of the ſame Judgment with me— Know you not, I ſpeak the ſame thing with all the Reformed Churches, &c.— For ſhame let it be the Church of England, with all the reſt of the Reformed, &c.]

Anſw. 1. I know not what you hold, even when I read what you write: (I muſt hope as well as I can, that you know your ſelf): How then ſhould I know who are of the ſame Judgment with you?

2. Yet I am very confident, that all they whom you mention, are of the ſame in ſome thing or other; and in particular, that we are Juſtified by Faith, and not by the Works of the Law, or any Works in the ſence denied by St. Paul, &c.

3. Do not I, with as great Confidence as you, lay Claim to the ſame Company and Concord? And if one of us be miſtaken, muſt your bare Word determine which it is? Which of us hath brought the fuller Proofs? I ſubſcribe to the Doctrine of the Church of England, as well as you; and my Condition theſe thirteen or fourteen years, giveth p. 16as much Evidence, that I am loth to ſubſcribe to what I believe not, as yours doth of you. And you that know which of my Books is the moſt Elaborate, ſure know, that in that Book which I Wrote to explain thoſe Aphoriſms (called my Confeſſion) I cite the Words of above an Hundred Proteſtant Witneſſes, that give as much to Works as I do: And that of this Hundred, one is the Auguſtine Confeſſion, one the Weſtminſter Synod, one the Synod of Dort, one the Church of England, each one of which being Collectives, contain many. (And here I tell you of more). And have you brought more Witneſſes? Or any to the contrary? Did you Confute, or once take Notice of any of theſe?

4. Do you not here before you are aware, let your Reader know that it was, and ſtill is, in the Dark, that you Alarm the World about our dangerous Differences, and run to your Arms undreſt, before your Eyes are open? Qui conveniunt in aliquo tertio, &c. They that agree with the Church of England, in the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith, do ſo far agree between themſelves: But Dr. Tullie, and R.B. do agree with the Church of England, in the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith. Ergo.— The Article referreth to the Homilies, where it is more fully Explained.

5. May not I then retort your Argument, and bid you [For ſhame let it be no longer Bellarnine, and R.B. but the Church of England, and all the Reformed, and R.B.]? Diſprove the Witneſſes twenty years ago, produced by me in this very Cauſe; or elſe ſpeak out, and ſay, [The Church of England, and the reſt of the Reformed, hold Juſtification by p. 17Works, juſt as Bellarmine and the Papiſts do] which is it which you would faſten on me, who agree with them (as if you had never there read my Anſwer to Mr. Crandon, objecting the ſame thing).

§. IV. Your Cenſure, pag. 10, 11. of my Windings, Clouds of Novel Diſtinctions, Preambles, Limitations, &c. is juſt ſuch as your Treatiſe did bid me expect: Till you become guilty of the ſame Crime, and fall out with Confuſion, and take not equivocal ambiguous Words unexplained, inſtead of Univocals, in the ſtating of your Queſtions, I ſhall never the more believe that Hannibal is at the Gates, or the City on Fire, for your Allarms.

§. V. Pag. 11. Where you tell me, that [You have no Profit by my Preface: I ſhall not deny it, nor wonder at it; you are the fitteſt Judge: Where you ſay, that [I have no Credit,] You do but tell the World at what Rates you write. Honor eſt in honorante. And have all my Readers already told you their Judgment? Alas! How few? In all London, not a Man hath yet given me Notice of his Diſlike, or Diſſent. And ſure your own Pen is a good Confuter of you. It is ſome Credit, that ſuch a Man as you, is forced to profeſs a full Conſent to the Doctrine, though with paſſionate Indignation.

You tell me of [Nothing to the Queſtion]. But will you not be angry if I ſhould but tell you, how little you did to ſtate any Queſtion, and in Reaſon muſt be ſuppoſed, when you aſſaulted my p. 18Doctrine, to take it as I ſtated it; which I have fully ſhewed you?

You tell me, that You Charged me only with new Original Sin, underived from Adam, unknown, unheard of before, in the Chriſtian World.

Anſw. De re, is not our Guilt of nearer Parent's Sins ſuch which you and all that you know (now at laſt) confeſs? De nomine, 1. Tell the World if you can, when I called it [New Original Sin, or underived from Adam, or unknown, or unheard of]. There are more ways than one of Derivation from Adam. It is not derived from him by ſuch Imputation as his firſt Sin; but it is derived from him as a partial Cauſa Cauſae, by many Gradations. All Sin is ſome-way from him. Either you mean that I ſaid, that it was not Derived from Adam, or you gather it by ſome Conſequence from what I ſaid. If the Firſt, ſhew the Words, and the Shame ſhall be mine. If not, you know the old Law, that to falſe Accuſers, it muſt be done as they would have done to the Accuſed. But if it be your Conſequence, prove it, and tell the World, what are the Premiſes that infer it.

§. VI. Pag. 12. You friendly help me to profit by my ſelf, however you profeſs that you profit not by me! What I have ſaid to you againſt [Haſty Judging], I have firſt ſaid to my ſelf, and the more you warn me of it, the more friendly you are: If it be not againſt ſuch as you but my ſelf, it is againſt my ſelf that I have a Treatiſe on that Subject; but I begin to think my ſelf in this more Seeing than you; for I ſee it both in my ſelf and you, and you ſeem to ſee it in me, and not in p. 19your ſelf. But with all Men, I find, that to ſee the Spots in our own Face immediately is hard, and to love the Glaſs which ſheweth them, is not eaſie; eſpecially to ſome Men that neither are low, nor can endure to be ſo, till there is no Remedy.

But, Sir, how eaſie a Way of Diſputing have you happily light on, Who inſtead of Examining the hundred Witneſſes which I brought, and my elſe-where oft proving the Doctrine oppoſed by me to be Novel, and Singular, do in few words talk of your holding the Doctrine delivered to the Saints, and of the many Worthies that concur with you, and of my pelting at their Heads, and draging them by the Hoary-heads, as a Spectacle and Byword to all, (by proving their conſent by expreſs Citations) what Armies, and of what Strength appear againſt me, whoſe Names I defie and wound, through yours?

Anſw. And is not he a weak Man that cannot talk thus upon almoſt any Subject? But who be theſe Men, and what be their Names? Or rather, firſt, rub your Eyes, and tell us what is the Controverſie? Tully ſometimes talkt at this rate in his Orations, but verily much better in his Philoſophy.

And you ſee no cauſe to repent, but you bleſs God that you can again and again call to all Youth, that as they love the Knowledg of Truth, they take me not for an Oracle in my bold dividing Singularities].

Anſw. That the Name of Truth is thus abuſed, is no News; I would the Name of God were not: And I am ſorry, that you ſee no Cauſe to repent. I am obliged to love you the better, for being p. 20againſt dividing Singularities in the general Notion; I hope if you knew it, you would not be for them, as in ſingular Exiſtents. But ſure, none at Oxford are in danger of taking me for an Oracle? This is another needleſs Work. So Spanhemius took that for a Singularity, which Dallaeus in a large Catalogue, hath proved the Common Judgment of the Church, till Contention of late cauſed ſome Diſſenters.

Will you ceaſe theſe empty general Oſtentations, and chooſe out any one Point of real▪ Difference between you and me about Juſtification, and come to a fair Trial, on whoſe ſide the Churches of Chriſt have been for 1500 years after Chriſt; yea, bring me but any two or one conſiderable Perſon, that was for a thouſand years for your Cauſe againſt mine, and I will ſay, that you have done more to confute me by far, than yet you have done; and if two only be againſt me, I will pardon you for calling me Singular.

§. VII. Pag. 13, 14, 15. You again do keep up the Dividing Fear, are offended that I perſwade you, that by Melancholy Phantaſms you ſet not the Churches together by the Ears, and make People believe that they differ, where they do not: And you ask, Who began the Fray?

Anſw. 1. Do you mean that I began with you? You do not ſure: But is it that I began with the Churches, and you were neceſſitated to defend them? Yes, if Gallus, Ambſdorfius, Schluſſelburgius, and Dr. Criſpe, and his Followers, be the Church? But, Sir, I provoke you to try it by the juſt Teſtimony of Antiquity, who began to differ from the Churches. p. 21In this Treatiſe I have given you ſome Account, and Voſſius hath given you more. which you can never anſwer: But if my Doctrine put you upon this Neceſſity, what hindred you from perceiving it theſe twenty years and more, till now? O Sir, had you no other work to do, but to Vindicate the Church and Truth? I doubt you had.

§. VIII. But pag. 15. You are again incredulous, that [All the Difference betwixt you and me, or others of the ſame Judgment in the Point of Juſtification, is meerly Verbal; and that in the Main we are agreed]. And again you complain of your weak Legs.

Anſw. 1. I do agree with very many againſt, their wills in Judgment (becauſe the Judgment may be conſtrained), but with none in Affection, as on their part. Did I ever ſay, that I differed not from you? I tell you, I know not what your Judgment is, nor know I who is of your Mind? But I have not barely ſaid, but oft proved, that (though not the Antinomians) the Proteſtants are moſtly here agreed in the Main. If you could not have time to read my larger Proof, that ſhort Epiſtle to Mr. Allen's Book of the Covenant, in which I proved it, might have ſtopt your Mouth from calling for more Proof, till you had better confuted what was given.

But you ſay, [Are perfect Contradictions no more than a difference in Words? Faith alone, and not Faith alone? Faith with and without Works? Excuſe our Dulneſs here].

Anſw. 1. Truly, Sir, it is a tedious thing, when a Man hath over and over Anſwered ſuch p. 22Objections; yea, when the full Anſwers have been twenty years in Print, to be put ſtill to ſay over all again, to every Man that will come in and ſay, that his Legs are too weak to go ſee what was anſwered before: How many ſcore times then, or hundreds, may I be called to repeat.

2. If I muſt pardon your Dulneſs, you muſt pardon my Chriſtianity (or chuſe) who believe that there is no ſuch [perfect Contradictions] between Chriſt's, [By thy Words thou ſhalt be Juſtified] and Paul's, [Juſtified by Faith, without the Works of the Law] or [not of Works]; and James's [We are juſtified by Works, and not by Faith only]. Muſt we needs proclaim War here, or cry▪ out, Hereſie, or Popery? Are not all theſe Reconcileable? Yea, and Pauls too, Rom. 2. The Doers of the Law ſhall be juſtified.

3. But did I ever deny that it is [by Faith alone and without Works]? Where, and when? But may it not be, by Faith alone in one ſenſe, and not by Faith alone in another ſenſe?

4. But even where you are ſpeaking of it, you cannot be drawn to diſtinguiſh of Verbal and Real Differences. Is it here the Words, or Senſe, which you accuſe? The Words you dare not deny to be Gods own in Scripture, ſpoken by Chriſt, Paul, and James. My Senſe I have opened to you at large, and you take no Notice of it; but as if you abhorred Explication and Diſtinction, ſpeak ſtill againſt the Scripture Words.

§. IX. Pag. 16. But you ſay, [Let any diſcerning Reader compare the 48 §. of this Preface with the Words in pag. 5. of your Appeal to the Light, p. 23and 'tis likely he will concur with me, in that Melancholy Phantaſm, or Fear: For 'tis worth the noting, how in that dark Appeal where you diſtinguiſh of Popiſh Points, i. e. ſome-where the Difference is reconcileable, others in effect but in words; we have no Direction upon which Rank we muſt beſtow Juſtification, nothing of it at all from you, Name or Thing: But why, next to the All-ſeeing God, you ſhould know beſt your ſelf].

Anſw. Alas, Sir, that God ſhould be in ſuch a manner mentioned! I anſwered this ſame Caſe at large in my Confeſſion, Apologie, Diſpute of Juſtification, &c. Twenty years ago, or near; I have at large Opened it in a Folio (Cathol. Theol.) which you ſaw, yea, in the very part which you take Notice of; and now you publiſh it [worth the Noting, that I did not alſo in one ſheet of Paper, Printed the other day againſt a Calumnie of ſome Sectarian Hearers, who gave me no Occaſion for ſuch a work. Had it not been a Vanity of me, Should I in that ſheet again have repeated, how I and the Papiſts differ about Juſtification? Were you bound to have read it in that ſheet, any more▪ than in many former Volumns? It's no matter for me; But I ſeriouſly beſeech you, be hereafter more ſober and juſt, than to deal with your Brethren, the Church and Truth, in ſuch a manner as this! But by this Talk I ſuſpect, that you will accuſe me more for opening no more of the Difference in this Book. But, 1. It is enough for to open my own Meaning, and I am not obliged to open other Mens: And my own I have opened by ſo many Repetitions, in ſo many Books, as nothing but ſuch Mens Importunity and obſtructed Minds, could have Excuſed. p. 242. The Papiſts minds ſure, may be better known by their own Writings, than by mine: The Council of Trent, telleth it you: What need I recite it? 3. I tell you again, as I did in my Confeſſion, that I had rather all the Papiſts in the World agreed with us, than diſagreed: I like a Doctrine the better, and not the worſe, becauſe all the Chriſtian World conſenteth to it. I am not ambitious to have a Religion to my ſelf, which a Papiſt doth not own. Where they differ, I am ſorry for it: And it pleaſeth me better, to find in any Point that we are agreed, than that we differ. Neither you, nor any ſuch as you, by crying [O Popiſh! Antichriſtian!] ſhall tempt me to do by the Papiſts, as the Dominicans, and Janſeniſts, and ſome Oratorians, do by the Calviniſts: I will not with Alvarez, Arnoldus, Gibieuf, &c. make the World believe, that my Adverſaries are much further from me than they are, for fear of being cenſured by Faction, to be one of them. If I would have been of a Church-Faction, and ſold my Soul to pleaſe a Party, I would have begun before now, and taken a bigger Price for it, than you can offer me if you would.

