The Covenant Sealed, Section 9

The Covenant Sealed · Section 9

p. 647SECT. IX. The concluſion of the whole, with an enquiry into the judgement of Antiquity about ſeverall things in reference to juſtification.

AS you have ſaluted me in a Prologue, ſo you are pleaſed in your cloſe, in a particular addreſſe, to take your leave, In which, among other things, you wiſh me not to ſuppoſe, that you judge of all the reſt of my booke, as you do of this that you have replyed to. Telling me, tha you value the Wheat, while you help to weed out the tares. I am glad that I have your approbation in any thing, and I hope you will not be offended that I mind you, that in this work of weeding out Tares, you ſtand in danger to weed out the Wheate alſo. It is ſaid by ſome, that the tares in thoſe parts, carried ſo near reſemblance with the Wheat, that they could hardly be diſtinguiſhed. I am ſure, that if I had judged the leaſt nature of a Tare to have been in any of that which you have gon about to weed out, it never had been ſown there; and I did believe, that I was rather weeding, then ſowing Tares, when I was upon the work you examine. I dare not brand all that ſeed with the name of Tare…, which is not pure Wheat. In a Corn field, there are ſeeds of a middle nature, Not pure Corn, nor yet ſuch, that like Tares are dangerouſly prejudiciall to overtop, and deſtroy the Corn; whether they be Tares, or Wheat, or other ſeed of a middle nraure, we muſt both leave to the judgement of the Maſt…r of the p. 648harveſt. You ſpeak of a Pardon in the next place for your onfident concluding me in an error, and your ſelf in the truth; In which I have all reaſon (if that muſt paſſe as a fault, needing Pardon) to be facile; ſeeing I need it from you, as well, as you from me; Though I am not in expectation of like credence as you (your name with ſome, being enough to put in ballance againſt all the Arguments that another hand can produce) yet I believe, that I am as far above ſcruples. As I have not heard, that your elaborate replies, to thoſe learned friends, that in private have given in their animadverſions, have given them ſuch ſatisfaction, as to change their judgements; ſo I confeſſe it fares with me; And when either of us ſtand this way opinionated, no other courſe can be taken, then that which you mention, either to leave the other, and both of us, all others, to judge by the evidence of arguments on both ſides, with what part the truth reſts. I have made it my buſineſſe in moſt poynts of difference, to enlarge my ſelf further with arguments then before I judged to be needfull. I doubt not but they will undergo different cenſures. I ſhall not much matter what on the ſuddaine will be voyced, but ſhall rather weigh (if God prolong life) what after a few years will be more generally thought. Neither ſhall I in the meane time aſſume the boldneſſe to charge you with any error, you have herein foreſtalled me, in the preface of your Confeſſion, in your enumeration of thoſe qualifications, which you expect in any that ſhall attempt it. 1. That he be a man of a ſtronger judgement, and of a more diſcerning head; and not one of thoſe that Nazianz. deſcribes, Orat. 1. and (after Pag. 453.) think themſelves wiſe enough to be teachers, or contradict others, when they have got two or three words of Scripture: Nor ſuch as have not wit for an ordinary buſineſſe, and yet think thy can maſter the deepeſt controverſies. He that thinks to do this without a peircing wit (as well as grace) ordinarily thinks to ſee without eyes. 2. That he be one that hath longer, and more diligently and ſeriouſly exerciſed himſelf in theſe ſtudies, then I have done. 3. That he be one more free from prejudice and partiality then I am. 4. That he have more of the illumination of Gods Spirit, which is the chief. 5. That he have a more ſanctified heart, that he may not be led away by wrong ends, or blinded by his vices. It is not for me here to enter compariſon; There being but one piece, of one of them, in which I can p. 649ſpeak any ſuch priority, I have been longer (I think) exerciſed in theſe ſtudies, which is all that I have to plead, and I wiſh it had been with more ſerious diligence; It is my way then to keep ſilence; Though many may think that you are ſcarce ſerious, in judging all of theſe to be neceſſary requiſites, in any that ſhall take upon them ſuch boldneſs; ſeeing you ſeem not to tye your ſelf up to this Rule, in your dealings with others. You are pleaſed ſometimes to ſay, that you ſhould have little modeſty, or humility, if you ſhould not think more highly of the underſtanding of many Reverend and Learned Brethren, who diſſent from you (in ſeverall points debated between you and me) then of your own: Yet who is it, of all theſe, that you do not charge with error? Yea where is there the man, almoſt in the world, that hears not that charge from your pen? More then once you charge error, on Reverend Dr. Twiſſe, Prolocutor (while he lived) of the late Aſſembly; in ſpeaking for juſtification of of Infidels (as you call it,) and making it an immanent act in God, warning younger Students to be wary in their Reading of him. In whoſe behalf Mr. Jeſſop hath ſtood up as an advocate, not pleading juſtification in his name, but not guilty; In which I ſhall not interpoſe. My judgement in the thing is ſufficiently known. You charge the Aſſembly that ſet him up in that honour, in like ſort; entring your diſſent from their larger Catechiſm in four paſſages, from their confeſſion in ſix, deſiring onelyonly indeed, a liberty of expounding, but in ſeveral of them you well know that your expoſition was none of their meaning, which you do not obſcurely ſignifie, in the different expreſſion of your ſelf, in your diſſent from them, and from the Synod of Dort. You charge the pious Miniſtry of this Nation in general (out of whom that Aſſembly was gathered) in the Preface of your Confeſſion, with error in their thoughts about Church Diſcipline, and if information do not deceive me, as full an Aſſembly of Learned, and pious Miniſters, as Conveniently live for ſuch a meeting together, in any part of the Nation, after a full debate of that which you charge as an error, determined it againſt you. Laſtly, you charge the whole reforming party of Divines, with four great errors, as we have ſeen in your Apology, pag. 16. Now for a man to think, that you judge your ſelf above