A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Letter · Section 15
§. 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].
Answ. 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 Pomble, 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 hath often published his Judgment to the contrary—so that a poor Academical Doctor may very rationally enquire of you, Who in this case is to be preferred? That one, or those many?
Answ. There was a Disputant who would undertake to conquer any Adversary: When he was asked, How? He said he would pour out upon him so many and so gross untruths, as should leave him nothing to answer congruously, but a Mentiris; and then all the World would judg him uncivil, and condemn him for giving such an unreverent answer. But you shall not so prevail with me, but I will call your Reader to answer these Questions:
1. Whether it be any truer, that [This is the clear purport of my Direction], than it is that I say, There is but one Star in the Firmament, because I say that one Star is more Luminous than many Candles?
2. Whether if a diseased Reader will put such a Sense upon my words, his Forgery be a true stating of the Question between him and me, with out my consent?
3. Whether an intimation that this ONE is either 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 are justified] While the Scripture speaketh both, and all Protestants hold both in several senses? And whether this easie stating of Controversies, without more Explication or Distinction, be worthy an Academical Disputant?
5. Whether it be true or notoriously false, that [All our Renowned Divines on this side, and beyond the Seas, are agreed], of that in this Question of the interest of Works, which this one contradicteth?
6. Whether this Doctors naked Affirmation hereof be better proof, than that one Mans citation of the words of above an Hundred (yea many Hundred) as giving as much to Works as he doth, is of the contrary?
7. Whether it be an ingenuous way beseeming Academics, to talk at this rate, and assert such a stating of the Question and such consent, without one word of notice or mention of the Books, in which I state the Question, and bring all this evidence of consent?
8. If such a Doctor will needs enquire, whether the secret thoughts of the Writer meant not himself, when he pretendeth but to accuse the Rule there given, and should enquire but of the meaning of the words, whether it favour more of Rationality, or a presumptuous usurping the Prerogative of God?