Pag, 17. You ſay, [Pile one Diſtinction or Evaſion on another, as long as you pleaſe; as many ſeveral Faiths, and Works, and Juſtifications, as you can name, all this will never make two Poles meet].

Anſw. And do you cry out for War in the Darkneſs of Confuſion, as long as you will, you ſhall never tempt me by it to renounce my Baptiſm, and Liſt my ſelf under the grand Enemy of Love and Concord, nor to Preach up Hatred and Diviſion p. 25for nothing, as in the Name of Chriſt. If you will handle ſuch Controverſies, without Diſtinguiſhing of Faiths, Works, and Juſtifications, I will never perſwade any Friend of mine to be your Pupil, or Diſciple. Then Simon Magus's faith, and the Devils faith, and Peters faith muſt all paſs for the ſame, and juſtifie accordingly. Then indeed, Believing in God the Father, and the Holy Ghoſt, yea, and Chriſt, as our Teacher, King and Judg, &c. muſt paſs for the Works by which no Man is Juſtified! If Diſtinction be unſound, detect the Error of it: If not, it is no Honour to a diſputing Doctor to reproach it.

§. X. But pag. 17. you ſet upon your great unde…eiving Work, to ſhew the evil of ill uſing Words: [Words (you ſay) as they are enfranchiſed into Language, are but the Agents and Factors of things, for which they continually negotiate with our Minds, conveying Errands on all occaſions, &c. (Let them mark, that charge the vanity and bombaſt of Metaphors on others, one word [Signa] ſhould have ſerved our turn inſtead of all this). [Whence it follows, that their uſe and ſignification is Ʋnalterable, but by the ſtamp of the like publick uſage and impoſition from whence at firſt they received their being, &c.]

Anſw. O Juniors, Will not ſuch deceiving Words ſave you from my Deceits? But, 1. Is there a Law, and unalterable Law for the ſenſe of Words? Indeed, the Words of the ſacred Text muſt have no new Senſe put upon them. 2. Are you ſure that it was Publick uſage, and Impoſition from whence they firſt received their being? How ſhall we know p. 26that they grew not into publick uſe from one Mans firſt Invention, except thoſe that (not Publick uſe, but) God Himſelf made? 3. Are you ſure that all or moſt Words now, Latine or Engliſh, have the ſame, and only the ſame uſe or ſenſe, as was put upon them at the firſt? Is the change of the ſenſe of Words a ſtrange thing to us? 4. But that which concerneth our Caſe moſt, is, Whether there be many Words either of Hebrew and Greek in the Scripture, or of Latine, Engliſh, or any common Language, which have not many Significations? Your Reputation forbids you to deny it. And ſhould not thoſe many Significations be diſtinguiſhed as there is Cauſe? Are not Faith, Works, Juſt, Juſtice, Juſtification, words of divers ſenſes in the Scripture? and do not common Writers and Speakers uſe them yet more variouſly▪ And ſhall a Diſputer take on him, that the uſe or ſignification of each is but one, or two, or is ſo fixed that there needeth no diſtinction? 5. Is the change that is made in all Languages in the World, made by the ſame publick uſage and impoſition, from which at firſt they received their being? 6. If (as you ſay) the ſame thing can be repreſented by different words, only when they are Synonymous, ſhould we not avoid ſeeming to repreſent the ſame by Equivocals, which unexplained are unfit for it?

Pag. 20. You tell me what ſad work you are doing; and no wonder, Sin and Paſſions are ſelf-troubling things: And it's well if it be ſad to your ſelf alone, and not to ſuch as you tempt into Miſtakes, Hatred, and Diviſion. It ſhould be ſad to every Chriſtian, to ſee and hear thoſe whom they p. 27are bound to Love, repreſented as odious: And you are ſtill, pag. 19. feigning, that [Every eye may ſee Men dealing Blows and Deaths about, and therefore we are not wiſe if we think them agreed.

But doubtleſs, many that ſeem killed by ſuch Blows as ſome of yours, are ſtill alive? And many a one is in Heaven, that by Divines pretending to be Orthodox, were damned on Earth! And many Men are more agreed than they were aware of. I have known a Knaviſh Fellow ſet two Perſons of quality on Fighting, before they ſpake a word to one another, by telling them ſecretly and falſly what one ſaid againſt the other. Many differ, even to perſecuting and bloodſhed, by Will and Paſſion and Practice, upon a falſly ſuppoſed great-difference in Judgment. I will not ſo ſuddenly repeat what Proof I have given of ſome of this in the place you noted, Cath. Theol. Confer. 11, 12, & 13. There is more skill required to narrow differences, than to widen them; and to reconcile, than to divide; as there is to quench a Fire, than to kindle it; to build, than to pull down; to heal, than to wound.

I preſume therefore to repeat aloud my contrary Cautions to your Juniors.

Young-Men, after long ſad Experience of the ſinful and miſerable Contentions of the Clergie, and conſequently of the Chriſtian World, that you may eſcape the Guilt, I beſeech you, whoever contradicteth it, conſider and believe theſe following Notices: 1. That all Words are but arbitrary Signs, and are changed as Men pleaſe; and through the Penury of them, and Mans imperfection in the Art of Speaking, p. 28there are very few at all, that have not various Significations.

2. That this Speaking-Art requireth ſo much time and ſtudy, and all Men are ſo defective in it, and the variety of Mens skill in it is ſo very great, that no Men in the World do perfectly agree in their interpretation and uſe of Words. The doleful plague of the Confuſion of Tongues, doth ſtill hinder our full Communication, and maketh it hard for us to underſtand Words our ſelves, or to be underſtood by others; for Words muſt have a three-fold aptitude of Signification. 1. To ſignifie the Matter, 2. And the Speakers conceptions of it. 3. And this as adapted to the hearers Mind, to make a true Impreſſion there.

3. That God in Mercy hath not made Words ſo neceſſary as Things, nor neceſſary but for the ſake of the Things: If God, Chriſt, Grace, and Heaven, be known, believed, and duly accepted, you ſhall be ſaved by what Words ſoever it be brought to paſs.

4. Therefore Real Fundamentals, or Neceſſaries to Salvation, are more eaſily defined than Verbal ones: For more or fewer Words, theſe or other Words are needful to help ſome Perſons, to Faith, and Love, and Holineſs, as their Capacities are different.

5. But as he that truly believeth in, and giveth up himſelf to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, according to the ſenſe of the Baptiſmal Covenant, is a true Chriſtian, to be loved, and ſhall be ſaved; ſo he that underſtandeth ſuch Words, as help him to that true Faith and Conſent, doth know ſo much of the Verbal part, as is of neceſſity p. 29to his Chriſtianity and Salvation.

6. And he that is ſuch, holdeth no Hereſie or Error inconſiſtent with it: If he truly love God, it's a contradiction to ſay, that he holdeth an Error inconſiſtent with the Love of God.

7. Therefore ſee that you Love all ſuch as Chriſtians, till ſome proved or notorious inconſiſtents nullifying his Profeſſion diſoblige you.

8. Take your ſelves to be neither of Roman, or any other Church as Ʋniverſal, which is leſs than the Ʋniverſality of all Chriſtians headed by Chriſt alone.

9. Make this Love of all Chriſtians the ſecond part of your Religion, and the Love of God, of Chriſt, of Holineſs and Heaven, the firſt; and live thus in the ſerious practice of your Covenant, even of Simple Chriſtianity: For it's this that will be your Peace, in Life and at Death.

10. And if Men of various degrees of Learning (or Speaking-skill) and of various degrees of Holineſs, Humility, and Love, ſhall quarrel about Words, and forms of Speech, and ſhall hereticate, and revile, and damn each other, while the Eſſentials are held faſt and practiſed, diſcern Right from Wrong as well as you can; but take heed that none of them make Words a ſnare, to draw you injuriouſly to think hatefully of your Brother, or to divide the Churches, or Servants of Chriſt: And ſuſpect ſuch a Snare becauſe of the great ambiguity of Words, and imperfection of Mans Skill and Honeſty in all Matters of debate: And never diſpute ſeriouſly, without firſt agreeing of the Senſe of every doubtful term with him that you Diſpute with].

p. 30Dr. Tully's Allarm, and other Mens militant Courſe, perſwaded me as a Preſervative, to commend this Counſel to you.

§. XI. Pag. 19. You next very juſtly commend Method, ordering, and expreſſing our Conceptions, of which (you ſay) I ſeem to make little account in Compariſon].

Anſw. 1. Had you ſaid, that I had been unhappy in my Endeavours, your Authority might have gone for Proof with many: But you could ſcarce have ſpoken a more incredible word of me, than that I ſeem to make little account of Method, I look for no ſharper Cenſure from the Theological Tribe, than that I Over-do in my Endeavours after Method. You ſhall not tempt me here unſeaſonably, to anticipate what Evidence I have to produce for my acquittance from this Accuſation.

2. But yet I will ſtill ſay, that it is not ſo neceſſary either to Salvation, or to the Churches Peace, that we all agree in Methods and Expreſſions, as that we agree in the hearty reception of Chriſt, and obedience to His Commands? So much Method all muſt know, as to know the Beginning and the End, from the Effects and Means, God from the Creature, and as our true conſent to the Baptiſmal Covenant doth require; and I will thankfully uſe all the help which you give me to go further: But I never yet ſaw that Scheme of Theologie, or of any of its Heads, which was any whit large, (and I have ſeen many) which was ſo exact in Order, as that it was dangerous in any thing to forſake it. But I cannot think meet to talk much of Method, with a Man that talketh as you p. 31do of Diſtinguiſhing, and handleth the Doctrine of Juſtification no more Methodically than you do.

§. XII. But pag. 19. you inſtance in the difference between Proteſtants and Papiſts, about the Neceſſity of Good works, which is wide in reſpect of the placing or ranking of them, viz. The one ſtretching it to the firſt Juſtification, the other not, but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holineſs, where it ought to keep].

Anſw. Wonderful! Have you that have ſo loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Juſtification, brought your own, and as you ſay, the Proteſtants difference to this? Will none of your Readers ſee now, who cometh nearer them, you or I?

1. Is this diſtinction our proof of your accurateneſs in Method, and Order, and Expreſſion? What meaneth a diſtinction between [Firſt-Juſtification,] and [Inherent Holineſs]? Do you difference them Quoad ordinem, as Firſt and Second? But here is no Second mentioned: Is it in the nature of the things [Juſtification, and Inherent Holineſs]? What ſignifieth the [Firſt] then? But Sir, how many Readers do you expect who know not, 1. That it is not to the Firſt Juſtification at all, but to that which they call the Second or Increaſe, that the Church of Rome aſſerteth the neceſſity or uſe of Mans meritorious Works? See what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Confer. 13. pag. 267. &c. ſaving that ſome of them are for ſuch Preparatives as ſome call Merit of Congruity, and as our Engliſh p. 32Divines do conſtantly preach for, and the Synod of Dort at large aſſert; though they diſown the name of Merit, as many of the Papiſts do. They ordinarily ſay with Auſtine, Bona opera ſequuntur Juſtificatum, non praecedunt Juſtificandum.

2. But, I hope, the word [Firſt] here overſlipt your your Pen, inſtead of [Second]: But ſuppoſe it did ſo: What's the difference between the Papiſts firſt or ſecond Juſtification, and the Proteſtants Inherent Holineſs? None that ever I heard or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papiſts take Juſtification for Inherent Holineſs? And is this the great difference between Papiſts and Proteſtants, which I am ſo loudly accuſed for not acknowledging? viz. The Papiſts place Good-Works before Juſtification, that is, Inherent Holineſs; and the Proteſtants more rightly place them before Inherent Holineſs? Are you ſerious, or do you prevaricate?

The Papiſts and Proteſtants hold, that there are ſome Duties and common Grace, uſually preparatory to Converſion (or Sanctification); which ſome Papiſts (de nomine) call Merit of Congruity, and ſome will not. The Papiſts and Proteſtants ſay, that Faith is in order of nature, at leaſt, before that Habitual Love, which is called Holineſs, and before the Works thereof. The Papiſts and Proteſtants ſay, that Works of Love and Obedience, follow our Firſt Sanctification, and make up but the Second part of it, which conſiſteth in the Works of Holineſs. If you ſpeak not of Works in the ſame ſenſe in each part of your Aſſignation, the Equivocation would be too groſs, viz. If you ſhould mean [Papiſts rank the neceſſity of preparatory Common Works, or the Internal act of Faith, or Love, ſtretching it p. 33to the Firſt Juſtification; and Proteſtants rank other Works, viz. The fruits of Faith and Love, with Inherent Holineſs. All agree, 1. That Common Works go before Sanctification. 2. That Internal Love, and other Grace, do conſtitute Sanctification in the Firſt part of it. 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace, are the effects of the Firſt Part, and the conſtitutive Cauſes of the Second Part of Sanctification; as the word extendeth alſo to Holineſs of Life: And whilſt Papiſts take Juſt…fication for Sanctification, in all this there is De re no difference. (But your accurate Explications by ſuch terms, as [Stretching, Confirming, Province, &c.] are fitter for Tully, than for Ariſtotle).

And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of, that we muſt in this take heed of joyning with the Papiſts? Do you mean [Rank Good-Works with Inherent Holineſs, and not with the Firſt Sanctification, and you then do widely differ from the Papiſts]? Will not your Reader ſay, 1. What doth Inherent Holineſs differ from the Firſt Sanctification? 2. Do you not invite me thus herein to be a Papiſt, when they rank them no where but, as you ſay, the Proteſtants do? 3. Do not you here proclaim, that Papiſts and Proteſtants differ not about the neceſſity of Good-works to Juſtification? But yet I that would make no Differences wider than they are, can find ſome greater than you have mentioned.