all theſe, in this gradation mentioned, in every one of thoſe enumerated qualifications, were indeed p. 650to challenge, both your humility and modeſty. Your Readers then muſt conclude, that either you were not ſerious in your Liſt given in; or elſe you take liberty to tranſgreſs your own Rules, and ſet upon that work your ſelf, which you will not allow in others. After quotation of ſeverall paſſages of the Fathers (with which all muſt vote) you ſeem to prefer one of Auſtin above all, contra rationem nemo ſobrius, contra Scripturas nemo Chriſtianus, contra eccleſiam nemo pacificus; Making that application of this, as you have done of none of the other, That in the point of faiths inſtrumentality, and the nature of the juſtifying act, taking in afterwards the intereſt of mans obedience in juſtication, as it is conſummate in judgement, you are conſtrained upon all theſe three grounds to give in your diſſent. I can perſwade none to abjure Chriſtianity, renounce reaſon, and make a ſchiſme in the Church (as it ſeems you think you muſt do) to come over to me; and yeelding (as cleerly enough you do) that I have this little corner of the world, whereſoever Proteſtants dwell, for an hundred and fifty yeers paſt on my ſide, ſure you ſtand amazed, that none of all theſe men, in ſo long a ſpace of time, can either be brought to the ſight of reaſon, or to a right underſtanding of Scriptures, or yet to returne to that unity, from which they have in ſo foul a Schiſm departed. Theſe points, on the two firſt grounds, have been brought already (as well as I can do it) to the teſt; In which you ſee, my reaſon againſt yours; and my ſenſe of Scriptures, againſt that which you have given; The third onelyonly doth remain to be enquired into, and I cannot yet believe that the Church is my adverſary. And here you ſeem to put me fairly to it. If you will bring (ſay you) one ſound reaſon, one word of Scripture, or one approved writer of the Church, (yea or one Heretick, or any man whatſoever) for many hundred years after Chriſt (I think I may ſay 1300. at leaſt) to prove that Chriſt, as Lord, or King, is not the object of the juſtifying act of faith, or that faith juſtifieth properly as inſtrument, I am contented ſo far to loſe the reputation of my reaſon, underſtanding, reading, and memory. You ſpeak this, you ſay, becauſe I tell you, there was ſcarce a diſſenting voyce among our Divines againſt me about the inſtrumentality of faith, and if (ſay you) there cannot be brought one man that conſenteth with them for 1200. or 1400. years after Chriſt, I pray you tell me, whom an humble and modeſt peaceable man ſhould follow? Anſw. For reaſon, p. 651or Scripture, I ſhall bring no more then I have done, I think you may ſee both, in that which I have already written. The Churches teſtimony onelyonly now remains to be looked after, whether you, or I can lay the fairer claime; and here you diſtinguiſh of it. 1. As it was for the firſt 1200, 1300, 1400 yeers after Chriſt, for you name all of theſe Periods. 2. As it hath been for 150. yeers now paſt. The Church for one full hundred yeers at leaſt, it ſeems by you, ſtood Newter, viz. from 1400. to 1500. The Church for this little ſcantling of time, viz. for 150. yeers is not denyed by you to vote with me, if the Proteſtant party to which you joyn in communion, may deſerve that name. But for all that ſpace as before, it was (as you pretend) unanimouſly yours; at well the Orthodox, as the Hereticall party in it. Here, for further diſcovering of truth, two things ſhould be enquired into. 1. Whether he, more worthily deſerves the name of an enemy of the Churches peace, that diſſents in judgement from the Church in ſome particulars, as in ages paſt it was; or he that confeſſedly diſſents from the Church whereof he is, and where he lives, and as that preſent, it ſtands? I think, here the determination is eaſie; Let us enquire whether of theſe diſſents will work more heart-broyles, quarrels, contentions, envyings, mutuall oppoſitions, and needleſs diſputes, and let that be agreed upon (as well it may) to bear the blame. If all muſt be tyed up to keep peace, and be at one with the Church, as to all particular tenents, in the revolution of all theſe ages, they are then tyed to know, and their Paſtors are bound to teach, what in all ſucceſſive ages hath been the Churches opinion. But this were a great burden for Paſtors, and far more intolerable to be put upon the people. If a man may be ſecure in this, that he goeth not againſt truth, I think he need not trouble himſelf as to ages paſt, in the matter of peace. Had you produced the vote of Antiquity, as a probable inducement to perſwade, that you had truth according to Scripture, and reaſon, on your part, it had been ſomewhat, ſuch appeals to humane Authority, after Divine Teſtimony produced, is ordinary; but to diſſent from the Church, in which a man lives, and of which he is, to avoid the danger of a breach of peace, with the Church that ſometimes was, is ſuch a way of peace, that I never yet knew troden, or taken: 2. Whether Antiquity be as cleer for you, as p. 652the Church in preſent is for me? The latter you freely grant, but the former will, I think, hardly be yeelded, notwithſtanding what you ſay, Becauſe a word, or an opinion, that is unſound, hath got poſſeſſion of a little corner of the world for about 150 yeers; therefore I am ſuſpected as a noveliſt, for forſaking it. Whereas it is to avoid ſingularity, and notorious novelty, that I aſſent not to your way. The ſame I ſay about the intereſt of mans obedience, in his juſtification, as continued, and conſummate in judgement. If either Clemens Roman. Polycarp. Ignatius, Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Clem. Alexand. Minutius Faelix, Arnobius, Lactantius, Cyprian, Athanaſius, Euſebius, Greg. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Cyrill Hieroſol. Syneſius, Cyrill Alaxandr. Macarius, Hierome, Salvian, Vincentius Lirin. Vigilius, or any councill were of your mind in any one of theſe points, and againſt mine, then I will confeſs, at leaſt my ſupine negligence in Reading, and my very faulty Memory, in retaining their words. How fully you have proved the unfoundneſs, either of the word, or opinion in queſtion, others muſt judge, But whether the novelty be ſo notorious, as you ſpeak, is to be enquired into, and in order to that, I ſhall requeſt you,

