The Reduction of a Digresser, Table of contents
THE CONTENTS.
§. 1. THe Prologue to M r K. Pag. 1.
§. 2. M r K's stumbling at the threshold. 3
§. 2. Whether it be true that D r Twiss means not that the Immanent act may be stiled Justification. 4
§. 2. M r Pemble's words of Justification at Christs death. 6
§. 3. M r K. confesseth that I affirm not the novelty of Immanent acts in God, and yet chooseth me to Dispute against on the Point. 6
§. 3. A free and full Discovery of my own Opinion in that Point. 7, 8
§. 4. The Reasons of my mentioning D r Twiss as I did: and whether I be guilty of sleighting him: or M r K. rather of sleighting the Assembly. 11, 12
§. 5. M r K's grant Argument against new Immanent acts in God, examined. Whether it be certain to us that God hath no Immanent act but of Ʋnderstanding or Will? A recitall of some Reasons of those that hold new Immanent acts of Ʋnderstanding in God: with my thoughts of them. Also about the acts of Will. More of their Reasons recited to prove the newness of Immanent acts, or at least the Necessity or Conveniency of Denominating them as New, from the newness of the object. It is as consistent with Gods Eternity and Immutability to have New acts, as with his simplicity to have divers acts: yet must we conceive of his Willing and Nilling and Ʋnderstanding as divers, or at least so denominate them. 15, 29
§. 6. & 7. An Examination of M r K's Doctrine of Analogy. 30, 36
§. 7. & 8. Whether Intellection and Volition be ascribed to God by Analogy Attribution, as M r K. affirms? 37, 39
§. 9. The true Analysis and sense of my words which M r K. opposeth. 40, 41
§. 10, 11, 12, Whether an Act be properly an Effect? 42, 43
§. 13. Whether M r K. speak truly, when he saith [Neither doth it (action) carry that stile (of an effect) in any of these Learned Sophies, &c.] 44, 45
§. 15. Gods acts no Accidents. Acts inhere not in a subject. 47
§. 16. Whether Gods Immanent acts have any other Terms then their objects. 48
§. 17. Whether the difference assigned by M r K. between Gods Immanent and Transient acts, be as clear as between heaven and earth. And whom I meant in that Question Whether Immanent acts be any more Eternal then Transient? 49
§. 17. An Answer to M r K's 150. 154. pages against M r Goodwin. 50, 51, 52
§. 18, 19. The Answers that some make to M r K's Arguments against the newness of Immanent acts. 53, 54, 55
§. 19. Whether the ground of such new acts as ascribed be in God or the creature. 55, 57
§. 20. How ungroundedly M r K. chargeth me with contending with D r Twiss and all sober Divines that ever were worthy to speak to a School Point. 58
§. 21. Whether it be not from the respect to the object that Gods Essence is called Knowledge, or the Knowledge of this or that. 59
§. 22. Whether it be all one to know the futurity and the existence of things. 60
§. 23. M r K's unworthy fastening on me words of his divising. 61
§. 24. An example shewing that Immanent and Transient acts, are of the same nature. 62
§. 25. M r K's Answer to the instance of the Sunnes not being changed by objects, is partly Lusory, partly yieldeth the Cause, and partly Erroneous. 63
§. 26. M r K's Exceptions about the similitude of a Glasse, refelled. 64, 65, 66
§. 27. A Recapitulation of what I have said on this Subject. 67
§. 27. The great incapacity of man to comprehend the nature and acts of God. 68, 69
§. 27. Rob. Baronius Testimony about Mutation of Immanent acts. And some Scripture Testimony. 72, 73
§. 29. M r K's second undertaking to little purpose: contrary to the former: and how ill performed, 77
§. 29. Justification or Remission, not from Eternity. 78, 79
§. 29. M r K's Reasons to prove Gods Decree to have somewhat like Justification, do as much prove it to have somewhat like Sanctification and Glorification. 80, 84
§. 29. M r K's Antinomian doctrine, false, that [being justified in Gods sight, is when he makes us to see, or makes it evident to our sight that we are justified.] 85
§. 29. The boldness and falsness of M r K. affirmation, that [to Will to Will, was never heard of.] 86
§. 29. Seven Arguments proving that the Elicite acts of the Will, may be the object of the Will. 87
§. 29. Six several cases wherein I finde that I will the acts of my own will. 88
§. 29. Its untrue, that [he that Wils to Will, Wils no more then he doth already.] ib.
§. 30. M r K's doctrine, that [the Decree to Remit sin, carries in it a Remission of them tantamount] is tantamount downright Antinomianism. 89
§. 30. Ten mischievous consequents of this Doctrine (and so of Justification from Eternity.) 90
§. 30. Sin may be charged on us before we believe, for all Gods Decree to pardon it. 90, 91
§. 30. M r K's Antinomian doctrine, that [there is no danger of suffering for sin, where God decreeth to Remit it] confuted by many arguments: It maketh Christs blood, to have saved us from no danger, and God never to have freed us from danger, &c. 92
§. 30. Chastisement a species of Punishment. ib.
§. 31. What is the Acceptance, which M r K. makes the object of Gods Decree. 93
§. 34. Pardon distinguished and defined. 96
§. 34. M r K's desperate language, calling the act of the Law of grace or promise [An odde empty, moral, action] and that [by the promulgation of it, God doth as improperly give us Christ, or disable the Law to condemn us.] 98
§. 35. M r K's admirable doctrine that [the Covenant justifieth by such an act as Quantitas hath faciendo Quantum, or Paternitas faciendo patrem, viz. informing. 100
§. 35. His profound Notion, that the Covenant justifieth but Aptitudinaliter. 101
§. 35. The Covenant pardoneth immediately, our faith being but a condition, and not a cause. ib.