Truly Sir, I am grieved and aſhamed, to foreſee how Learned Papiſts will make merry with ſuch Paſſages; and ſay, See here how we differ from the Proteſtants! See what it is for, that the Proteſtant p. 34Doctors ſeparate from the Church of Rome! viz. Becauſe we make Good-Works neceſſary to the Firſt Juſtification, which unleſs equivocally ſpoken, is falſe; and becauſe the Proteſtants rank them with Inherent Holineſs, as we do]. What greater advantage will they deſire againſt us, than to chooſe us ſuch Advocates? And to ſhew the World that even where their keeneſt Adverſaries condemn them, and draw Men from them, they do but juſtifie them? Who knoweth what a Temptation they may make of ſuch paſſages to draw any to Popery? It is my aſſurance, that ſuch Over-doing, is Ʋndoing; and that miſtaken Accuſations of the Papiſts greatly advantage them againſt us, which maketh me the more againſt ſuch Dealing; beſides the ſinfulneſs, of pretending that any differences among Chriſtians, are greater than indeed they are.

But may not I think that you take the word [Juſtification] here in the Proteſtant Senſe, and not in the Papiſts, when you ſay that they rank Good-work's-neceſſity as ſtretcht to the Firſt Juſtification? No ſure: For, 1. Proteſtants uſe not to diſtinguiſh of a Firſt and Second Juſtification, which Papiſts do, but of Juſtification as Begun, Continued, and Conſummate. 2. If it were ſo, it were not true: For the Firſt Juſtification in the Proteſtant Senſe, is our firſt right to Impuni…y and Life Eternal, freely given to Believers, for the Merits of Chriſts perfect Righteouſneſs and Satisfaction. And Papiſts do not make Good-works (unleſs Equivocally ſo called) neceſſary to this; but as a Fruit to follow it.

p. 35As for Remiſſion of Sin, I have elſe-where proved, 1. That moſt commonly by that word the Papiſts mean nothing, but that which we call Mortification, or Putting away, or deſtroying the Sin it ſelf, as to the habit and ceaſing the Act. 2. That moſt of them are not reſolved, where the Remiſſion of the Puniſhment (which Proteſtants call Remiſſion of Sin, or Forgiveneſs) ſhall be placed: They differ not much as to its Time, but whether it be to be called any part of Juſtification: Some ſay, yea; ſome make it a diſtinct thing. Moſt deſcribe Juſtification by it ſelf, as conſiſting in our Remiſſion of, or Deliverance from Sin it ſelf, and the infuſed habit of Love or Righteouſneſs (all which we call Sanctification), and the forgiveneſs of the Penalty by it ſelf, not medling with the Queſtion, whether the latter be any part of the former; ſo much are they at a loſs in the Notional part among themſelves. But they (and we) diſtinguiſh of Forgiveneſs, as we diſtinguiſh of Penalties: We have a right to Impunity as to everlaſting Damnation, upon our firſt being Juſtified; but our Right becometh afterward more full, and many other Penalties are after to be remitted.

§. XIII. Pag. 20. In my 42. Direct. for the Cure of Church-diviſions, telling the Weak whom they muſt follow, I concluded, 1. That the neceſſary Articles of Faith muſt be made our own, and not taken meerly on the authority of any; and we muſt in all ſuch things of abſolute neceſſity keep company with the Ʋniverſal Church. 2. That in Matters of Peace and Concord the greater part muſt be our Guide. 3. That in Matters of humane Obedience, p. 36our Governours muſt be our Guides. And, 4. In Matters of high and difficult Speculation, the judgment of one Man of extraordinary Ʋnderſtanding and Clearneſs, is to be preferred before the Rulers and the major Vote. I inſtanced in Law, Philoſophy, Phyſick, Languages, &c. and in the Controverſies of the Object of Predeſtination, the nature of the Will's Liberty, Divine Concourſe, the determining way of Grace, of the definition of Juſtification, Faith, &c.] Here I was intreated before God and my Conſcience, to ſearch my ſelf, with what Deſign or Intent I wrote this, and to tell you, Who that One is, that we may know whom to prefer, and to whom, in the Doctrine of Juſtification, &c.

Anſw. How greatly do you diſhonour your ſelf, (and then you will impute it to me) by inſiſting on ſuch palpably abuſive Paſſages? Had you not been better, have ſilently paſt it by? 1. Doth not the World know, that Heathens and Chriſtians, Papiſts and Proteſtants, are Agreed on this general Rule? 2. And will you make any believe that Definition of Juſtification is none of theſe Works of Art, which depend on humane Skill? How then came you to be ſo much better at it than I? I find not that you aſcribe it to any ſpecial Revelation which you have. And if you ſhould aſcribe it to Piety, and ſay, Hoc non eſt Artis, ſed Pietatis opus: I would go to many a good Woman before you. Nor do you plead general Councils, nor the Authority of the Church. 3. And what ſober Scholar will you make believe, that by laying down this common Rule, I ſignifie ſome One ſingular Perſon, as an Individuum determinatum; p. 37whom therefore I muſt acquaint you with? Theſe things are below a Grave Divine.

Pag. 21. Where you called me to ſeriouſneſs or diligence in my ſearch, and I told you by what, and how many Writings, I have manifeſted my almoſt thirty years Diligence in this Controverſie, and that I am now grown paſt more ſerious and diligent Studies; that I might ſhew you what a trifling way it is, for a Man to wrangle with him that hath written ſo many things, to tell the World what his ſtudies of this Point have been, and never to touch them, but to call him a-new to ſerious diligence: You now expoſtulate with me, whether you accuſed me for want of diligence? I talk not of Accuſing, but I tell you, that I have done my beſt▪ and that it were a poor kind of dealing with your ſelf, if you had written againſt many, as you have done againſt me twenty five years ago, and very often, if inſtead of taking any notice of your Labours, I ſhould call you now to diligent Studies.

As for your Leſſon, pag. 22. that tumbling over many Books without meditation, may breed but Crudities, &c. It is very true, and the calamity of too many of the literate Tribe, who think that they have deſerved Credit and Reverence, when they ſay the words which others, whom they would be joyned with, have ſaid before them: Want of good Digeſtion is a common Diſeaſe of many that never complain of it, nor feel any preſent trouble by it.

Pag. 22, 23. You inſinuate that about Retractation, which I before detected: I told you when, and where, I Suſpended or Retracted the Book, p. 38and for what Reaſons, and you preſently feign a Retractation of the Doctrine, and of about ſixty Books of Retractions.

It's well that pag. 23. you had the juſtice not to juſtifie your [Nec dubito quin imputatam Chriſti juſtitiam incluſerit]; But to confeſs your Injuſtice, was too much: It is not your own Retractation that you are for, it ſeems.

§. XIV. Pag. 23, 24. You talk as if my ſuppoſing that both [Juſtice] and [Imputation], are capable of Definitions which are not the Things, were a Fallacy, becauſe [or] is a disjunctive; viz. When I ſay that the Definition of the one, or the other, is not the Thing. Do you grant it of them Disjunctively, and yet maintain the contrary of them Conjunct? Yes, you ſay, [Imputed Juſtice cannot differ from its true definition, unleſs, you will have it to differ really from it ſelf]. And, pag. 34. you ſay, [I am aſhamed you ſhould thus over and over expoſe your ſelf— as if ſuppoſing (Definitions) true, they were not the ſame Re, with the Definitum.— Good Sir, talk what you pleaſe in private, to ſuch as underſtand not what you ſay, and let them give you a grand foreign for your pains; but you may do well to uſe more Civility to the reaſon of a Scholar, though he hath not yet worn out his Freſhmans Gown].

Anſw. This is no light or jeſting Matter: The comfort of Souls dependeth on it. I ſee ſome Men expect that Reverence of their Scholarſhip ſhould give them great advantage: But if one argued thus with me for Tranſubſtantiation, I would not turn to him, to eſcape the Guilt of Incivility.

p. 39If the Definition, and the Definitum, as in queſtion now, be the ſame Thing, wo to all the Unlearned World, and wo to all Freſhmen, that yet have not learnt well to define; and wo to all Divines that differ in their Definitions, except thoſe that are in the right.

I know that a Word and a Mental Conception, are not Nothing: They may be called Things, but when we diſtinguiſh the Things from their Signs, Names, or Definitions, we take not the word [Things] ſo laxly, as to comprehend the ſaid Signs, Names, &c. When we ſay, that the Thing defined is neceſſary, but to be able to Define it, or actually to Define it, is not neceſſary (to Salvation) it is notorious that we take Definition (as Defining) actively, as it is Actus definientis; and Definire ſure is not the ſame with the Thing defined. I have heard before your Letter told me, that Definitum & definitio idem ſunt: But, I pray you, let us not quibble almoſt all the World under a ſentence of Damnation. As long ago as it is ſince I read ſuch words, I remember our Maſters told us, (I think Schibler in his Topicks for one) that when they are taken Pro terminis Logicis definitio & definitum non ſunt idem; but only when they are taken Pro rebus per eos terminos ſignificatis; and that there they differ in Modo ſignificandi essentiam, the definitum ſignifying the Eſſence confuſedly, and the Definition diſtinctly. If you will take the Res definita, for that which is ſtrictly nothing but Rei conceptus inadaequatus ſeu partialis, (that is, a Species) and that not as the thing is Exiſtent extra intellectum, but as the conception is an operation of the Mind, ſo I confeſs, that he that hath a true Conception of p. 40a Species as meerly denominated, or as defined, hath the ſame conception of it: And alſo the Thing named, and the Thing defined, is the ſame thing in it ſelf. Homo & Animal rationale, are the ſame; that is, it is the ſame eſſence, which is denominated Homo, and defined Animal rationale. And it is the ſame Conceptus mentis, which we have (if true) when we denominate, and when we define. But as Things are diſtinct from the knowledg and ſigns of Things, nothing is Res, that is not exiſtent; and nothing exiſteth but in Singulars▪ (or Individuals): And as nothing can be defined but a Species, ſo a Species, or any Ʋniverſal, is nothing but a Notion, or Ens rationis, ſave as it exiſteth in the ſaid Individuals. And in the Individuals, it is nothing but their being as partially, or inadequatly taken, or a Conceptus objectivus partialis, (whether it be of a thing really, or only intellectually partible, or any thing which our narrow Minds cannot conceive of, Ʋno & ſimplici conceptu activo). Now if you take the word [Definition] for the Species, as exiſtent in Individuals, it is really a part of the thing; that is, a Partial objective conceptus, or ſomewhat of the Thing as Intelligible: But this is to take [Definition] in Senſu paſſivo, for the Thing defined; which our Caſe diſtinguiſheth.

But Sir, I crave your leave, to diſtinguiſh Real objective Beings, from, 1. The Knowledg. 2. and the Names, and other Logical Organs, by which we know them, and expreſs our knowledg of them: God, Chriſt, Grace, Glory, Pardon, Juſtification, Sanctification, the Goſpel-Doctrine, Precept, Promiſes, Faith, Hope, Love, Obedience, Humility, Patience, &c. are the Res definitae p. 41in our Caſe, not as they are in eſſe cognito, or in the notion or idea of them, but in eſſe reali. To Define properly, is either, 1. Mentally to conceive of theſe things; 2. or Expreſſively, to ſignifie ſuch Conceptions, agreeably to the nature of the things known, or Expreſſively defined: Which is, if the Definition be perfect, under the notions of a Genus, and Differentia. The Definition as in Words, is but a Logical Organ, (as Names are alſo Notifying ſigns): Mental defining, is but the ſaid diſtinct knowledg of the thing defined, and is neither really the Thing it ſelf, nor uſually of neceſſity to the Thing: Which two, I ſhall prove diſtinctly as to the ſenſe of our Caſe.

1. The Definition of Juſtification, is either our Diſtinct knowledg, or Expreſſion of it: Juſtification is not our Diſtinct knowledg, or Expreſſion of it: Therefore the Definition of Juſtification, and Juſtification, are not the ſame.

Juſtification In ſenſu activo, is not an Act of God, and In ſenſu paſſivo, is the Relative ſtate of Man thereby effected: But the Definition of Juſtification is neither.

The Definition of Juſtification, is a work of Art; but Juſtification is a Work of Grace.

A wicked damnable Man, or a damned Devil, may define Juſtification, and ſo have the Definition of it; but not Juſtification it ſelf.

The Definition of Juſtification, Faith, Love, &c. is Quid Logicum; but Juſtification, Faith, Love, &c. are things Phyſical and Moral.

A Man is Juſtified (or hath Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed to him) in his ſleep, and when he thinketh p. 42not of it; but he hath not the Active definition of Juſtification in his ſleep, &c.

Other things be not the ſame Really with their D…finition, therefore neither is Juſtification, Faith, &c.

The Sun is not really the ſame thing with a Definition of the Sun; nor Light, Heat, Motion, &c. A Brute can ſee, taſte, feel, ſmell, that cannot define them. If you have a Biſhoprick, becauſe you define a Biſhoprick, or have a Lordſhip, a Kingdom, Health, &c. becauſe you can define them, your Axiome hath ſtood you in good ſtead.

The Definition is but Explicatio rei: But Rei explicatio non eſt ipſa res.

Individuals (ſay moſt) are not Definable: But nothing is truly Res, but Individuals. Ʋniverſals as they are in the Mind, are exiſtent Individual Acts, Cogitations, N…tions: As they are out of the Mind, they are nothing but Individuorum quid intelligibile.

The Definition of Learning, of a Doctor, &c. may be got in a day: If Learning and Doctorſhip may be ſo, what uſeleſs things are Univerſities and Books?

