A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Letter · Section 17
§. 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 bewildring, than the Scriptures make it. Therefore it is that I have perswaded Men to lay less stress on arbitrary humane Notions: But the question is 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 may 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?
And 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.