§. 36. M r K's horned Argument answered [God justifies by the Covenant All, or Some, &c.] 103
§. 37. M r K's desperate Conclusion, that [thus a man wisely justifies himself by beleeving, and more a great deal then the Covenant by promising, or God by promulgating it.] 104
§. 38. His further desperate Doctrine [Just so (as Adam brought death into the world rather then God) in the new Covenant, Believe and be justified. Who Justifies the Believer, God or himself?] 106
§. 39, 40, 41, 42. Much more to the same purpose, vainly intended to prove that I make man his own justifier. 107
§. 42. M r K. saith, the Judge who pronounceth the sentence, or the Law, do not so properly condemn a malefactour as himself: Therefore so the Believer justifieth himself. 108
§. 43. Whether M r K's Client be ingeniously instructed, who being saved from the Gallows by his Book, saith, [Grammercy to my Reading more then to the courtesie of the Law.] 109
§. 44. The falsehood of M r K's Consequence, that [he that performs the condition makes the grant become Absolute,] if it become so on his performance. 110
§. 45, 46. He unworthily intimates that I deny faith to be a real effect of God on the soul: saying, he will prove it against me, and pretending to force me to confess it. 111
§. 46. He falsly affirms that I deny Habits distinct from the soul. 112
§. 47. About the instrumentality of faith: the untruth of his first Answer, and non-sense or worse of the second. ib.
§. 48. M r K. saith, §. 47. [I shall make it appear to be both Gods instrument and mans in some sense] and §. 48. he saith [I do not say it is (Gods Instrument) properly.] 113
§. 49. M r K. untruly saith, [Faith is as much Gods Instrument as the new Covenant] and gives an ill description of faith, as his reason. ib.
§. 50. His next Reason nothing to the purpose. 114
§. 51. His ill explication of Gods Justification by faith, viz. [declaring hereby the righteousness of Christ to be his own.] 115
§. 51. He strangely affirms, that [man is the Subject, not the Authour of his own act of believing.] ib.
§. 52, 53. He makes man his own justifier. 116
§. 53. He odly saith [Faith hath a proper causality upon our Justification passively taken, that is, upon our receiving the Righteousness of Christ.] 117
§. 54. He confesseth that [it is needless to say, Faith is a passive Instrument.] 118
§. 54. He dangerously saith [Faith doth help the action of the principal agent, that is, God in our Justification. ib.
§. 54. More of his false Accusation refelled. 119
§. 56. He makes justifying faith to be an Action which is Virtually a Passion, and that is, A suffering our selves to be led by the Spirit of God, and his authority, against the suggestions of our own reason. 120
§. 56. But proves the Instrumentality by silence. ib.
§. 57. His instrument of Receiving no proper Instrument, as being no efficient. 121
§. 58. Moral instruments have a Moral action. ib.
§. 59. How ill M r K. makes a jest of the Instrumentality of Christs Covenant or Testament. 122
§. 60. M r K's unanswerable arguing wherein he vanquisheth me. 123
§. 61. When I am proving that [the act of faith is not the Instrument of Justification] He confutes me by saying, Faith is a Habit. 124
§. 61. The reason why I will not contend with them that only call faith, the instrument of Receiving Christ. ib.
§. 62. Divines affirming commonly, that It is the act of faith, and not the Habit that justifieth, do thereby overthrow their own doctrine of faiths proper Instrumentality in justifying. 125
§. 62. M r K. first feigns me to call the Habit of faith a sanctified faculty, and then very gravely Schools me for it. 126
§. 62. About the Real Identity of the soul, its faculties, holiness. ib.
§. 63. The Ʋnreasonabl…ness of M r K's impatiency. 128
§. 64. How M r K. can call [Faith a Habit, equivalent to a new faculty.] 129
§. 64. D r Twisse's Arguments to prove that faith or other grace is no new power. 130
§. 64. Faith is truly A moral power, that is, A Habit or Disposition, without which we shall not be true believers. 131
§. 64. M r K's dead doctrine, that [without faith a man can no more do ought towards receiving Christ, then a dead man can walk or speak.] ib.
§. 64. The vanity of his arguing for faiths instrumental justifying, from its [Giving life to the soul in all spiritual operations.] 132
§. 65. More of the weakness of his arguings about receiving Christ, manifested. 133
§. 66. The end of M r K's undertaking, considered. Whether I unworthily handled Dr Twiss and M r Pemble? An acknowledgement of all that Deficiency that M r K. doth tanto molimine prove me guilty of. 134
§. 67. M r K. concludeth before he hath done his main task, which so oft promised, viz. To tell us what is the Transient-justifying-act of God. 137
§. 67. A conjecture at his sense. He destroyeth his Cause unawares. Strangely mistakes the nature of a Condition. 138
§. 67. Justification by faith, in Scripture sense, is not in foro conscientiae. 139
§. 67. Gods giving faith is not his immediate justifying act, proved. 141
§. 67. Arguments proving that it is in Law-sense (commonly called Sententia Legis) that we are first justified by Faith, and so the Moral act of the Law is Gods immediate justifying act. 141, 142
§. 68. The Conclusion. 143