Perſwade a hungry Scholar, that he hath Meat and Drink; or the Ambitious, that he hath Preferment; or the Covetous, or Poor, that he hath Money, becauſe he hath in his Mind, or Mouth, the Definition of it; and quibble him into ſatisfaction by telling him, that Definitio & definitum ſunt idem re. We know and expreſs things narrowly by Names, and largely and diſtinctly by Definitions: The Definition here, is Explicatio nominis, (as Animal p. 43rationale, of the name Homo); and both Name and Definition, as they are Verba mentis vel oris, or Verborum ſignificatio, are ſurely divers from the things named and defined, known and expreſſed; unleſs by the Thing you mean only the Knowledg, or Notion of the Thing.

Therefore though Cui competit definitio eidem quo que competit definitum, & contra, & quod convenit definitioni convenit definito: Yet ſay not that Imputed Righteouſneſs in Re, is the ſame with the Definition, as it is the Definers act.

By this time you have helpt Men to underſtand by an Inſtance, why St. Paul ſo much warneth Chriſtians to take heed leſt any deceive them by vain Philoſophy, even by Sophiſtry, and abuſed, arbitrary Notions.

Remember, Sir, that our Caſe is of grand Importance; As it is ſtated in my Direct. 42. which you aſſaulted; it is [Whether if the Queſtion were of the Object of Predeſtination, of the nature of the Will's liberty, Divine concourſe, and determining way of Grace, of the Definition of Juſtification, Faith, &c. a few well ſtudied Divines are not here to be preferred before Authority, and the major Vote. Such are my words. I aſſert, 1. That the Defining of Juſtification, Faith, &c. is a work of Art. 2. And I have many and many times told the World (which you ſeem to ſtrike at) that Chriſtians do not differ ſo much in their Real conceptions of the Matter, as they do in their Definitions. 1. Becauſe Definitions are made up of Ambiguous words, whoſe Explication they are not agreed in; and almoſt all Words are ambiguous till explained; and ambiguous Words are not fit to define, or p. 44be defined, till explained. And, 2. Becauſe both ſelecting fit terms, and explaining them, and ordering them, are works of Art, in which Men are unequal; and there is as great variety of Intellectual Conceptions, as of Faces. 3. And I have often ſaid, That a Knowledg intuitive, or a Simple apprehenſion of a thing as Senſate, or an Internal experience, or Reflect act, and a general notion of ſome things, may prove the truth of Grace, and ſave Souls, and make us capable of Chriſtian Love and Communion, as being true ſaving Knowledg. 4. And conſequently I have often ſaid, that many a thouſand Chriſtians have Faith, Hope, Deſire, Love, Humility, Obedience, Juſtication, Adoption, Ʋnion with Chriſt, who can define none of theſe: Unleſs you will ſpeak equivocally of Definition it ſelf, and ſay as good Melancthon, and as Gutherleth, and ſome other Romiſts, that Notitia intuitiva eſt definitio, who yet ſay but what I am ſaying, when they add, [Vel ſaltem inſtar definitionis]. If all are without Faith, Love, Juſtification, Adoption, who cannot give a true Definition of them, how few will be ſaved? How much more then doth Learning to Mens ſalvation, than Grace? And Ariſtotle then is not ſo far below Paul, or the Spirit of Chriſt, as we (juſtly) believe.

The Caſe is ſo weighty and palpable, that you have nothing to ſay; but as you did about the Guilt of our nearer Parents ſins, to yield all the Cauſe, and with a paſſionate clamour to tell Men that I miſtake you, or wreſt your words; of which I ſhall appeal to every ſober Reader, that will peruſe the words of mine which you aſſault, and yours p. 45as they are an Anſwer to mine.

In a word, you go about by the abuſe of a trivial Axiome of Definitions, 1. To ſentence moſt Chriſtians to Hell, and caſt them into Deſperation, as wanting the Grace which they cannot define. 2. And to deſtroy Chriſtian Love and Concord, and tear the Church into as many Shreds, as there be diverſities of Definitions uſed by them. 3. And you would tempt us to think much hardlier of your ſelf, than we muſt or will do; as if your Faith, Juſtification, &c. were unſound, becauſe your Definitions are ſo.

I know that Ʋnius rei una tantum eſt Definitio, ſpeaking, 1. Not of the Terms, but the Senſe. 2. And ſuppoſing that Definition to be perfectly true; that is, the truth of Intellection and Expreſſion conſiſting in their congruity to the Thing; while the thing is one and the ſame, the conception and expreſſion which is perfectly true, muſt be ſo too. But, 1. Our underſtandings are all imperfect, and we know nothing perfectly but Secundum quaedam; and Zanckez ſaith truly, that Nihil ſcitur, if we call that only Knowledg which is perfect: And conſequently no Mental Definition is perfect. 2. And Imperfections have many degrees. 3. And our Terms, which make up that which you know I called a Definition in my Dir. 42. (as it is in words) are as aforeſaid, various, mutable, and variouſly underſtood and uſed.

§. XV. Pag. 24. Again you are at it, [Whom do you mean by that one rare Perſon, whoſe ſingle Judgment is to be preferred in the point of Juſtification, and to whom].

p. 46Anſw. 1. No one that knoweth not the difference between an Invididuum vagum & determinatum. 2. No one that is of ſo hard Metal, as in deſpite of the plaineſt words, to inſinuate to the World, that theſe words [A few well-ſtudied Judicious Divines] do ſignifie only one; and that theſe words [One Man of extraordinary underſtanding and clearneſs], (is to be preferred before the Rulers and major Vote, in difficult ſpeculations) do ſignifie one individuum determinatum in the World, and that the Speaker is bound to name the Man. No one that thinketh that Pemble, who in his Vind. Grat. hath almoſt the very ſame words, ſaid well, and that I who repeat them, am as criminal as you pretend: No one who either knoweth not, that almoſt all the World (even Papiſts) agree in this Rule, or that thinketh his judgment fit herein to bear them all down: No one who, when his abuſes are brought into the open Sun-ſhine, will rather accuſe the Light than repent.

But, pag. 25. After ſome words to jeer away Conviction, you tell me, [We muſt have ſome better account of you, quem quibus, than what you have given us yet. I ſhall take leave to preſent our indifferent Readers with a more ingenuous and truer ſtate of the Queſtion, far more ſuitable both to my plain meaning and the clear purport of your Direction. Let the Caſe be this: There is One who of late hath raiſed much duſt among us, about the grand Article of Juſtification; Whether it be by Faith without Works, or by Faith and Works too? All our old Renowned Divines on this ſide and beyond the Seas are unanimouſly agreed, that Juſtification is by Faith alone, i. e. without Works. This one Perſon p. 47hath often publiſhed his Judgment to the contrary— ſo that a poor Academical Doctor may very rationally enquire of you, Who in this caſe is to be preferred? That one, or thoſe many?

Anſw. There was a Diſputant who would undertake to conquer any Adverſary: When he was asked, How? He ſaid he would pour out upon him ſo many and ſo groſs untruths, as ſhould leave him nothing to anſwer congruouſly, but a Mentiris; and then all the World would judg him uncivil, and condemn him for giving ſuch an unreverent anſwer. But you ſhall not ſo prevail with me, but I will call your Reader to anſwer theſe Queſtions:

1. Whether it be any truer, that [This is the clear purport of my Direction], than it is that I ſay, There is but one Star in the Firmament, becauſe I ſay that one Star is more Luminous than many Candles?

2. Whether if a diſeaſed Reader will put ſuch a Senſe upon my words, his Forgery be a true ſtating of the Queſtion between him and me, with out my conſent?

3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is either Ʋnicus, or Primus, or Singular, in the definition of Juſtification, or the intereſt of Works, be any truer, than that he is the only ejected Miniſter in England, While the writings of Bucer, Ludov. Crocius, Joh. Bergius, Conrad. Bergius, Calixtus Placeus, le Blank, Dave. Gatak. Wott. Preſt. Ball, and multitudes ſuch are viſible ſtill among us?

4. Whether he deals truly, wiſely, or friendly with the holy Scripures, and the Proteſtants, who would perſwade the Ignorant, that this is the true ſtate of the Controverſie, [Whether it be by Faith without Works, or by Faith and Works too, that we p. 48are juſtified] While the Scripture ſpeaketh both, and all Proteſtants hold both in ſeveral ſenſes? And whether this eaſie ſtating of Controverſies, without more Explication or Diſtinction, be worthy an Academical Diſputant?

5. Whether it be true or notoriouſly falſe, that [All our Renowned Divines on this ſide, and beyond the Seas, are agreed], of that in this Queſtion of the intereſt of Works, which this one contradicteth?

6. Whether this Doctors naked Affirmation hereof be better proof, than that one Mans citation of the words of above an Hundred (yea many Hundred) as giving as much to Works as he doth, is of the Contrary?

7. Whether it be an ingenuous way beſeeming Academics, to talk at this rate, and aſſert ſuch a ſtating of the Queſtion and ſuch conſent, without one word of notice or mention of the Books, in which I ſtate the Queſtion, and bring all this evidence of conſent?

8. If ſuch a Doctor will needs enquire, whether the ſecret thoughts of the Writer meant not himſelf, when he pretendeth but to accuſe the Rule there given, and ſhould enquire but of the meaning of the words, whether it ſavour more of Rationality, or a preſumptuous uſurping the Prerogative of God?

§. XVI. Pag. 27. Though your approach be wrathful, you are conſtrained to come nearer yet, and you cannot deny my Rule of Direct. in other Points, but only thoſe of [High and difficult ſpeculation]: And do you deny it there? You p. 49will deal with it but as the application of that Rule to the Definition of Juſtification? (And ſhall we loſe your favour, by forcing you to lay by your Oppoſition as to all the reſt?) But here you ſay you [exceedingly differ from me]; Or elſe you would be aſhamed of ſo much Combating in the dark: Exceeding oft ſignifieth ſome extream.

Your Reaſons are, 1. You hold not the Doctrine of Juſtification to be properly of Speculative concern, but wholly Practical: Where yet you confeſs, that in all Practical knowledg, there be ſome antecedent contemplations of the Nature, Properties, End, Object, and that to know the certain number of Paces b…me-ward, is a Speculative nicety].

Anſw. And can you find no fairer a ſhift for diſagreement? I would ſuch as you made not the Doctrine of Juſtification too little Practical? I am far from thinking that it is not Practical: But is not a Logical definition the opening the Nature, Properties, End, Object, or ſome of theſe which you call Contemplations? Make not plain things dark, Sir: The uſe of Art is not to ſhut the Windows, and confound Mens Minds. I take all Theologie to be together, Scientia-affectiva-practica; for our Intellect, Will, and Practice, muſt be poſſeſt or ruled by it: But it is firſt Scientia, and we muſt know before we can will and practiſe. And though all right knowledg tend to Practice, yet forgive me for telling you, that I think that many holy Perſons in Scripture and Primitive times, loved and practiſed more than you or I, who knew not how to form an exact Logical Definition. And that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit ſpiritually, by Scripture Notions, may practiſe them p. 50as fully, as he that knoweth and ſpeaketh them in the Notions of Ariſtotle; or elſe the School-Men excel the Apoſtles. Though ambling be an eaſie Pace, which Horſes are taught by Gives and Fetters, it followeth not that a Horſe cannot travel as far in his natural pace. When you have ſaid all, Logical defining ſhall be a work of Art, and the Church ſhould not be torn, and Souls ſhall not be damned, for want of it. He that Loveth, Believeth, Hopeth, Obeyeth, and by doing them hath a reflecting perception what they are, and hath but ſuch a knowledg of the Goſpel as may be had without a proper Definition, ſhall be ſaved.

Pag. 28, 29. you ſay, [Nor is the Doctrine of Juſtification ſo high and difficult, but that the meaneſt Chriſtian may underſtand it ſufficiently to Salvation, ſo far as words can make it intelligible].

Anſw. Your own blows ſeem not to hurt you. I thank you for granting ſo much hope to the meaneſt Chriſtians. But what's this to your Caſe? 1. Do the meaneſt Chriſtians know how to define Juſtification, and all the Grace which they have? 2. Are they acquainted with all the [Words that ſhould make it intelligible?]

Pag. 29. you add, [You have done little ſervice to your weaker Chriſtians to perſwade them otherwiſe (as well as to the great bleſſed Charter of Salvation) and to lead them out of the plain road into Woods and Mazes, to that one Man of extraordinary Judgment and Clearneſs; no body muſt know what his Name is, or where he dwells, and ſo to whirle them about till you have made them giddy—].

Anſw. How eaſie is it to talk at this rate for any Cauſe in the World? Is this Diſputing or Reaſoning? p. 51Cannot I as eaſily ſay thus againſt you? But the queſtion is of Things viſible: I willingly appeal to any intelligent impartial Divine, who will read what you and I have written of Juſtifification, which of us it is that hath done more to bring Men out of Woods and Mazes, into the plaineſt Road? Let them, that have leiſure for no more, read but my Preface to my Diſput. of Juſtif. and mark which ſide wrongeth weak Chriſtians, and the Charter of Salvation.

§. XVII. Pag. 29. you add, [Sir, I underſtand ſomething at theſe years, without your Tutorage, of the duty both of Paſtors and People: But I know not what you mean to make the way to Heaven (revealed ſufficiently to all, &c.) to be a matter of high abſtruſe Speculation, as if none but great Scholars, and Men of extraordinary Judgment, could by the right uſe of Scriptures, and other ordinary common means, be able to find it out, till they have met with that Eliaſ, &c.]

