A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Letter · Section 16
§. XVI. Pag. 27. Though your approach be wrathful, you are constrained to come nearer yet, and you cannot deny my Rule of Direct. in other Points, but only those of [High and difficult speculation]: And do you deny it there? You will deal with it but as the application of that Rule to the Definition of Justification? (And shall we lose your favour, by forcing you to lay by your Opposition as to all the rest?) But here you say you [exceedingly differ from me]; Or else you would be ashamed of so much Combating in the dark: Exceeding oft signifieth some extream.
Your Reasons are, 1. You hold not the Doctrine of Justification to be properly of Speculative concern, but wholly Practical: Where yet you confess, that in all Practical knowledg, there be some antecedent contemplations of the Nature, Properties, End, Object, and that to know the certain number of Paces home-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 shut the Windows, and confound Mens Minds. I take all Theologie to be together, Scientia-affectiva-practica; for our Intellect, Will, and Practice, must be possest or ruled by it: But it is first Scientia, and we must know before we can will and practise. And though all right knowledg tend to Practice, yet forgive me for telling you, that I think that many holy Persons in Scripture and Primitive times, loved and practised more than you or I, who knew not how to form an exact Logical Definition. And that he that knoweth the things of the Spirit spiritually, by Scripture Notions, may practise them as fully, as he that knoweth and speaketh them in the Notions of Aristotle; or else the School-Men excel the Apostles. Though ambling be an easie Pace, which Horses are taught by Gives and Fetters, it followeth not that a Horse cannot travel as far in his natural pace. When you have said all, Logical defining shall be a work of Art, and the Church should not be torn, and Souls shall not be damned, for want of it. He that Loveth, Believeth, Hopeth, Obeyeth, and by doing them hath a reflecting perception what they are, and hath but such a knowledg of the Gospel as may be had without a proper Definition, shall be saved.
2. 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? Cannot 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.