Some things propounded to the Readers conſiderationTo take into conſideration who they be that make the loudeſt noyſe, and ſend out the greateſt Cracks about the Fathers; If the Church of Rome may be believed, all Antiquity is theirs. Hoping to put that cheat upon us, as the Gibeonites ſometimes did upon Iſrael, Ad patres ſi quando licebit accedere, confectum eſt praelium; Tam ſunt omnes noſtri quam Gregorius 13. Papa, filiorum eccleſiae amantiſſimus Pater. Teſtes feneſtrae & omnes res & reculae.It is ſtill their pretence that all former ages were on their ſide. If we might but appeale to the Fathers (ſaith Campian) the controverſie were ended, They are all as fully ours, (ſaith he) as Pope Gregory the 13. that moſt Loving father of the Sons of the Church. As the windowes in the Church & all other things and thinglings (to take the liberty to coyne Engliſh as he doth Latine) are their witneſſes, So all the Fathers alſo, that the truth is with them. I will ſay no more, but that theſe naked names will appear to Judicious Readers, but as an empty ſound; a voice and nothing more.

2. That ſome of untainted integrity, and of no leſſe ability to give account of the Judgement of Antiquity, in theſe controverſies, have aſſerted the full contrary to that, which you here with ſo much confidence deliver. Chemnitius was a man differing from you, in every piece of this doctrine, in which p. 653you diſſent from me, and particularly your adverſary in all theſe three poynts in which you make this appeal to former ages. He is a man zealous for the inſtrumentality of Faith in Juſtification, he is large in aſſerting the promiſe of mercy in Chriſt, to be the ſpeciall object of Juſtifying Faith; and againſt your diſtinction of Juſtification, begun by Faith alone, and conſummate by works; yea, there is not a man that ever wrote, that appears more your adverſary in this poynt then he, being judged the moſt learned, grave, and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches, wherewith you are moſt diſpleaſed, in this Controverſie, yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his ſide, both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent, 144. After a Liſt of authorities brought by him, his cloſe is worth obſervation,(a)(a)Haec pauca ideo annotavi, ut oſtenderem doctrinam noſtram de Juſtificatione, habere teſtimonia omnium piorum qui omnibus temporibus fuerunt: idque non in declamatoriis rhetoricationibus, nec in otioſis diſputationibus, ſed in ſeriis exercitiis poenitentiae & fidei, quando conſcientia in tentationibus cum ſuâ indignitate, vel coram ipſo judicio Dei, vel in agone mortis luctatur. Hoc enim ſolo modo, rectiſſimè intelligi poteſt doctrina de juſtificatione ſicut in Scripturâ traditur. Quaeres put concerning this Appeale. Theſe few (ſaith he) I have noted, that it may appear that our doctrine of Juſtification, is atteſted by all the Godly of all ages, that have lived in all times, and that not in their Rhetoricall declamations, or vaine diſputes, but in their ſerious exerciſes of Repentance and Faith, in their Conflicts of conſcience in temptation, or with their own unworthineſſe, or before the Tribunal of God, or in the Agony of death: For this way (ſaith he) the doctrine of Juſtification as it is delivered in Scripture, can alone rightly be underſtood. What can be now more contrary then his Teſtimony and yours? how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one againſt another. That which you ſay is a notorious novelty, he ſaith, hath the atteſtation of all antiquity; who ſhall he now believe, that hath not, nor cannot ſearch the Authors themſelves, that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years?

3. I would have you to take into ſerious conſideration theſe following Quaeres.

1. Whether the doctrine of thoſe that bore the name, and outward face of the Church, was uniforme, through out that whole ſeries of time that you take in, in you… challenge? Whether in the time of Thomas Aquinas, and the following ages, the doctrine concerning Juſtification, in the Latine Church, was the ſame as in the daies of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Auſtine? If ſo, then the doctrine of merit, in the higheſt way, as it is now taught in the Ch… of Rome, was delivered by the Fathers; & the oppoſitio… … is, as notorious a novelty, as this of the inſtrumen… … …f Faith, or juſtifying act, by you is pretended. p. 654How high Aquinas is for merit, as alſo his followers, all that caſt their eyes upon him may ſoon ſee: And in caſe in this time, a change intervened, and a new way be introduced, you were not ſo adviſed to jumble together ſo many ages of ſo different a complexion, even Lombard himſelf was not the ſame man, as Schoolmen that in ſome ages followed him.

2. Whether there be any important change in the doctrine of Juſtification in the Church of Rome, ſince that time that cloſeth up your account, viz. ann. 1400. to this day? As I take it, their doctrine is ſubſtantially the ſame now, as it was in Aquinas his age, and ſome time before him. The Council of Trent laid down the ſame doctrine in this thing, that their Doctors had of ſeverall ages held. And though they put upon it their ſanction, yet they made no ſenſible variation, as they expreſly declare themſelves, Seſſ. 6. Cap. 8. And the preſent Church of Rome, rigidly adheres to it. It being therefore the ſame for 1400. years time, as the moſt Antient Fathers taught, yea as Chriſt and his Apoſtles delivered (as afterwards you take the boldneſſe to aſſert) and the ſame now as it was then, The doctrine of Rome in the doctrine of Juſtification is now the ſame, as Chriſt and his Apoſtles left it, Being faithfully kept by Fathers, Schoolemen, determined by the Council of Trent, & now maintained by Jeſuites & their adhaerents. This is too clearly by you implied; If it be indeed your thoughts that there is none or very little difference betwixt us and them in this poynt, ſee how much you diſſent from your learned friend, Mr. Gataker, where he tells you in his ſecond letter, of that great difference that is between us, and the Papiſts in the D…ctrine of Juſtification: As I heare you bring in the name of reverend Mr. Ball to give honour to this, that the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the Reformed Churches is one and the ſame, or inconſiderably differing, in this of Juſtification; which you ſpeak (as you ſay) being ſo informed, and I believe you have heard as much. For many years before his death, I heard it from an eminent hand, and acquainted Mr. Ball with it, who with much …xpreſſion of trouble of Spirit, that it ſhould be ſo voyced, diſclamed if, and afterwards in his Treatiſe of Faith (not then publiſhed) and his poſthumus work of the … …nt, hath given to the world ſufficient teſtimony againſ… … …his b…uit perhaps, gave occaſion to that which Mr. Cran… …nconſid…rately p. 655vented, and you have ſo praiſe-worthily vindicated, and I judge it neceſſary that this of mine own knowledge (as being an ear witneſſe) ſhould be added.

3. Whether the Fathers that you mention, and others their contemporaries that you do not name, were ſo diſtinct, as might be deſired, in and about the word Juſtification, and other words of concernment touching this controverſie? Though as to the thing it ſelf they ſpeak according to the Scriptures; when th…y ſpeak of Juſtification, Reconcilliation, Remiſſion, yet ſo farr as I have read, & find in the obſervation of others, they too uſually confound the word Juſtification and Sanctification together (which you declare your ſelf at leaſt to diſlike in others) making it not verbum forenſe, as you yeeld it is, but rather relating to our inhaerent habituall Righteouſneſſe, whereby we are not pronounced, and acquitted as juſt, upon the merit of Chriſt, (which otherwiſe they orthodoxly own) but habitu…lly ſo, and therefore ſo denominated; Being ſaid to be Juſtified, becauſe of unjuſt we are made juſt, which is the work of Sanctification, and implies a reall, and not a relative change, ſuch as is found in Juſtification; And if ſome termes of theirs need amendment, upon further inquiry into this doctrine, then why not others?