Anſw. Still I ſee we ſhall agree whether you will or not: O, Sir, it is juſt the contrary that I wrote for: And I need but repeat your words to anſwer you. I am not diſparaging your underſtanding, otherwiſe than you may ſo call the vindicating of needful truth: Nor did I ever preſume to offer you my Tutorage: You ſpeak all this with too much tenderneſs. But that which I have written almoſt all my Books of Controverſie againſt, is this making the Way to Heaven more difficult and be wildring, than the Scriptures make it. Therefore it is that I have perſwaded Men to lay leſs ſtreſs on arbitrary humane Notions: But the queſtion p. 52is now, whether it be your Courſe or mine, that is guilty of this? Are Logical Definitions the neceſſary Way to Heaven? Doth the Scripture ſufficiently reveal ſuch Definitions to all? Do all ordinary Believers by the uſe of the Scripture, know how to define? Do not Logicians make true defining one of the ſureſt ſigns of clear and accurate knowledg? Why ſhould you and I diſpute thus about Matters of Fact? I know by the principles of Conformity, that your Judgment is not like to be narrower than mine about the ſtate of determinate Individuals: I ſuppoſe you would take as many to the Lords Supper as Believers, as I would, and abſolve as many, and pronounce as many ſaved at Buryal. Let you and I call but a dozen of the next Families together, and deſire every Man and Woman of them, to give you a Definition of Juſtification, (out of the hearing of the reſt) and if they all give you a true definition, and one definition, I will write a Retractation. I know you not; but by your now telling me, of your underſtanding of the duties of Paſtors and People, I may ſuppoſe that you have been a Paſtour, (elſe—). And if ſo, that you have had perſonal conference with moſt (if not all) of your Flock. If you have found them all ſuch able concordant Definers of Juſtification, you have had a more learned Flock than I had. I doubt your Learned Scholars could not do it, till they met with ſome ſuch Elias or Ariſtotle, as you! Yea, let us take only ſuch as by their Lives we commonly judg truly Godly Chriſtians: And if all theſe give you one and a true definition of Juſtification, then do you tell them that Defining is no ſuch difficult work, but ordinary Chriſtians p. 53may and do attain it, and I that make it difficult, make the way to Heaven difficult, for Defining is the way to Heaven: But if not one of many Score or Hundred (till you teach them anew) do give you a true and the ſame Definition; I will go on and ſtill ſay, that They wrong Souls, the Goſpel, and the Church, who pretend ſuch neceſſity and facility of defining, and will cenſure, reproach, or damn all that agree not with them in a Definition, when they have as real though leſs diſtinct a knowledg of the thing.

I doubt not but you know how much difference there is among Learned Men about Definitions themſelves in general: Whether they belong to Metaphyſicks, Logicks, or Phyſicks? Whether Definitio Phyſica (as Man is defined per Animam, Corpus & Ʋnionem) be a proper Definition? Whether a true Logical and Phyſical definition ſhould not be the ſame? Whether Definitio objectiva be properly called Definitio, or only Formalis? Whether Accidents may be properly defined? An Genus definiri poſſit? An pars Logica definiri poſſit? An individua poſſint definiri? (Inquit Hurtado, Negari non poteſt Individuis definitio ſubſtantialis; & quidem eſſentialis Phyſice; eſt enim de eſſentia hujus hominis haec anima cum hoc Corpore; Imo & eſſentialis Metaphyſice— ſi individua recte poſſent penetrari, illorum definitio esset omnium perfectiſſima An ea quae differunt definitione diſtinguantur realiter? With a multitude ſuch. And is the Art of Defining ſo eaſie, as that ordinary Chriſtians ſalvation muſt lie upon it, when ſo many things about Defining are among the ſubtileſt Doctors undetermined?

p. 54And as Ignorant as I am, while you ſuppoſe me unable to define Juſtification, I would wiſh you (not for my ſake, but theirs) that you will not ſentence all as unjuſtified to Damnation, that are not more skilful in defining than I, and that you will not reject all ſuch from the Sacrament and Communion of the Church.

§. XVIII. Yet again, pag. 30. you tell me, [I cannot well ſwallow down in the lump, what you would have me and others to do, when you direct us to prefer that one Man before the Rulers and majority of Votes, till you acquaint us who that Gentleman is, and what ſort of Rulers and Majorities you mean].

Anſw. What you cannot ſwallow you muſt leave: I will not cram or drench you. I could wiſh for your own ſake, that you had not thus often told the World of ſuch a Malady, as that muſt needs be which hindreth your ſwallow: When, 1. You your ſelf receive the ſame Rule in other Inſtances, and make all this ſtir againſt it only, as to the Definition of Juſtification, even the Logical definition, which is Actus definientis, called Definitio formalis, and not the Definitio objectiva, as the Ipſum definitum is by ſome improperly called. 2. And when the words in that Inſtance are not [ONE MAN] but [a few Men] which your Eyes may ſtill ſee; and when in the General direction where one Man is mentioned, there is no ſuch word as [that one Man], or the leaſt intimation of an Individuum determinatum; You greatly wrong your Honour by ſuch dealing; As you do by adding,

p. 551. [For the ſingle Perſon (that Monarch in Divinity) to whom we are upon differences to make our Appeals, &c.]

Anſw. If you hold on thus to talk as in your ſleep, and will not ſhut your Chamber-door, but commiſſion the Preſs to report your words to the World, how can your beſt Friends ſecure your reputation? Is not all this talk of ſingle Perſon, and Monarch in Divinity, and Appeals, the effects of a Dream, or ſomewhat worſe? Theſe Fictions will ſerve no honeſt ends. But you next come indeed to the true difficulty of the Caſe, and ask:

[I beſeech you Sir, how ſhall your ignorant or weaker Chriſtian be able to judg of fitneſs?— He had need to have a very competent meaſure of Abilities himſelf, who is to give his verdict of anothers, &c.]

This is very true and rational: But it concerneth you as much as me to anſwer it, unleſs you will renounce the Rule. And ſeeing you grant it in other Inſtances, if you pleaſe to anſwer your own queſtion as to thoſe other, you have anſwered it as to this: And if you will not learn of your ſelf, I am not ſo vain as to think, that you will learn of me.

In caſe of Subtilties which depend upon Wit, and Art, and Induſtry, in that proportion which few, even faithful Men attain, I remember but one of theſe ways that can be taken; Either wholly to ſuſpend our Judgments, and not to meddle with them, till we can reach them our ſelves; Or to take them fide humana, or as probabilities on the Credit of ſome Men, rather than others: As to the firſt, I am for as much ſuſpenſion of Judgment▪ p. 56as will ſtand with the part of a Learner (where we muſt learn; and in uſeleſs things for a total ſuſpenſion). But where Learning is a duty, all Men come to Knowledg by degrees, and things uſually appear to them in their probability, before they appear in aſcertaining evidence. Therefore here the Queſtion is, Whoſe judgment I ſhall take as moſt probable? (Were the caſe only, how far we ſhould Preach our Judgment to others, there Rulers muſt more determine; or if it were, How to manage our Judgment ſo as to keep Ʋnity and Concord, the Church, or major Vote muſt over-rule us). But it being the meer Judgment or Opinion that is in queſtion, either we muſt adhere to the Judgment, 1. Of Rulers as ſuch, 2. Or the major Vote as ſuch, 3. Or to thoſe that are moſt Excellent in that part of Knowledg: Why ſhould I waſte time to give you the Reaſons againſt the two firſt, which are commonly received? When even the Papiſts, who go as far as any I know living in aſcribing to One Man, and to major Votes, yet all agree, that a few ſubtile Doctors, yea one in the things in which he excelleth, is to be preferred before Pope or Council: And therefore the Scotiſts prefer one Scotus, Lychetus, Memiſſe, Rada, &c. before a Pope or Multitude, and ſo do the Nominals, one Ockam, Gregory, Gabriel, Hurtado, &c. and ſo the other Sects.

The thing then being▪ ſuch as neither you, nor any Man can deny, the difficulty which you urge, doth preſs you and all Men: And it is indeed one grand calamity of Mankind, and not the leaſt hinderance of Knowledg in the World; that he that hath it not, knoweth not what another hath, but by p. 57dark Conjectures. 4. And therefore Parents and Pupils know not who is their beſt Tutor: The hearers that are to chuſe a Teacher, hardly know whom to chuſe; for, as you ſay truly, he muſt know much that muſt judg of a knowing Man.

God hath in all Arts and Sciences given ſome few Men an excellency of Wit and Reach above the generality of their Profeſſion, and they have a more clear and ſolid Judgment. If all Men could but know who theſe be, the World would in one Age be more recovered from Ignorance than it hath been in ten. But the power of the Proud, and the confidence of the Ignorant, and the number of all th…ſe, and the Slanders and Scorn, and peeviſh Wranglings of the common Pride and Ignorance againſt thoſe few that know what they know not, is the Devils great means to fruſtrate their endeavours, and keep the World from having knowledg. T…is is certain and weighty Truth, and ſuch as you ſhould make no Malignant applications of, nor ſtrive againſt. Mankind muſt needs acknowledg it. Your urgent queſtioning here [Do you not mean your ſelf?] doth but expoſe you to pity, by opening that which you might have concealed.

And to your Queſtion I ſay, could I enable all Ignorant Men to know who are the beſt Teachers, I ſhould be the grand Benefactor of the World: But both the bleſſing of excellent Teachers, and alſo of acquaintance with them and their worth, is given by God, partly as it pleaſeth Him, freely, even to the unworthy, and partly as a Reward to thoſe that have been faithful in a little, and obeyed lower helps; (for there is a Worthineſs to be found in ſome Houſes, where the Preacher cometh with the p. 58voice of Peace, and unworthineſs, which oft depriveth Men of ſuch Mercies.) Both abſolutely Free-Grace, and alſo Rewarding-Grace, do here ſhew themſelves.

But yet I add, 1. That Light is a ſelf-demonſtrating thing; and will not eaſily be hid. 2. And thoſe that are the Children of Light, and have been true to former helps and convictions, and are willing to ſell all for the Pearl, and fear not being loſers by the price of Knowledg, but would have it whatever Labour or Suffering it muſt coſt, and who ſearch for it impartially and diligently, and forfeit it not by Sloth, or a fleſhly, proud, or worldly Mind, theſe, I ſay, are prepared to diſcern the Light; when others fall under the heavy Judgment of being deceived by the Wranglings, Scorns, Clamours and Threatnings of PROUD IGNORANCE. And thus one Auguſtine was a Light in his time, and though ſuch as Proſper, Fulgentius, &c. knew him, Pelagius and the Maſſilienſes wrangled againſt him: And Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Phagius, Zuinglius, Calvin, Muſculus, Zanchius were ſuch in their times; and ſome diſcerned them to be ſo, and more did not: If Men muſt have gone by the judgment of Rulers, or the major Vote of Teachers, what had become of the Reformation? If you can better direct Men how to diſcern Gods Gifts and Graces in His Servants, do it, and do not cavil againſt it.

As for your [One ſingle Proteſtant in ſuch a caſe as Juſtification], and your [I wiſh it be not your meaning] Pag. 31. they deſerve no further anſwer, nor I all the anger, pag. 31, 32, 33.

p. 59§. XIX. But pag. 34. Note again, 1. That it is not Objective Definitions, (as ſome call them) but [Logical, Artificial Definitions,] ſuppoſed to be Mens needful Acts, which you ſay are Re, the ſame with the Definitum. 2. And that yet you muſt have it [ſuppoſed that theſe Definitions are true]. And I ſuppoſe that few Good Chriſtians comparatively know a true one, no, nor what a Definition, (or the Genus and Differentia which conſtitute it) is.

You ſay, [I abſolutely deny what you ſo raſhly avow, that the Definition of Juſtification is controverted by the greateſt Divines: This is one of your liberal Dictates: The Reformed Divines are all, I think, before you, agreed about the nature of Juſtification, its Cauſes, &c. and conſequently cannot differ about the Definition].

Anſw. 1. But what if all Divines were ſo agreed? So are not all honeſt Men and Women that muſt have Communion with us: Therefore make not Definitions more necessary than they are, nor as neceſſary as the Thing.

2. You muſt be conſtrained for the defending of theſe words, to come off by ſaying, that you meant, That though they agree not in the Words, or Logical terms of the Definition; but one ſaith, This is the Genus, and this is the Differentia, and another that it is not this but that; one ſaith this, and another that is the Formal, or Material Cauſe, &c. yet de re, they mean the ſame thing, were they ſo happy as to agree in their Logical defining terms and notions: And if you will do in this, as you have done in your other Quarrels, come off by ſaying as I ſay, and ſhewing Men the power p. 60of Truth, though you do it with never ſo much anger, that you muſt agree, I ſhall be ſatisfied, that the Reader is delivered from your ſnare, and that Truth prevaileth, what ever you think or ſay of me.

3. But becauſe I muſt now anſwer what you ſay, and not what I foreſee you will or muſt ſay, I muſt add, that this paſſage ſeemeth to ſuppoſe that your Reader liveth in the dark, and hath read very little of Juſtification. 1. Do all thoſe great Divines, who deny the Imputation of Chriſts active Righteouſneſs, and take it to be but Juſtitia Perſonae, non Meriti, and that we are Juſtified by the Paſſive only, agree with their Adverſaries, who have written againſt them, about the Definition and Cauſes of Juſtification? Will any Man believe you, who hath read Olevian, Ʋrſine, Paraeus, Scultetus, Piſcator, Carolus Molinaeus, Wendeline, Beckman, Alſtedius, Camero, with his followers in France, Forbes, with abundance more, who are for the Imputation of the Paſſive Righteouſneſs only? Were Mr. Anth. Wotton, and Mr. Balmford, and his other Adverſaries, of the ſame Opinion in this? Was Mr. Bradſhaw ſo ſottiſh as to write his Reconciling Treatiſe of Juſtification in Latine and Engliſh, to reduce Men of differing minds to Concord, while he knew that there was no difference, ſo much as in the Definition? Was he miſtaken in reciting the great differences about their Senſes of Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, if there were none at all? Did Mr. Gataker agree with Lucius and Piſcator, when he wrote againſt both (as the extreams)? Did Mr. Wotton, and John Goodwin, agree with Mr. G. Walker, and Mr. Roborough? Doth Mr. Lawſon, p. 61in his Theopolitica agree with you, and ſuch others? Doth not Mr. Cartwright here differ from thoſe that hold the Imputation of the Active Righteouſneſs?