4. Whether it be the word only when you ſpeak of the inſtrumentality of Faith, or Faith in Chriſt quà Lord, not to be the juſtifying act, or the thing it ſelf that you intend, in that ſo large challenge of yours? If it be the want of the words only [inſtrument, or quà Lord] that you mention, your charge is very low, upon ſeverall accounts. 1. Words of art of this nature are ſeldome found in the Fathers. There are few diſcourſes in them about cauſes, whether Efficient, Finall, Materiall, Formall, Inſtrumentall, neither are there any, ſo exact logicall diſtinctions, under what notion they take that, which they are upon in their writings; Words of this kind were brought in by Schoolemen, and little uſe made of them, as I think, before Lombards daies. Proteſtant writers finding them in the Church, are neceſſitated to make uſe of them, as well that their adverſaries may underſtand them, as with their own weapons to deal with them, And the Schoolemen having found another inſtrument in Juſtification, viz. Baptiſm (as appears …y the determination of the Council of Trent, Seſs. 6. Cap. 7.) it is p. 656no marvel that when the Fathers uſe not the word at all, that theſe do not ſo uſe it, as it ought according to Scriptures. 2. You would be (I doubt not) as much wanting in making proofe of the uſe of your own termes among the Fathers, as your adverſaries of theirs; we may find the word [inſtrument] and the reſtrictive particle [quà] in your twenty ſix Fathers, aſcribed to Faith in Juſtification, as oft as you can find your cauſa ſine quâ non, or, as I think, your conditio cum quâ. We may likewiſe find that diſtinction of fides qua, and fides quà, which you make the generall cheat, as often as you can find your diſtinctions already examined, which Pag. 3. Sect. 1. you heap together; When you challenge the words of others, as novel; it lies upon you, to aſſert the antiquity of your own. If it be the thing it ſelf, that you challenge, as not found in any Authors in this Compaſſe of time, I believe you will not be found ſo happy in your defence of this provocation, as B. Jewell was in the defence of his, that he publiſhed at Pauls Croſs. I do not doubt but many Authors in this time aſcribe that office to Faith, and the whole of it, that the Proteſtant Churches make the inſtrumentall work, and that they aſſigne the ſame ſpecificall object of Faith, in the work of Juſtification, as is by the Reformed Churches now aſſerted.

5. To acquaint us how many of the Fathers, by you mentioned, have purpoſely treated upon, & particulary ſpoken to, this doctrine of Juſtification, and in what part of their works this ſubject is by them thus handled, that they that do not know it may turn and read it; I have a conſiderable part of thoſe that you mention, though ſome of them, I confeſs, I have not ſeen, as Polycarp, Tatianus, Macarius, Athenagoras, Vigilius, as I have ſeverall others that you mention not; and I would fayne ſee what they have, either for or againſt the Proteſtant belief. Thoſe that have not treated at all on this ſubject (as in ſome of them that you name, I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Chriſt is ſcarce mentioned) or have ſpoken upon it, only be the [by] are as much as nothing, their names might as well have been ſpared as mentioned. Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptiſm, in naming ſome of the Antients that never appeared for Infant-Baptiſm, when they have not at all ſpoken to it, and their contemporaries have aſſerted it.

6. Whether the preſent Church of this age, in which we p. 657live (taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years, ſince the Romiſh yoke hath been caſt off) be not as conſiderable, and as much to be heeded in this controverſie, as all of thoſe in your liſt mentioned, if you ſhould put in, yet more to encreaſe (ſo far as names could do it) both weight and number? They were ſubject to error, and humane frailty, as well as the Church that is, and of late was. They were not able to decide their own Controverſies, but laboured, as well as we, under contentions, and diviſions; they were ſeldome unanimous, but often at difference, not only with others, but themſelves; Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage? 1. Being far above yours in number; go through Proteſtant Learned Writers within this Compaſſe of time, and we ſhall find your Liſt of names far exceeded. 2. They have fully debated the cauſe, and in publick Aſſemblies determined it, in Confeſſions openly profeſſed it, Conſidered of, and anſwered arguments againſt it, turning over every ſtone to find out the truth in it, ſo it cannot be ſaid of the Fathers in your Liſt mentioned, and Nil tam certum, quam quod ex dubio certum. The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account, nor ſo meet Judges, in the point of Grace and Freewill, (having no adverſary, and therefore ſpake more looſly) as Auſtin, Proſper, Fulgentius, and thoſe that followed, who were by the adverſary put upon the ſtudy of it;Quid opus eſt ut eorum ſcrutemur opuſcula, qui priusquam iſta haereſis oriretur, non haebuerunt neceſſitatem in hâc aifficili ad ſolvendum quaeſtione verſari, quod proculdubio facerent, ſi reſpondere talibus cogerentur? The greateſt Doctors at ſome times, (ſaith Dr. Fr. White Treat: of the Sabb. p. 89.) before Errors and Hereſies are openly defended, are not, neither can be ſo circumſpect in their writing, as to avoid all forms and expreſſions, all ſentences and propoſitions, all and every tenet, which in after times, may yield advantage to the adverſaries of truth. Quoting Auſtin de Praed. Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpoſe ſhould we ſearch into their works, which before this hereſie aroſe, had not need to buſie themſelves in the anſwer of this difficult queſtion? which doubtleſs they had done, if they had been put to deal with ſuch adverſaries? This we may fitly apply to this point of juſtification, we are beholding the oppoſites of it, for a more induſtrious fifting of it, and more cleer light in it. Paul had never ſpoke ſo much to aſſert a reſurrection, had there been none in that age that had denyed it. H…d not Popiſh School-men perverted the doctrine of juſtification, Proteſtant Divines had never appeared with that zeal, and fervor of Spirit in it. And p. 628the Fathers doubtleſs had been more exact in their Treatiſes of this point, had they ſeen it, (as we have done,) perverted and abuſed.