What abundance of Proteſtants do place Juſtification only in Fogiveneſs of Sins? And yet as many (I know not which is the greater ſide) do make that Forgiveneſs but one part, and Imputation of Righteouſneſs another. And how many make Forgiveneſs no part of Juſtification, but a Concomitant? And many inſtead of [Imputation of Righteouſneſs] put [Accepting us as Righteous, for the ſake, or merit of Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed] (viz. as the Meritorious Cauſe). And Paraeus tells us, that they are of four Opinions, who are for Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed; ſome for the Paſſive only; ſome for the Paſſive and Active; ſome for the Paſſive, Active, and Habitual, ſome for theſe three and the Divine. And who knoweth not that ſome here ſo diſtinguiſh Cauſes and Effects, as that our Original Sin (or Habitual ſay ſome) is pardoned for Chriſts Original (and Habitual) Holineſs: Our Omiſſions for Chriſts Active Obedience, and our Commiſſions for His Paſſive? Or as more ſay that Chriſts Paſſive Righteouſneſs as Satisfaction, ſaveth us from Hell or Puniſhment, and His Active as meritorious, procureth Life as the reward? When many others, rejecting that Diviſion, ſay; That both freedom from Puniſhment, and right to Glory are the conjunct effects of His Habitual, Active, and Paſſive Righteouſneſs, as an entire Cauſe (in its kind); as Guil. Forbes, Grotius, Bradſhaw, and others truly ſay: Beſides that many conclude with Gataker, that theſe▪ are indeed but one thing and p. 62effect, (to be Glorified, and not to be Damned or Puniſhed)▪ ſeeing not to be Glorified is the Paena damni, and that the remitting of the whole Penalty damni & ſenſus, and ſo of all Sin of Omiſſion and Commiſſion, is our whole Juſtification.

And I need not tell any Man that hath read ſuch Writers, that they ordinarily diſtinguiſh of Juſtification, and give not the ſame Definition of one ſort as of another, nor of the Name in one Senſe as in another.

Many confeſs (whom you may read in Guil. Forbes, and Vinc. le Blanck) that the word [Juſtifie] is divers times taken in Scripture (as the Papiſts do) as including Sanctification: And ſo ſaith Beza againſt Illyricus, pag. 218. as cited by G. Forbes, [Si Juſtificationem generaliter accipias, ut interdum uſurpatur ab Apoſtolo, Sanctificatio non erit ejus effectus, ſed pars aut ſpecies]: And as I find him (mihi) pag. 179. Quamvis Juſtificationis nomen interdum generaliter accipiatur pro omni illius Juſtitiae dono quam a patre in Chriſto accipimus, &c.

And how little are we agreed whether Reconciliation be a part of Juſtification or not? Yea, or Adoption either? Saith Illyricus [Hoc affirmo, recte posse dici Juſtificationem eſſe Cauſam omnium beneficiorum ſequentium: Nam juſtificatio eſt plena Reconciliatio cum Deo, quae nos facit ex hoſtibus filios Dei:] To which Beza ibid. ſaith, (diſtinguiſhing of Reconciliation) Neutro modo idem eſt Reconciliatio ac Juſtificatio. — Si Remiſſio peccatorum eſt Juſtificationis Definitio, quod negare non auſis, &c.

Of the three ſorts or parts of Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed to make up three parts of our Juſtification, p. 63ſee him de Predeſt. pag. 405. Col. 2. which Perkins and ſome others alſo follow.

Olevian (as all others that groſly miſtake not herein) did hold, that God did not judg us to have fulfilled all the Law in Chriſt; and that our righteouſneſs conſiſteth only in the Remiſſion of Sin, and right to Life as freely given us for anothers Merits: But Beza inſiſteth ſtill on the contrary, and in his Epiſtle to Olevian, (pag. 248. Epiſt. 35.) ſaith, Quid vanius eſt quam Juſtum arbitrari, qui Legem non impleverit? Atqui lex non tantum prohibet fieri quod vetat,— verum praecipit quod jubet.— Ergo qui pro non peccatore cenſetur in Chriſto, mortem quidem effugerit; ſed quo jure vitam praeterea petet, niſi omnem juſtitiam Legis in eodem Chriſto impleverit? (This is the Doctrine which Wotton and Gataker (in divers Books largely) and Bradſhaw, after many others do Confute. Yet ſaith he, N… que vero id obſtat, quominus noſtra Juſtificatio Remiſſione peccatorum apte & recte definiatur], Which is a contradiction. Yet was he for Love and Gentleneſs in theſe differences; ibid.

Yet Qu. & Reſp. Chriſt. pag. 670. He leaveth out Chriſts Original Habitual Righteouſneſs, [Non illa essentialis quae Deitatis eſt, nec illa Habitualis, ut ita loquar, Puritas Carnis Chriſti.— Quae quum non diſtingueret Oſiander faediſſime eſt hallucinatus.

And ibid. 670. he giveth us this deſcription of Juſtification.

Qu. Quid Juſtificationem vocat Paulus hoc loco? R. Illud quo Juſti fimus, id eſt, eouſque perfecti, integri, foreign, ut pleniſſime, non tantum aboleatur quicquid in nobis totis in eſt turpitudinis, qua Deus ſumme purus offendi ullo modo p. 64poſſit, verum etiam in nos comperiatur quicquid in ha… humana naturae uſque adeo poteſt eum delectare, ut illud vita aeterna pro bona ſua voluntate coronet].

Yet (as in his Annot. in Rom. 8.30. & alibi) he confeſſeth that Juſtification in Scripture, ſometime is taken for Sanctification, (or as including it) ſo he taketh our Sanctification to contain the Imputation of Chriſts Sanctity to us. (Qu. & Reſp. pag. 671.) 1. Dico noſtras Perſonas, imputata ipſius perfecta ſanctitate & integritate, plene ſanctas & integras, ac proinde Patri acceptas, non in nobis ſed in Chriſto cenſemur. 2. And next the Spirits Sanctification; and thus Chriſt is made Sanctification to us.

Dr. Twisse, and Mr. Pemble, Vind. Grat. diſtinguiſh of Juſtification as an Immanent Act in God from Eternity, and as it is the notice of the former in our Conſciences: But doubtleſs the commoneſt Definitions of Juſtification agree with neither of theſe: And Pemble of Juſtification otherwiſe defineth it (as Mr. Jeſſop ſaith Dr. Twiſſe did).

Lud. Crocius Syntag. pag. 1219. thus defineth it, [Juſtificatio Evangelica eſt actus Divinae gratiae, qua Deus adoptat peccatorem per approbationem obedientiae Legis in ſponſore atque intercessore Chriſto, & per Remiſſionem peccatorum ac Juſtitiae imputationem in eo qui per fidem Chriſto eſt inſitus]. And ſaith, pag. 1223. [Fides ſola juſtificat quatenus notat Obedientiam quandam expectantem promiſſionem ut donum gratuitum— & apponitur illi Obedientiae quae non expectat promiſſionem ut donum omnino gratuitum ſed ut mercedem propoſitam ſub Conditione operis alicu…us praeter acceptationem & gratitudinem debitam, quae ſua Natura in omni donatione quamvis gratuita p. 65requiri ſolet. Et ejuſmodi Obedientia peculiariter opus ab Apoſtolo, & Latinis proprie Meritum dicitur; & qui ſub hac conditione obediunt Operantes vocantur, Rom. 4.4. & 11.6. This is the truth which I aſſert.

Conrad. Bergius Prax. Cathol. diſ. 7. pag. 983. tells us that the Breme Cat…chiſm thus openeth the Matter: [Qu. Quomodo Juſtificatur Homo coram Deo? R. Accipit Homo Remiſſionem peccatorum & Juſtificatur, hoc eſt, Gratus fit coram Deo in vera Converſione, perſolam fidem, per Chriſtum, ſine proprio Merito & dignitate.

Cocceius diſp. de via ſalut. de Juſt. pag. 189. Originalis Chriſti Juſtitia correſpondet noſtro Originali peccato, &c. vid. coet. plura vid. de foeder.

Macovius Colleg. de Juſtif. diſtinguiſheth Juſtification into Active and Paſſive, and ſaith, Juſtificatio Activa ſignificat abſolu…ionem Dei, que Hominem reum a reatu abſolvit: And he would prove this to be before Faith, and citeth for it (abuſively) Paraeus and Teſſanus, and thinketh that we were abſolved from Guilt from Chriſts undertaking our Debt, Theſ. 12. thus arguing, [Cujus debita apud Creditorem aliquis recepit exſolvenda, & Creditor iſtius ſponſionem ita acceptat, ut in ea acquieſcat, ille jam ex parte Creditoris liber eſt a debitis: Atque Electorum omnium in ſingulari debita apud Deum Patrem Chriſtus, ex quo factus eſt Mediator, recepit exolvenda, & Deus Pater illam ſponſionem acceptavit, &c. Paſſive Juſtification, which he ſuppoſeth to be our application of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to our daily as oft as we offend. Th. 5. (And part 4. diſp. 22. he maintaineth, that There are no p. 66Diſpoſitions to Regeneration). Others of his mind I paſs by.

Spanhemius Diſput. de Juſtif. ſaith, that [The Form of Paſſive Juſtification conſiſteth in the apprehenſion and ſenſe of Remiſſion of Sin and Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs in capable Subjects] groſly: Whereas Active Juſtification (Juſtificantis) ever immediately cauſeth Paſſive (Juſtificationem juſtificati) which is nothing but the effect of the Active, (or as moſt call it, Actio ut in patiente): And if this were the Apprehenſion and Senſe (as aforeſaid) of Pardon and imputed Righteouſneſs, then a Man in his ſleep were unjuſtified, and ſo of Infants, &c. For he that is not Paſſively juſtified, is not at all juſtified.

I told you elſe-where, that the Synopſ. Leidenſ. de Juſtif. pag. 413. Th. 23. ſaith, That Chriſts Righteouſneſs is both the Meritorious, Material, and Formal Cauſe of our Juſtification.

What Fayus, and Davenant, and others ſay of the Formal Cauſe, viz. Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed, I there ſhewed: And how Paraeus, Joh. Crocius, and many others, deny Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be the Formal Cauſe.

Wendeline defineth Juſtification thus (Theol. Lib. 1. c. 25. p. 603.) Juſtificatio eſt actio Dei gratuita, qua peccatores Electi, maledictioni legis obnoxii, propter juſtitiam ſeu ſatisfactionem Chriſti fide applicatam & a Deo imputatam, coram tribunali Divino, remſſis peccatis, a maledictione Legis abſolvuntur & juſti cenſentur. And pag. 615, 616. He maintaineth that [Obedientia activa, ſi proprie & accurate loquamur, non eſt materia noſtrae Juſtificationis, nec imputatur nobis, ita ut noſtra cenſeatur, p. 67& nobis propter eam peccata remittantur, & debitum legis pro nobis ſolvatur; quemadmodum Paſſiva per imputationem cenſetur noſtra, &c. Et poſt [Si dicus Chriſtum factum eſſe hominem pro nobis, hoc eſt, noſtro bono, conceditur: Si pro nobis, hoc eſt, noſtro loco, negatur: Quod enim Chriſtus noſtro loco fecit, & factus eſt, id nos non tenemur facere & fieri, &c.

Rob. Abbot approveth of Thompſons Definition of Evangelical Juſtification, (pag. 153.) that it is, Qua poenitenti & Credenti remittuntur peccata, & jus vitae aeternae conceditur per & propter Chriſti obedientiam illi imputatam: (Which is ſound, taking Imputatam ſoundly, as he doth).

Joh. Cr…cius, Diſp. 1. p. 5. thus defineth it, [Actio Dei qua ex gratia propter ſatisfactionem Chriſti peccatoribus in Chriſtum totius Mundi redemptorem unicum, vere credentibus gratis ſine operibus aut meritis propriis omnia peccata remittit, & juſtitiam Chriſti imputat ad ſui nominis gloriam & illorum ſalutem aeternam. And he maketh only [Chriſts full ſatisfaction for Sin, to be the Impulſive-External, Meritorious, and Material, Cauſe, as being that which is imputed to us; and the Form of Juſtification to be the Remiſſion of Sin, Original and Actual, or the Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs (which he maketh to be all one) or the Imputation of Faith for Righteouſneſs].

Saith Biſhop Downame of Juſtif. p. 305. [To be Formally Righteous by Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed, never any of us, for ought I know, affirmed. The like ſaith Dr. Pride…aux, when yet very many Proteſtants affirm it.

Should I here ſet together forty or ſixty Definitions of Proteſtants verbatim, and ſhew you how p. 68much they differ, it would be unpleaſant, and tedious, and unneceſſary.

And as to thoſe ſame Divines that Dr. Tully nameth as agreed, Dr. Davenants and Dr. Fields words I have cited at large in my Confeſ. ſaying the ſame in ſubſtance as I do; as alſo Mr. Scudders, and an hundred more, as is before ſaid.

And let any ſober Reader decide this Controverſie between us, upon theſe two further Conſiderations.

1. Peruſe all the Corpus Confeſſionum, and ſee whether all the Reformed Churches give us a Definition of Juſtification, and agree in that Definition: Yea, whether the Church of England in its Catechiſm, or its Articles, have any proper Definition: Or if you will call their words a Definition, I am ſure it's none but what I do conſent to. And if a Logical Definition were by the Church of England and other Churches held neceſſary to Salvation, it would be in their Catechiſms (if not in the Creed): Or if it were held neceſſary to Church-Concord, and Peace, and Love, it would be in their Articles of Religion, which they ſubſcribe.

2. How can all Proteſtants agree of the Logical Definition of Juſtification, when 1. They agree not of the ſenſe of the word [Juſtifie,] and of the ſpecies of that Juſtification which Paul and James ſpeak of? Some make Juſtification to include Pardon and Sanctification, (ſee their words in G. Forbes, and Le Blank); many ſay otherwiſe. Moſt ſay that Paul ſpeaketh moſt uſually of Juſtification in ſenſu forenſi, but whether it include [Making juſt] as ſome ſay, or only [Judging juſt] as others, or Nolle punire, be the act as Dr. Twiſſe, they agree not. And ſome hold that in James Juſtification is p. 69that which is eoram hominibus, when ſaid to be by Works; but others (truly) ſay, it is thay coram Deo.

2. They are not agreed in their very Logical Rules, and Notions, to which their Definitions are reduced; no not ſo much as of the number and nature of Cauſes, nor of Definitions (as is aforeſaid): And as I will not undertake to prove that all the Apoſtles, Evangeliſts and Primitive Paſtours, knew how to define Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Cauſes in general, ſo I am ſure that all good Chriſtians do not.

3. And when Juſtification is defined by Divines, is either the Actus Juſtificantis, and this being in the predicament of Action, what wonder if they diſagree about the Material and Formal Cauſes of it?

Nay, it being an Act of God, there are few Divines that tell us what that Act is: Deus operatur per eſſentiam: And Ex parte agentis, his Acts are his Eſſence, and all but one. And who will thus diſpute of the Definition and Cauſes of them, Efficient, Material, Formal, Final? when I preſumed to declare, that this Act of Juſtifying is not an immanent Act in God, nor without a Medium, but Gods Act by the Inſtrumentality of his Goſpel-Covenant or Promiſe, many read it as a new thing; and if that hold true that the Firſt Juſtification by Faith, is that which Gods Goſpel-Donation is the Inſtrument of, as the Titulus ſeu Fundamentum Juris, being but a Virtual and not an Actual Sentence, then the Definition of it, as to the Cauſes, muſt differ much from the moſt common Definitions.

p. 70But moſt Proteſtants ſay that Juſtification is Sententia Judicis. (And no doubt but there are three ſeveral ſorts, or Acts called Juſtification, 1. Conſtitutive by the Donative Covenant, 2. Sentential, 3. Executive.) And here they are greatly at a loſs, for the deciſion of the Caſe, what Act of God this Sententia Jucis is. What it will be after death, we do not much diſagree: But what it is immediately upon our believing. It muſt be an Act as in patiente, or the Divine eſſence denominated from ſuch an effect. And what Judgment and Sentence God hath upon our believing, few open, and fewer agreee. Mr. Tombes ſaith it is a Sentence in Heaven notifying it to the Angels: But that is not all, or the chief: ſome run back to an Immanent Act; moſt leave it undetermined: And ſure the Name of Sentence in general, ſignifieth no true Conception of it at all, in him that knoweth not what that Sentence is, ſeeing Univerſals are Nothing (out of us) but as they exiſt in individuals. Mr. Lawſon hath ſaid that wihch would reconcile Proteſtants, and ſome Papiſts, as to the Name, viz. that Gods Execution is his Sentence; He Judgeth by Executing: And ſo as the chief puniſhment is the Privation of the Spirit, ſo the Juſtifying Act, is the executive donation of the Spirit. Thus are we diſagreed about Active Juſtification (which I have oft endeavoured Conciliatorily fullier to open.)

And as to Paſſive Juſtification (or as it is Status Juſtificati) which is indeed that which it concerneth us in this Controverſie to open, I have told you how groſly ſome deſcribe it here before. And all agree not what Predicament it is in: ſome take it to be in that of Action, ut recipitur in paſſo; and ſome in that of Quality and Relation Conjunct: But moſt p. 71place it in Relation; And will you wonder if all Chriſtian Women, yea or Divines, cannot define that Relation aright. And if they agree not in the notions of the Efficient, Material, Formal and Final Cauſes, of that which muſt be defined (as it is capable) by its ſubjectum, fundamentum and terminus.

I would not wiſh that the Salvation of any Friend of mine (or any one) ſhould be laid on the true Logical Definition of Juſtification, Active or Paſſive, Conſtitutive, Sentential or Executive.

And now the Judicious will ſee, whether the Church and Souls of Men be well uſed by this pretence, that all Proteſtants are agreed in the Nature, Cauſes and Definition of Juſtification; and that to depart from that one Definition (where is it?) is ſo dangerous as the Doctor pretendeth, becauſe the Definition and the Definitum are the ſame.

§ XX. P. 34. You ſay [You tremble not in the audience of God and Man to ſuggeſt again that hard-fronted Calumny, viz. that I prefer a Majority of Ignorants before a Learned man in his own profeſſion.

Anſw. I laid it down as a Rule, that They are not to be preferred: You aſſault that Rule with bitter accuſations, as if it were unſound (or elſe to this day I underſtand you not.) Is it then [a hard-fronted Calumny] to defend it, and to tell you what is contained in the denying of it. The audience of God muſt be ſo dreadful to (you and) me, that (without calling you to conſider whether the Calumny be not notoriouſly yours) I heartily deſire any judicious perſon to help me to ſee, that I am here guilty, if it be ſo. But you add,

p. 72[You know not what the Event of all this may be▪ For ſuppoſe now, being drag'd in my Scarlet, (a habit more ſuitable for him that Triumphs) at the Wheel of your Chariot in the view of all men, I ſhould happen to be degraded and turned out of my literate Society; would it not trouble you? no doubt: but then it might happen to be too late.

Anſw. 1. It would trouble me: becauſe (though I know you not) our fame here ſaith that you are an honeſt, and very modeſt man, and thoſe that are Nicknamed Calviniſts prefer you before moſt others of your rank. But alas, what is Man, and what may Temptation do?

2. did you think that your Scarlet or Maſterſhip did allow you to write copiouſly, as you did, againſt your Neighbour who never medled with you, and made it a crime in him, whom you accuſe, to defend himſelf, and a righteous cauſe? I ſee in this age we deal on hard unequal terms with ſome Men that can but get into Scarlet.

3. You would make your Reader believe by theſe words that you are really Melancholly, and fear where no fear is▪ A Reverend Doctor, whoſe Book hath the Patronage of one of the greateſt Bps. of England writeth againſt one of no Academical degree, who hath theſe 13. years and more been judged unworthy to preach to the moſt ignorant Congregation in the Land, and by the (Contrived) diſtinction of Nonconformiſts from Conformiſts, goeth under the ſcorn and hatred of ſuch, as you pretend to be in danger of, and hath himſelf no ſecurity for his liberty in the open Air; that this Learned man in his honour, ſhould conceit that an Anſwer from this hated perſon might endanger his degradation and p. 73turning out of his place, is ſo ſtrange a fancie, as will make your Readers wonder.

4. But whether you are Melancholly or no I know not; but if you are not unrighteous, I know not what unrighteouſneſs is. Will you bear with the diverſion of a ſtory?

When the Moors were ſentenced to ruin in Spain, one of the Diſciples of Valdeſſo (a Scholar) fell into the diſpleaſure of the Bp. of Toledo: A Neighbour Doctor knowing that the Bps. favour might beſtead him — (whether accidentally or contrivedly I know not) hit upon this happy courſe: The Scholar and he being together in a ſolemn Convention, the Scholar was taking Tobacco, and the Dr. ſeeing the ſmok threw firſt a Glaſs of Beer in his face, and cryed Fire, Fire; The Scholar wiped his face, and went on; The Doctor next threw an Ink-bottle in his Face, crying ſtill Fire, Fire; The Scholar being thus blackt, perceived that he was like to be taken for a Moor, and ruined, and he went out and carefully waſh'd his face: the Doctor charged him openly for affronting him (yea and injuriouſly calumniating him) by the fact: For ſaith he, there was neceſſary Cauſe for what I did: There is no ſmoak without ſome fire: that which fired you might next have fired the Houſe, and that the next Houſe, and ſo have burnt down all the City: and your action intimateth as if I had done cauſeleſly what I did, and done you wrong: The Scholar anſwered him; I knew not, Sir, that it was unlawful to waſh me, but I will take no more Tobacco that I may no more offend you; But if in this froſty weather the thickneſs of my breath ſhould be called ſmoak▪ may I not waſh my face, if you again caſt your Ink upon it? p. 74No, ſaith the Doctor, It is not you, nor any private man that muſt be judg whether you are on Fire or not, in a publick danger: Muſt the City be hazarded, if you ſay that it is not Fire? The Scholar asketh, may I not refer the caſe to the ſtanders-by, and waſh my face if they ſay, It was no Fire? No, ſaith the Dr. that is but to call in your Aſſociates to your help, and to add Rebellion and Schiſm to your diſobedience: I perceive what principles you are of. Why then, ſaith the Scholar, if I muſt needs be a Moor, my face and I are at your mercy.

But pardon this digreſſion, and let you and I ſtand to the judgment of any righteous and competent Judge, whether you deal not with me in notorious injuſtice, ſo be it the Caſe be truly ſtated.

The perſon whom you aſſaulted is one, that attempted (with ſucceſs) the ſubverſion of Antinomianiſm and the clearing of truth; their Ignorance of which was the Cauſe of their other Errours. But having let fall, (for want of uſe in writing) ſome incongruous words (as Covenant for Law, &c.) and that ſomewhat often, and ſome excepting againſt the Book, he craved their animaverſions, and promiſed to ſuſpend the Book till it were corrected; and purpoſely wrote a far greater Volumn in explication of what was dark, and defence of what was wrongfully accuſed, and many other Volumns of full defence: No man anſwereth any of theſe: but after twenty years, or thereabout, (though I proteſted in print againſt any that would write againſt the Aphoriſms, without regard to the ſaid Explications) you publiſh your Confutation of part of thoſe Aphoriſms, and that with moſt notorious untruth, charging me to deny all Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, p. 75when I had there profeſt the Contrary, and taking no notice of any after-explication or defence, and parallelling me with Bellarmine, if not with Hereticks or Infidels (for I ſuppoſe you take the denyers of all Imputation to be little better.) This Book you publiſh without the leaſt provocation with other quarrels, dedicating it to that R. Rd. B. who firſt ſilenced me; (as if I muſt go write over again all the Explications and Defences I had before written, becauſe you (that are bound to accuſe me) are not bound to read them:) and this you do againſt one that at that time had been about 13 years ſilenced, ejected, and deprived of all Miniſterial maintenance, and of almoſt all his own perſonal Eſtate, deſiring no greater preferment than leave to have preached for nothing, where is notorious neceſſity, could I have obtained it, ſometimes laid in the common Jail among Malefactors, for preaching in my own houſe, and dwelling within five miles of it: after fined at forty pound a Sermon for preaching for nothing; looking when my Books and Bed are taken from me by diſtreſs, though I live in conſtant pain and langour, the Conſtable but yeſterday coming to have diſtrained for ſixty pound for two Sermons; hunted and hurryed about to Juſtices at the will of any ignorant— Agent of— that will be an Informer, and even fain to keep my doors daily lockt, if it may be to ſave my Books a while: Yet the exciting of wroth by publick Calumny againſt one ſo low already, and under the perſecuting wrath of your friends, was no fault, no injuſtice in you at all! (nor indeed did I much feel it.)

But for me who am thus publickly by viſible Calumny traduced, truly to tell you where you miſtake, p. 76and how you wrong Gods Church and Truth more than me, and if alſo I offer peaceably to waſh my own face, this is hard fronted Calumny, dragging a Doctor in Scarlet at the Wheels of my Chariot, which might occaſion his degrading and turning out, &c.

This over-tenderneſs of your honour as to other mens words, (and too little care of the means of it, as to your own) hath a cauſe that it concerneth you to find out. Had you the tenth part as many Books written againſt you, as are againſt me (by Quakers, Seekers, Infidels, Antinomians, Millenaries, Anabaptiſts, Separatiſts, Semi-ſeparatiſts, Papiſts, Pſeudo-Tilenus, Dioceſans, Conformiſts, and many Enemies of Peace, (to whom it was not I, but your ſelf that joyned you) it would have hardened you into ſome more patience. If you will needs be militant you muſt expect replies: And he that will injuriouſly ſpeak to the World what he ſhould not ſpeak, muſt look to hear what he would not hear. But you add;

Sir, the Name and Quality of a DOCTOR and Maſter of a Literate Society, might have been treated more civilly by you.

Anſw. 1. I am ready to ask you forgiveneſs for any word that any impartial man (yea or your Reverend Brethren of that Academy themſelves, whom I will allow to be ſomewhat partial for you) ſhall notifie to me to be uncivil or any way injurious. 2. But to be free with you, neither Doctorſhip, Maſterſhip nor …carlet will Priviledg you to fight againſt Truth, Right, and Peace, and to vent groſs miſtakes, and by groſs untruths in matter of fact, ſuch as is your [Omnem ludibrio habet imputationem] to abuſe your poor Brethren, and keep the longconſuming p. 77flàmes ſtill burning, by falſe repreſenting thoſe as Popiſh, and I know not what, who ſpeak not as unaptly as your ſelf, and all this without contradiction. Were you a Bp. my Body and Eſtate might be in your power, but Truth, Juſtice and the Love of Chriſtians, and the Churches peace, ſhould not be cowardly betrayed by me on pretenſe of reverence to your Name and Quality. I am heartily deſirous that for ORDER-ſake the Name and Honour of my Superiours may be very reverently uſed. But if they, will think that Errour, Injuſtice, and Confuſion muſt take ſanctuary under bare Eccleſiaſtical or Academical Names and robes, they will find themſelves miſtaken: Truth and Honeſty will conquer when they paſs through Smithfield flames: Priſons confine them not; Death kills them not; No ſiege will force an honeſt Conſcience by famine to give up. He that cannot endure the ſight of his own excrements muſt not diſh them up to another mans Table, leſt they be ſent him back again. And more freedom is allowed againſt Peace-Breakers in Frays and Wars, than towards men that are in a quieter ſort of Controverſie.