7. If Fathers, and all Antiquity were ſo abhorrent from the inſtrumentality of faith in juſtification, How is it probable that any ſingularly verſt in Antiquity, ſo, as to have few parallels, and no way affected to the Proteſtant doctrine in the point of juſtification, but averſe from it, and ſiding with the adverſary, ſhould own the inſtrumentality of faith, and argue for it? if Antiquity were ſo averſe from it, he that takes it up, is ſure either ignorant in Antiquity, or much engaged in his affections to the Proteſtant party: But ſuch there have been, that can neither be challenged as ignorant, nor ſuſpected for partiall engagement, that yet aſſert the inſtrumentality of faith, witneſs Bp. Montague. In whatſoever he hath otherwiſe been thought defective, and detected by Bp. Carleton, Dr. Featley, and others, yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary. For his averſeneſs to the Proteſtant Doctrine of juſtication, let not onelyonly his adverſaries ſpeak, that have appeared againſt him, but Sanct. Clara our adverſary, who Problem. 26. quotes Montagues Appeal, Chap. 6. to prove, the juſtification of a ſinner conſiſts in the inward work of grace inherent, agreeable, as he ſayes, with the holy definition of the Councill of Trent. Now that this great Antiquary, and friend of our adverſaries, appears for the inſtrumentality of faith in the work of juſtification, ſee his Appeal, cap. 9. part. 2. putting it into his title, that God doth juſtifie originally, and faith inſtrumentall, and reaſoneth for it in the Chapter it ſelf.

Theſe things being pr…miſed, as to the firſt, concerning the Inſtrumentality of Faith, Proofs from antiquity for the inſtrumentality of faith.I thus argue. They that are for juſtification alone by faith, without limit, or diſtinction, as excluding all whatſoever elſe in man, they are for that which we call the inſtrumentality of faith in juſtification; But Antiquity is very large for juſtification alone by faith, without limit, or diſtinction, as excluding all in man, except faith, in this work; Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the inſtrumentality of faith in juſtification. Here the Propoſition is firſt to be proved, and then the Aſſumption. The Propoſition I …hus prove. To be juſtified by faith alone plainly holds forth ſomewhat peculiar to faith, which is not found in any other p. 629grace; this none can deny, and you confeſs, pag. 96. of your Confeſſion, Concluſ. 29. But nothing elſe can be faiths peculiar work, diſtinct from other graces, but to be an inſtrument in this work; This is cleer. This peculiar work, or office of faith muſt be, either to be an inſtrument in this work, or elſe a Conditio cum quâ, or, cauſa ſine quâ non, or elſe ſomewhat more noble then all of theſe, as the formal meritorious cauſe, &c. But its peculiar office cannot be meerly to be Conditio cum quâ, or, cauſa ſine quâ non, both theſe equally belong to the works of Sanctification; Though they be all preſent together (ſaith our Book of homilies) yet they do not juſtifie together, pag. 15. At the ſame inſtant that God juſtifies, ſaith Davenant, he infuſes inhaerent grace, which yet he denies to be any cauſe, but an Appendix to our juſtification, de Juſtit. habit. cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine ſayes, That Proteſtants agree in this, that good work are not neceſſary to Salvation, but onelyonly by a neceſſity of preſence, lib. 4. de juſtit. cap. 7. That neceſſity by his confeſſion Proteſtants then acknowledge, and he intends juſtification, as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand. Here then is nothing peculiar to faith, to be meerly conditio cum quâ, or cauſa ſine quâ non, N…ither can we aſcribe any more noble cauſality, as to be a formall, or meritorious cauſe, as needs not to be proved. The aſſerting of juſtification by faith therefore, denotes that which we make an inſtrument in juſtification. Now that the Antients aſſert, that we are juſtified alone by faith, putting in that excluſive particle, that Papiſts are wont to ſay, is not in Scriptures, nor Fathers, may be made good, 1. By manifold authorities aſſerting it. 2. By multitude of quotations. Our Book of Homilies, having quoted ſeverall Scripture-Texts for juſtification by faith alone, addes, And after this-wiſe to be juſtified onelyonly by this true and lively faith in Chriſt, ſpeaketh all the old, and Antient Authors, both Greek and Latine, Ser. of Salvation, par. 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemiſts charging Proteſtants to foiſt the word [onelyonly] into the Text, in Rom. 3.28. Fulk replies. You were beſt to charge all the Antient Fathers which uſe this term, of whom we have received it, to be Foyſters, and excluders of the Sacraments, and good works. The particle [alone by faith] in the article of juſtification, was not firſt deviſed by us, ſaith Chemnitius, but was alwayes uſed with great conſent in all Antiquity, as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonſtrate, p. 660which ſentences of the Fathers, ſaith he, are gathered by Robert Barnes, Aepinus, Bullinger, Otho Corberus, &c. Loc. de juſtif. pag. 772. Octavo. And Chamier Panſtrat. Cathol. Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture, that faith alone juſtifieth, concludes, ſo the Scripture is cleer with us; The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me, before I examine the exceptions of adverſaries. The induction of quotations yet remaines, and I had it in my thoughts, to have ſet down the words themſelves (which for the moſt part are very expreſs) but I find that that would be tedious to my ſelf, and weariſome to the Reader, and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not, I ſhall content my ſelf therefore to poynt out the Authors, quoting them, and the places quoted. Ambroſe in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon. 45. (if it be Ambroſes) is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned, who ſayes, that Ambroſe repeats that exluſive particle [onelyonly] fifteen times. By Eckhardus Compend. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato, Hilary lib 6. de Trinit. Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28. Chamier, ibid. Davenant, and Prideaux lect. 5. Hieron. in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier, and Eckhardus, ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk, Eckhardus, and Chamier ibid. Chryſoſtome in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de ſide & lege naturae, is quoted by Chamier, Eckhardus, Fulk, Davenant de Juſtit. habit. cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanaſius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Baſil Hom. de humil. 51. is quoted by Fulk, Eckhardus, Chamier, Davenant ibid. Nazianzen. Orat. 22.26. is quoted by Fulk, Eckhardus, Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Epheſ. 2. is quoted by Eckhardus, as alſo Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier. Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epiſt. 27. is quoted by Chamier, Eckhardut, Iſychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier, and Eckhardus. Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier, and Chemnitius. Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier, and Chemnitius. Primaſius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier, and Eckhardus. Victor. Mar. lib. 3. in Genſ. is quoted by Eckhard. Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chryſologus Ser. 34. Proſper. Aquitan. Epigram. 9. are quoted by Chamier. Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk. Beda in Pſal. 77. pag. 71. by Davenant, p. 661and Bp Ʋſher de ſtatu & ſucceſſ. Eccleſ. cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloſs. Ordinaria in Epiſt. Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius. Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expoſ. Symboli, Epiphanius in Ancor. Phylaſt. in Catal. Irenaeus adverſus Haereſ. lib. 4. Haereſ. 5. Maxentius de fide, are quoted by Eckhardus. And becauſe Papiſts ſay, that Auſtin uſes not this excluſive particle [onelyonly] therefore Chemnitius tells us, that it is uſed by him, in Serm. Quadrageſ. as alſo in his expoſition of theſe words, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteouſneſs, which is in his 68. Serm. de tempore lin. 1. alſo Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan. Contra duas Epiſtol. Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini, Chamier addes, In octoginta tribus quaeſtionibus Quaeſt. 76. Expoſit. in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted theſe teſtimony (that I have mentioned under his name) addes, we may then truly ſay with Eraſmus, that this word [ſole] which is followed with ſo great clamours in this age in Luther, is reverently read, and heard, in the Fathers. So that we ſee a peculiar intereſt, that faith hath in juſtification, which belongs to no other grace; And therefore it is no wonder, that you who forſake all the reformed Churches, that unanimouſly make it an inſtrument in juſtification, are at ſuch a ſtand as you are in Concluſ. 29. and 30. of your Confeſſion, what office in juſtification, to aſſign to it; you confeſs you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality, in this work between ſaith and obedience; which is no marvail, ſeeing you oppoſe that which is indeed the difference, and Faiths peculiar office; which is, the inſtrumentall intereſting us in Chriſt; by way of acceptation, or apprehenſion, as Iſychius in the place quoted ſaith,Sola fide apprehenditur, non ex operibus. The grace (viz. of juſtification) is apprehended by faith, and not by works, which is as plain a teſtimony as may be, for the inſtrumentality of this grace. Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papiſts take to evade theſe teſtimonies. Objecting that the Antients uſed that particle [ſole] otherwiſe then we do, and returns his anſwer.

1. That they uſe the word ſole, or alone, to exclude all other ſects; intending no more, but that it is alone the Chriſtian Faith, and not the Jewiſh, or Turkiſh, that leads to Juſtification and Salvation. And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega, Pag. 191. with no other approbation, but that p. 632it is ſometimes true, and Chemnitius quite overthrowes it, making it appear, that when the Fathers ſpeak of the application, apprehenſion, or acceptation of remiſſion of ſins by Faith, they ſtill oppoſe it to works, and not to other ſects, giving clear inſtances.

2. They object. That in the uſe of this particle [ſole] the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith, and Regeneration, and denying only, that the works of Infidels, and unregenerate, do juſtifie. This Rule Franc. à Sanctae … Clara doth produce out of Caſalius, but plainely enough ſignifies, that it will not ſatisfie. This Chemnitius alſo overthrowes, by ſeverall cleare teſtimonies out Origen, and Ambroſe.

3. They object. That by the particle [ſole] the Fathers do exclude ceremoniall works, and not all works, which indeed is unworthy of anſwere, the Law of Ceremonies, being antiquated before their daies.

4. Seeing none of theſe will hold, Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas, Quando aliquod commune multis tribuitur ſpecialiter alicui, illud provenit, aut quia in illo excellentiſſimè reperitur, aut quia primò reperitur.in Quaeſt. de veritate, Quaeſt. 14. artic. 5. ad 12. When any thing that is common to many, is attributed ſpecially to one, that comes to paſſe, either becauſe it is moſt eminent, or becauſe it is firſt in it, which Rule might ſerve with ſome reaſon as applyed to this purpoſe, for anſwer both to Scripture-texts, and teſtimonies of Fathers, in caſe they only ſaid, that we are Juſtified by Faith. But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith, but denies it to works; and the Fathers do not only ſay that Faith Juſtifies, but that Faith only Juſtifies, and particularly exclude works, this Rule therefore can do nothing here. So that I conclude, that Faith hath its office in Juſtification, which other graces have not, which is not by you denied; And that this office is aſcribed to Faith in words implying an inſtrumentality, as in Scriptures, ſo in the Fathers, an no other office peculiar can be found for it, according to your Confeſſion, therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers, it Juſtifies as an inſtrument. Before I go off this head, let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux, which you may find Lect. 5. de Juſtific. Pag. 146.**Arminio minimè placuit, (ait ejus inter pres Corvinus) quod fides dicitur inſtrumentalis Juſtificationis noſtrae cauſa Bonâ igitur fide dic Armini, pro tuo acumine qua ratione fides Juſtificat. It did not, ſaith he, pleaſe Arminius, (as his interpreter Corvinus ſays) that Faith ſhould be called the inſtrumentall cauſe of our Juſtification; Whereupon he addreſſes himſelf to him: Tell us in good earneſt, O Arminius! how it Juſtifies? May not I p. 633put the ſame queſtion to you? He ſpeaks for Arminius, o…t of an Epiſtle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus, the Palſgrave's Ambaſſadour. The foreign credere, foreign credere, hoe eſt, actum fidei (dicit) imputari in juſtitiam, id que proprio ſenſu, non Metonymicè, quatenus objectum apprehendit, in Ep. ad Hippolitum à Collibus principis Palatini legatum.i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteouſneſſe, and that in a proper, not a Metonymicall ſenſe, as it apprehends the object, which he there refutes. But it will not ſerve you to anſwer thus, For with you, works juſtifie, and yet you confeſſe that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative, which agrees not to works in Juſtification. We muſt either then yeeld that it Juſtifies as an inſtrument, or ſhut it quite out from the office of Juſtification; or plainely confeſſe, we know not what office it hath in this work, notwithſtanding Scripture ſpeaks ſo much of it, and ſtill in thoſe words which in mens common Language denote an inſtrument.

The ſecond, That Faith in Chriſt quâ Lord is not the Juſtifying act, is, with you (as the former) a notorious novelty, and comes within the ſame Challenge; And if the Contention be alone about the termes, in caſe it be yeelded, what would you be advantaged? Seeing I doubt not but we may ſay, that it was never in Terminis, by the Ancients put to the queſtion, and ſo you in affirming that Faith in Chriſt quâ Lord is the Juſtifying act, are in as notorious a novelty; as we, on the other hand in denying it; you can no more find the one, in the Ancients, then your adverſaries can find the other. But if the queſtion be about the thing it ſelf, I doubt not but many teſtimonies may be eaſily produced. In order to which, the ſtate of the queſtion as it is laid down between Proteſtants and their adverſaries is to be looked into, which is, Whether the whole word of God be the object of Juſtifying Faith, or the ſpeciall promiſes of mercy in Chriſt? Thus Bellarmine ſtates it, Lib. 1. de Juſtificatione cap. 4. and ſaith, that the Heretiques reſtrain it to the promiſe of ſpeciall mercy, but Catholiques will have the object of Faith to be as large as the whole word of God. Here Proteſtants yield ſomewhat to Bellarmine, & ſomewhat they deny. They yield, that the Faith which Juſtifies, looks upon the whole word of God as its object, that it believes the Hiſtory of the Creation, the narrative of the years of Mathuſaleh, the floud of Noah, that it acknowledges the equity of all Gods Commands, and a neceſſity of obedience, but not as Juſtifying. We willingly grant that Juſtifying Faith is an obedientiall affiance, yet it is the affiance, and no… p. 664the obedience, nor yet the aſſent to truths formerly mentioned, or the like, that acts in Juſtification. Your ſelf ſay, that obedience is only the modification of Faith, in the firſt act of Juſtification, and the reforming party of Proteſtant Divines ſay the ſame in the conſummation of it. Now that theſe promiſes of ſpeciall mercy, or the blood of Chriſt held out in the free promiſes, is the ſpeciall object of Faith, in this act of Juſtification, and that it juſtifies as it applies ſuch promiſes, and doth intereſt the Soul in this blood, may I ſuppoſe be made good by diverſe teſtimonies. Let that of Ambroſe be conſulted, Lib. 1. Cap. 6. de Jacobo & vitâ beatâ. Non habeo unde gloriari in operibus meis poſſum, non habeo unde me jactem, & ideo gloriabor in Chriſtro. Non gloriabor quia juſtus ſum, ſed gloriabor quia redemptus ſum, Gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati ſum, ſed quia remiſſa ſunt peccata. Non gloriabor quia profui, neque quia profuit mihi quiſquam, ſed quia pro me advocatus apud patrem Chriſtus eſt, ſed quia pro me Chriſti ſanguis effuſus eſt. Facta eſt mihi culpa mea, merces redemptionis, per quam mihi Chriſtus advenit. Propter me Chriſtus mortem guſtavit, fructuoſior culpa quam innocentia. Innocentia arrogantem me fecerat, culpa ſubjectum reddidit. And that of Gregory in Ezek. Hom. 7. Juſtus igitur advocatus noſter, juſtos nos defendet in judicio, quia & nos iſpos cognoſcimus & accuſamus injuſtos. Non ergo infletibus, non in actibus noſtris, ſed in advocati noſtri allegatione confidamus. And this I am ſure, is within Chriſts Prieſtly and not his Kingly office. That of Bernard alſo ſuper Cantic. S…ct. 23. Sufficit mihi ad omnem juſtitiam ſolum habere propitium cui ſoli peccavi, & Sect. 23. Ego fidenter quod ex me mihi deeſt, uſurpo mihi ex viſceribus Domini, quoniam Miſericordiâ affluunt, nec deſunt foramina per quae affluant; Memor abor juſtitiae tuae ſolius, ipſa enim eſt mea, nempe factus es mihi tu Juſtitia à Deo. Nunquid mihi verendum eſt, ne non una ambobus ſufficiat? Non eſt pallium breve quod ſecundum prophetam non poteſt operire duos; Juſtitia tua juſtitia in aeternum, & te pariter, & me apperiet larga & aeterna juſtitia. That of Auſtine, lib. 3. de Trinit. Cap. 20. Fides ad beatitudinem neceſſaria in Chriſto definita eſt, q…i in carne reſurrexit à mortuis, non enim niſi per illum liberabitur quisquam à Diaboli dominatu per remiſſionem peccatorum; And Nyſsenus lib. de vita Moſis. Caput eorum quae in profeſſione Chriſtiana credimus eſt firmâ recta que p. 566fide in paſſionem illius reſpicere qui pro nobis paſsus eſt. That paſſage which Chemnitius quotes out of the life of Bernard is obſerveable, Being at the poynt of death, and in an extaſie of Spirit, judging himſelf to be before Gods tribunall, and Sathan over againſt him preſent charging him with wicked accuſations, and the Man of God was to ſpeak for himſelf, not at all afraid or troubled, he ſaid, Fateor, non ſum dignus ego, nec propriis poſſum meritis regnum obtinere coelorum. Caeterum duplici jure illud obtinens dominus meus, haereditate ſcilicet patris, & merito paſſionis, altero ipſe contentus, alterum mihi donat: Ex cujus dono, jure illud mihi vendicans non confundor. Ita hoc verbo confuſus est inimicus, &c. The ſame Author tels us of an exhortation of Anſelme to a dying Brother, ſet out as a directory for the viſit of the ſick, ready to give up the Ghoſt, which is almoſt wholly ſpent in leading the dying perſon to the death of Chriſt, He concludes, Age ergo, dum in te eſt anima tua, ei ſemper gratias, & in hac ſola morte totam fiduciam tuam conſtitue, Huic morti te totum committes, hac morte te totum cont…ge, ei que te totum evolve. Et ſi dominus te voluerit judicare, dic, Domine, Domini mortem noſtri Jeſu Chriſti objicio inter me & te, & judicium tuum, aliter tecum non contendo; ſi dixerit quod merueris damnationem, dic, Mortem Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti, objicio inter me, & mala merita mea, ipſiuſ que digniſſimae paſſionis meritum affero pro merito, quod ego habere debuiſſem, & heu non habeo. Many more paſſages may be found in Chemnitius out of Anſelme, Gerſon, Bernard, and others, purpoſely brought to make this good, that the ſpeciall promiſes of mercy in Chriſt through his blood, is the ſpeciall object of Faith in Juſtification, largely diſclaming any act of Faith, as terminated on any other object in the word, to Juſtifie. I ſhall conclude with that which was quoted before by Davenant, out of Thomas Aquinas, In ipſa Juſtificatione peccatoris, non eſt neceſſe ut cogitentur caeteri articuli; Sed ſolum cogitetur Deus, peccata remittens.

In this work it ſelf of the juſtification of a ſinner, it is not neceſſary, that other articles be thought up, but that God be thought on pardoning ſin.

As for your laſt, of the intereſt in mans obedience, in Juſtification, as continued, and conſummate in judgment; In caſe you could bring forth the diſtinction out of the Fathers, and p. 666make it appear that thy exclude all in man except Faith, in Juſtification begun; but take in works in Juſtification compleat, and conſummate, you had done ſomewhat. But to put your adverſaries upon it, to prove that the Fathers overthrow this diſtinction, when you do not ſhew that they any where aſſert it, is ſcarce equall dealing, yet you cannot here go away cleare. What judge you of the paſſages but now quoted? If Bernard had been of your judgement, when he took himſelf, to be before Gods tribunal, he would not have contented himſelf alone with the ſufferings of Chriſt; but muſt have put himſelf upon it, to have brought out a liſt (as large as the Phariſees) of his works of obedience. Neither would Anſelme in his Directory have taught Prelates, and other Miniſters, to have led perſons, at the point of death, alone to the death of Chriſt, and nothing elſe. What ſay you to that of Clemens Alexand. Stromat. 7 quoted by Eckhardus, pag. 391. Per fidem ſolummodo efficitur fidelis perfectus? And that of Hilary, quoted by Davenant de Juſtitia habit. cap. 29 pag. 377? having urged theſe words out of Canon 8. in Matth. pag. 164. A chriſto remiſſum eſt quod lex laxure non poterat; fides enim ſola juſtificat, he addes another quotation out of lib. 20. de Trinitate. Juſtum fides conſummat, ſecundum quod dictum eſt, credidit Abraham deo, & reputatum eſt ei ad juſtitiam, and then Comments himſelf upon both theſe quotations. Jeſuites are wont to aſcribe juſtification to faith, but not to faith alone, Hilary taxes this error, when he ſaith, faith alone juſtifies: for they attribute the beginning of juſtification to faith, but not the conſummation, but Hilary far otherwiſe. Faith conſummates the juſt. So that your Reader may ſee that Hilary in Davenants judgement, is full againſt you. And doubtleſs he will ſtill judge it, matter of wonder, that in the cloſe of your Century of witneſſes, you ſay that Davenant moſt fully of all ſpeaks your thoughts; If he agree with you, no man (no not Mr. Crandon himſelf) I think diſſents from you.

I confeſs that I come neerer to you, than he, as in words he expreſſes himſelf, as you may ſee at large, de Juſtit. habit. cap. 30. pag. 397, 398. and yet I cannot be brought to agree with you; And ſeeing I am brought in by you, in your confeſſion, pag. 456. as the firſt man after you Century of witneſſes is ended, as voting with you in theſe words, [Mr. Bl. in his late Treatiſe p. 667of the Covenant is ſo full in aſſerting the conditionality of repentance and obedience, that he ſpends whole Chapters upon it, and anſwers the objections of the Antinomians againſt it, cap. 14. and 15 and 6, 7, 8.] I am put to it, to let the Reader know how I explain my ſelf, ſeeing you do it not, By which it will appear, that nothing that I have ſaid, in any of thoſe Chapters by you quoted (notwithſtanding I aſſert ſuch conditionality as you mention) will ſerve at all to ſtrengthen your opinion for the intereſt of works in juſtification, yet for ought I know they may be as much for you, as the moſt of thoſe that are by you produced. You may ſee that I diſtinguiſh of conditions ſerviceable to man in his return to God. 1. For recovery of his loſt eſtate of happineſs. 2. For the repair, or new frame of his qualifications depraved and ſpoiled, cap. 11. pag. 74. The condition immediately ſerviceable for mans return to God reconciled in Chriſt, I ſay is Faith, in the page quoted. The condition reſpecting mans reparation in his qualifications to hold up communion with God, I ſay is Repentance, cap. 14. pag. 93. This then, with me enters not the act of juſtification, but is, the juſtified mans way to bliſs and glory. And when Repentance is at the higheſt, and obedience at the beſt, it is not repentance, nor obedience; but the bloud of Chriſt, in which faith alone intereſts us, that muſt be our diſcharge. So that, if I may take the boldneſs to interpoſe my thoughts, as to that multitude of quotations which you have produced, for the intereſt of works in juſtification; I think for the greateſt part, they labour of that Fallacy, called Ignoratio Elenchi. Put them into Syllogiſtical form, and the Reader ſhall find, that they do not conclude the thing in queſtion. They very fully ſpeak a neceſſity of good works to Salvation (which is the unanimous judgement of all Orthodox writers) and the queſtion is about their intereſt in Juſtification: Which two in the judgement of Proteſtant writers very much differ, as you may ſee in Mr. Ball, Treatiſe of the Covenant, pag. 18. Whoſe teſtimony I have produced at large, p. 434. &c. and thither I here refer you, Where you may ſee the ſole intereſt of faith, the inſtrumentall efficiency, or cauſality of it, with an utter deniall of any intereſt of works in this of juſtification. So that he alone may ſpeak for all; that the acknowledgement of the intereſt of works, according to the tenor of the Covenant, as a way appointed p. 668of God for attainment of glory, doth not argue any intereſt at all of works in the work of juſtification.

But to return to that from which theſe quotations have cauſed this ſhort digreſſion. I think you might have ſpared thoſe words, If I were on one ſide, and all the Divines in England on the other, there is yet the ſame reaſon to prefer all the firſt Churches before all them, as there is to prefer all them before me. In a word, I ſhall ever think him more culpably ſingular, who differeth from Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, and all his Church for 1200. or 1400. yeers, then he that differeth from any party now living, and differeth not from them forementioned, Unleſs you could make it better appear, that Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, and the Church for this ſpace of time, were more cleerly for you. It is the Churches Teſtimony, that is now our buſineſs; and if the Reader have no more then Chemnitius bare word, affirming with ſo much confidence, as we have heard, that all ages have been againſt you, it is enough againſt your bare word, that all former ages have been for you.

You now ſee my thoughts, how they ſtand upon the Reading of that part of your Apology, in which I am concerned. Though it be above my hopes to give you ſatisfaction, yet others I doubt not wil be more flexible in their opinion. What you wil pleaſe to do further, I know not, it is enough that I underſtand my own mind; which is (ſo far as I can before-hand reſolve) not to intermeddle further, and whatſoever I ſhall hear from you, to impoſe ſilence on my ſelf. You have drawn me out to ſpeak what is here ſaid, in my own juſt defence. If this will not do it, I ſhall think it will not be done. Let me requeſt that Chriſtian Candor, that the Common cauſe may not ſuffer; and that you will not dwell on literall miſtakes, or unaptneſs, (as you may conceive, ſometimes) of the phraſe, but take that which you ſhall judge to be my full meaning, which I have made my buſineſs, as fully as I can, to make known. I have no more to make yours, or the Readers trouble, but ſhall leave all to your candid interpretation, and his impartiall cenſure, and not onelyonly ſubſcribe, but with unfeigned reſolution (by the help of grace) remain in acknowledgement of your manifold eminent graces,

Your true affectionated Friend, Brother, and fellow labourer, THOMAS BLAKE.