§ XX. P. 36.37. You ſay [For your various Definitions of Juſtification, Conſtitutive, Sentential, Executive, in Foro Dei, in foro Conſcientiae, &c.— What need this heap of diſtinctions here, when you know the queſtion betwixt us is of no other Juſtification, but the Conſtitutive in foro Dei, that which maketh us righteous in the Court of Heaven? I have nothing to do with you yet in any elſe, as your own Conſcience will tell you when you pleaſe: If you have not more Juſtice and civility for your intelligent Readers, I wiſh you p. 78would ſhew more Compaſſion to your Ignorant Homagers, and not thus abuſe them with your palpable Evaſions.

Anſw. Doth the queſtion, Whether the ſeveral ſorts of Juſtification will bear one and the ſame Definition, deſerve all this anger (and the much greater that followeth)?

1. Seeing I am turned to my Reader, I will crave his impartial judgment: I never received and agreed on a ſtate of the queſtion with this Doctor: He writeth againſt my books: In thoſe Books I over and over and over diſtinguiſh of Juſtification, Conſtitutive, Sentential, and Executive (beſides thoſe ſubordinate ſorts, by Witneſs, Evidence, Apology, &c.) I oft open their differences: He writeth againſt me, as denying all Imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and holding Popiſh Juſtification by works, and never tells me whether he take the word [Juſtification] in the ſame ſenſe that I do, or in which of thoſe that I had opened: And now he paſſionately appealeth to my Conſcience that I knew his ſence: What he ſaith [my Conſcience will tell me] it is not true. It will tell me no ſuch thing: but the clean contrary, that even after all his Diſputes and Anger, and theſe words, I profeſs I know not what he meaneth by [Juſtification.]

2. What [Conſtitutive in foro Dei, that which maketh us Righteous in the Court of Heaven] meaneth with him, I cannot conjecture. He denyeth not my Diſtinctions, but ſaith, what need they: I ever diſtinguiſhed Making Righteous, Judging Righteous. Executively uſeing as Righteous: The firſt is in our ſelves; The ſecond is by Divines ſaid to be in foro Dei, an act of Judgment; the third is upon us after p. 79both: now he ſeemeth to confound the two firſt, and yet denyeth not their difference; and ſaith, he meaneth [Conſtitutive in foro:] He that is made Righteous is ſuch in ſe; and as ſuch is Juſtifiable in foro:] We are Made Righteous by God as free Donor and Imputer, antecedently to judgment: We are in foro ſentenced Righteous by God as Judg: ſo that this by ſentence preſuppoſeth the former: God never Judgeth us Righteous and Juſtifieth us againſt Accuſation, till he have firſt Made us Righteous and Juſtified us from adherent Guilt by Pardon and Donation. Which of theſe meaneth he? I ask not my Ignorant homagers who know no more than I, but his Intelligent Reader. He taketh on him to go the Commoneſt way of Proteſtants: And the Commoneſt way is to acknowledg that a Conſtitutive Juſtification, or making the man Juſt, (antecedent to the Actus forenſis) muſt need go firſt: but that it is the ſecond which Paul uſually meaneth, which is the actus forenſis, the ſentence of the Judg in foro, contrary to Condemnation: And doth the Doctor think that to make Righteous and to ſentence as Righteous are all one? and that we are made Righteous in foro otherwiſe than to be juſt in our ſelves, and ſo Juſtifiable in foro, before the Sentence? or do Proteſtants take the Sentence to be Conſtituting or Making us Righteous? All this is ſuch talk as had I read it in Mr. Bunnyan of the Covenants, or any of my Ignorant Homagers, I ſhould have ſaid, the Author is a ſtranger to the Controverſie, into which he hath raſhly plunged himſelf: but I have more reverence to ſo learned a man, and therefore blame my dull underſtanding.

3. But what if I had known (as I do not yet) what ſort of Juſtification he meaneth? Doth he not p. 80know that I was then debating the Caſe with him, whether the Logical Definitions of Juſtification, Faith, &c. are not a work of Art, in which a few well-ſtudied judicious Divines (theſe were my words) are to be preferred before Authority, or Majority of Votes. And Reader, what Reaſon bound me to confine this Caſe, to one only ſort of Juſtification? And why, (I ſay, why) muſt I confine it to a ſort which Dr. Tully meaneth, when my Rule and Book was written before his, and when to this day I know not what he meaneth? Though he at once chide at my Diſtinguiſhing, and tell me that All Proteſtants agree in the Nature, Cauſes, and Definition, (and if all agreed, I might know by other Mens words what he meaneth) yet to all before-ſaid, I will add but one contrary Inſtance of many.

Cluto, in his very Methodical but unſound Idea Theol. (ſignalized in Voetii Biblioth.) defineth Juſtification ſo, as I ſuppoſe, beſt pleaſeth the Doctor, viz. [Eſt Actio Dei Judicialis, qua redemptos propter paſſiones juſtitiae Divinae ſatifactorias a Chriſto ſuſtentatas, redemptiſque imputatas, a peccatis puros, & conſequenter a poenis liberos, itemque propter Obedientiam a Chriſto Legi Divinae praeſtitam redemptiſque imputatam, juſtitia praeditos, & conſequenter vita aeterna dignos, ex miſerecordia pronunciat]. In the opening of which he telleth us, pag. 243. (againſt multitudes of the greateſt Proteſtants Definitions.) [Male, alteram Juſtificationis partem, ipſam Juſtitiae Imputationem ſtatui, cum Juſtificatio non ſit ipſa Imputatio, ſed Pronunciatio quae Imputatione, tanquam fundamento jacto, nititur.

p. 81And he knew no ſenſe of Juſtification, but [Vel ipſam ſententiae Juſtificatoriae in mente Divina prolationem, ſive Conſtitutionem, vel ejus in Cordibus redemptorum manifeſtantem Revelationem: And ſaith, Priori modo factum eſt autem omnem fidem, cum Deus omnes, quibus paſſiones & juſtitiam Chriſti imputabat, innocentes & juſtos reputaret, cum ejus inimici, adeoque ſine fide eſſent, (ſo that here is a Juſtification of Infidels, as innocent for Chriſts Righteouſneſs imputed to them): Quare etiam ut jam facta fide apprehendenda eſt. The ſecond which follows Faith, is Faith, ingenerating a firm perſwaſion of it. Is not here ſad defining, when neither of theſe are the Scripture- Juſtification by Chriſt and Faith?

And ſo §. 32. the time of Juſtification by Faith he maketh to be the time when we receive the feeling of the former: And the time of the former is preſently after the Fall; of all at once: And hence gathereth that [Ex eo quod Juſtificatio dicitur fieri propter paſſiones & obedientiam Chriſti, quibus ad perfectionem nihil deeſt, nobis imputatas (before Faith or Birth) conſequitur innocentiam & juſtitiam in Redemptis quam primum perfectas & ab omni macula puras eſſe—] and ſo that neither the pronunciation in mente Divina, or imputation ullis gradibus ad perfectionem exſurgat.

But what is this pronunciation in mente Divina? He well and truly noteth, §. 29. that [Omnes actiones Divinae, fi ex eo aeſtimentur quod re ipſa in Deo ſunt, idem ſunt cum ipſo Deo, ideoque dependentiam a Cauſa externa non admittant: Si tamen conſiderentur quoad rationem formalem hujus vel illius denominationis ipſis impoſitae in relatione ad Creaturas conſiſtentem, ipſis cauſae impulſivae aſſignare poſſunt, p. 82&c. This diſtinction well openeth, how God may be ſaid to juſtifie in His own Mind: But what is that effect, Ʋnde eſſentia vel mens Divina ita denominatur juſtificans? Here he is at a loſs, neither truly telling us what is Juſtication Conſtitutive, Sentential, nor Executive (but in the little part of [Feeling] Gods ſecret Act) yet this dark Definer truly ſaith [Ex ſenſu Scripturae veriſſime affirmetur hominem per fidem ſolam juſtificari, quia ex noſtra parte nihil ad Juſtificationem conferendum Deus requirit, quam ut Juſtificationem in Chriſto fundatam credamus, & fide non producamus, ſed recipiamus.

If yet you would ſee whether all Proteſtants agree in the Definition of Juſtification, read the multitude of Definitions of it in ſeveral ſenſes; in Learnrd Alſtedius his Definit. Theol. c. 24. §. 2. pag. 97. &c. [Juſtificatio hominis coram Deo eſt qua homo in foro Divino abſolvitur, ſeu juſtus eſſe evincitur contra quemvis actorem, Deo ipſo judice, & pro eo ſententiam ferente]. But what is this Forum? Forum Divinum eſt ubi Deus ipſe judicis partes agit, & fert ſententiam ſecundum leges a ſe latas? But where is that Eſt internum vel externum? Forum divinum internum eſt in ipſa hominis Conſcientia, in qua Deus Thronum juſtitiae erigit in hac vita ibi agendo partes actoris & judicis: Forum Conſcientiae. (But it is not this that is meant by the Juſtification by Faith). Forum divinum externum eſt, in qua Deus poſt hanc vitam extra hominem exercet judicium, 1. Particulare, 2. Ʋniverſale. This is true and well: But are we no where Juſtified by Faith but in Conſcience, till after Death? This is by not conſidering, 1. The Jus ad impunitatem & vitam donatum p. 83per foedus Evangelicum upon our Believing, which ſuppoſing Faith and Repentance is our Conſtitutive Juſtification, (virtually only ſentential). 2. And the Judgment of God begun in this Life, pronounced ſpecially by Execution. Abundance of uſeful Definitions ſubordinate you may further there ſee in Alſtedius, and ſome wrong, and the chief omitted.

The vehement paſſages of the Doctors Concluſion I paſs over; his deep ſenſe of unſufferable Provocations, I muſt leave to himſelf; his warning of the dreadful Tribunal which I am near, it greatly concerns me to regard: And Reader, I ſhall think yet that his Conteſt (though troubleſome to me that was falſly aſſaulted, and more to him whoſe detected Miſcarriages are ſo painful to him) hath yet been Profitable beyond the Charges of it to him or me, if I have but convinced thee, that 1. Sound mental Conceptions of ſo much as is neceſſary to our own Juſtification, much differ from proper Logical Definitions: And that, 2. Many millions are Juſtified that cannot define it: 3. And that Logical Definitions are Works of Art more than of Grace, which require ſo much Acuteneſs and Skill, that even worthy and excellent Teachers may be, and are diſagreed about them, eſpecially through the great ambiguity of Words; which all underſtand not in the ſame ſence, and few are ſufficiently ſuſpicious of, and diligent to explain. 4. And therefore that our Chriſtian Love, Peace, and Concord, ſhould not be laid upon ſuch Artificial things. 5. And that really the Generality of Proteſtants are agreed moſtly in the Matter, when they quarrel ſharply about many Artificial Notions and Terms in the point of Juſtification. p. 84(And yet after all this, I ſhall as earneſtly as this Doctor, deſire and labour for accurateneſs in Diſtinguiſhing, Defining and Method, though I will not have ſuch things to be Engins of Church-Diviſion.)

And laſtly, Becauſe he ſo oft and earneſtly preſſeth me with his Quem quibus, who is the Man, I profeſs I dreamed not of any particular Man: But I will again tell you whom my Judgment magnifies in this Controverſie above all others, and who truly tell you how far Papiſts and Proteſtants agree, viz. Vinc. le Blank, and Guil. Forbes, (I meddle not with his other Subjects), Placeus (in Theſ. Salmur.) Davenant, Dr. Field, Mr. Scudder (his daily Walk, fit for all families) Mr. Wotton, Mr. Bradſhaw, and Mr. Gataker, Dr. Preſton, Dr. Hammond, (Pract. Cat.) and Mr. Lawſon (in the main) Abundance of the French and Breme Divines are alſo very clear. And though I muſt not provoke him again by naming ſome late Engliſh men, to reproach them by calling them my diſciples, I will venture to tell the plain man that loveth not our wrangling tediouſneſs, that Mr. Trumans Great Propit. and Mr. Gibbons ſerm. of Juſtif. may ſerve him well without any more.

And while this worthy Doctor and I do both concord with ſuch as Davenant and Field as to Juſtification by Faith or Works, judg whether we differ between our ſelves as far as he would perſwade the World, who agree in tertio? And whether as he hath angrily profeſt his concord in the two other Controverſies which he raiſed (our Guilt of nearer Parents ſin, and our preferring the judgment of the wiſeſt, &c.) it be not likely that he will do ſo alſo p. 85in this, when he hath leiſure to read and know what it is that I ſay and hold, and when we both underſtand our ſelves and one another. And whether it be a work worthy of Good and Learned men, to allarm Chriſtians againſt one another for the ſake of arbitrary words and notions (which one partly uſeth leſs aptly and skilfully than the other) in matters wherein they really agree.

2 Tim. 2. 14. Charging them before the Lord that they ſtrive not about words, to no profit, but to the ſubverting of the Hearers (yet) ſtudy to ſhew thy ſelf approved unto God, a workman that need not be aſhamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth