Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable

At least they make his Covenant changeable, as condemning a man one day whom it justified the day before.

Not at all. The Covenants Action is physically none, but only such as some call a Reputative Act; that is, per modum signi; and as the Fundamentum causeth the Relation. God's Legislation was a real Action: But the Law made doth not Act, at all; But improperly, morally, or metaphorically is said to Act, when it doth not; what Action doth the sign post perform? or the post and hand at a cross way? or all the Letters in all your Library which teach you the greatest mysteries? none at all? It is you that are Active on them. What Action do millions of Eggs at the Indies perform every time your Hen layeth? And yet they then have a new Relation of Similitude. So God's Law (nor Mans neither) is not at all changed, while ut instrumentum morale per modum signi & fundamenti, it condemneth the Infidel, and justifieth the Believer, no more than when it justifieth him at conversion whom it condemned before. The change is only (really) in the person.

They make God's Covenant to be but Conditional, and deny that absolute promise, I will put my fear in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me.

I find this Controversy (whether this promise, and that of taking away the hard heart, &c. was Conditional or Absolute, to be harder than sometime I thought it had been. And the determining which of you doth rightliest expound the Scripture is not my business. But, 1. The Jesuits and Lutherans and many Arminians confess, that God hath foretold that certain Individual persons shall persevere and be infallibly saved. 2. That this prediction may well be called a Promise in several respects; 1. In that it is de bono futuro. 2. As it is made to Christ, that he shall see of the travail of his Soul, and that none shall take those that are given him by the Father, out of his hands. 3. As it is made to Mankind in general; that there shall be certain (innominate) persons of them infallibly saved. 4. As it was made to the Israelites in special, that there should be more Grace given them, so that they should not depart from God to Idolatry at their return from Captivity, as they had done (which is the true meaning, I think, of the Text). But I ask of you,

Q. 1. Doth the promise called Absolute (of taking away the heart of stone, &c.) give any person a Right beforehand to the benefit?

Not such a Right as that any one can claim it as his own due, or know that he is the person to whom it belongeth: But such a right as that he is really the man to whom it shall be given.

So you may say of God's mere secret Decree, or of a mere Prophecy. Q. 2. What comfort then can any man have by that promise, before it is performed, when he knoweth not that he is one that it belongs to?

No more than that which you say before they grant.

Q. 3. Is not this cited by you of the same sort?

In respect to the first part it is, [I will put my fear into their hearts]; but not as to the second part [They shall not depart from me]. For men that have God's, fear, may know that it belongs to them.

It is strange that all the ancient Doctors and Churches for a thousand years, were ignorant of this plain Promise, if it mean that none that have God's fear shall depart from him. But if one say that it speaketh only of the Jews after the Captivity, not turning from God to Idols; and another say, that it conjoineth two distinct benefits promised to certain persons, (whosoever) but doth not make them as receivers of the first, to be formally the Subjects of the second, and so doth not promise to all that have God's fear, but to those meant in the Text only, that they shall not depart: and if a third say that the promise is conditional; I am not now to decide this controversy: Augustine thought that it was spoken only of the Elect, and not of all that truly feared God. And as God's promise to the Israelites, that they should be brought out of Egypt, and brought to the Land of Canaan, did not mean that every man that had the first should have the second; As the promise to the Apostles that they should have the Spirit of Miracles or Tongues, and should be saved, did not mean that everyone that had that Spirit should be saved; so doth Austin expound, Rom. 8. 30. limiting all the following sayings to those that Verse 28. are said to be Called according to his purpose. But to decide this is not my present work.

They make a second Regeneration necessary, unless with the Novatians, they will deny pardon to those that fall after the first.

Do they say so expressly; or is it only a consequent of their Doctrine?

It followeth plainly, though they say it not.

1. There will be no end of odious accusations, if the Adversaries shall choose what Doctrine men shall be said to hold, as he spineth out consequences; what if they think that your Doctrine unavoidably brings in Anabaptists (the denial of Infant Baptism, I mean).

That were strange indeed: Some men can draw quid vis ex quo vis.

Answer this series of connected Theses.

1. No one falleth away from a state of Justification (that's your Ground).

2. Many Baptized in Infancy prove wicked at Age.

3. Therefore none of those were justified in or before Baptism.

4. Therefore the Justifying Covenant was not sealed to them as to consenting persons (by themselves or Parents) who have a present right to this benefit (else God's Covenant should be false or fail.)

5. Therefore they received not Christian Baptism: For, 1. Christ never instituted a Baptism, to seal any other Covenant, but that which giveth pardon and Justification. 2. Christ never instituted Baptism, to give only a future pardon to future consenters; but only to invest Sacramently present Consenters (or Covenanters, by themselves or Parents) with present pardon. These two are certain verities, easily proved, whatever some talk of future pardon by Baptism.

6. Therefore they are to be rebaptized.

I think I can loose the links of this chain, or confute the last conclusion: But I leave you to your proper work. Davenant and Ward thought it must be done by denying your first Thesis. I assure you the trifling distinctions, of an outward and an inward Covenant, and of the benefit of Church Privileges sealed to all, and Salvation only to the Elect, or of present and future Justification sealed] will not do this difficult business. You must do better, or be Anabaptists.

2. Either it is quoad Nomen or quoad rem that they infer a second Regeneration, not as to the Name: For they so deny it. As to the Thing, 1. Some hold that men indeed may totally fall from special Grace; but that no such are ever recovered: Though other Grosse Sins, which are not such a total Apostasy may be pardoned. These cannot be said to hold two Regenerations. 2. The rest say that the word Regeneration (like Generation and Creation) doth not only signify the causing of Holiness in the Soul, but the Order of doing it, that it be Now first done, and not before. As Christ's raising Lazarus was neither Creation nor Generation. So say they, Grace indeed is after infused de novo; but not first: Therefore it is to be called Repentance, and not Regeneration. So that the change they confess, but the Name of Regeneration they reject as incongruous.

They go against the Doctrine of Augustine, Prosper and Fulgentius.

This is the rashest charge of all the rest. Beyond all controversy these three Fathers, held that all the Elect persevered; but that some were Justified, Sanctified, Loved God, were in such a state that had they died in, they had been saved, who yet are not Elect, but fall finally away and perish, and that none can ordinarily be certain of perseverance and Salvation, at least but strong confirmed Christians (which Vossius thinketh he excepted, but I cannot prove it).

If you cannot have leisure to read Austin himself, read but, 1. What I have said lib. 1. 2. What I said in my Treatise of Perseverance. 3. What Vossius saith Hist. Pelag. de Persever. 4. And the very words in the Jansenists, Paulus Eryn. in his Trias Patrum. In a visible matter of fact, which all the world may see, that man who will deny this (as yet many have done, and even Dr. Kendall till Bishop Usher in my hearing and at my motion satisfied him) doth but tell us how men otherwise pious abuse God's Church, by trusting to their Leaders, and mis-reporting visible and copious Writings, and founding bitter censures and invectives upon such dreams, and yet thinking that all this is the Work of God. The Lord pardon and heal his Servants hasty partial judging of things and persons, and the bitterness, uncharitableness, injuries, contentions and divisions that have followed thereupon.

SIR, I am now come to you in a greater straight than I was in before: I have met with a Teacher that tells me you are a deceiver, and have all this while misled me, and have taught me to build upon the sand of my own Righteousness, and set me on doing to my own undoing; and that I have not built on the Righteousness of Christ, and therefore all will end in my overthrow and ruin: I was not able to answer him; And I have prevailed with him to come to you, that I may hear you speak together.

Did not I tell you beforehand of such temptations? and give you instructions for your preservation against them?

I confess you did: But I find myself insufficient to use them without help when it comes to trial.

The truth is, Infant Christians will still need the help of their Elders, and of Christ's Ministers, when they have been never so well forearmed; as you need a Physician in your sickness, after all the preventing directions which he can give you. And you have done well to bring him, and to hear both sides together. Had you trusted to your own understanding, and only disputed it out privately with himself, you might have been enfnared to your danger. I shall willingly confer with him on these two conditions: 1. That you remember that it is You and not Him that I am to satisfy: and therefore when I have satified you, I have done: For to follow him as long as he will talk, will waste more time, than we have to spare. 2. That when you are delivered from this snare, you will remember that you must meet with many more such in the world: The Anabaptist will say as much to you for his way, and the Papist much more for his way; And most of them will affright you with the danger of damnation, if you turn not to them: Therefore when ever you are assaulted by any of them, bring them to me, and hear us together, as you now do.

I am sorry to see how you abuse poor souls, and build them not on Christ, but on themselves! What a deal have you said to this man of Doing and of Working, and how little of Believing? You have set him on tasks of Duty, and he thinketh now to Do this and Live, and to be saved in his own doings; his repenting, his praying, his keeping the Lord's day; &c. while the poor man knoweth not Jesus Christ, and submitteth not to the Righteousness of God. You will needs be a Teacher of the Law, and bring back poor souls to bondage, that Christ may profit them nothing; but trusting to their own works and righteousness for life, they may fall from grace, and be found in their nakedness and sin.

Sir, these General exclamations do but tell us, that there is something that you differ from us in, but tell us not what. If you are a lover of truth, and will speak to edification, tell us distinctly what are the points of our doctrine which you dislike: and let us debate them one by one.

Among many others the chief are these, I. That you must not have men come to Christ till they are prepared. II. That you set men on Repenting, and Doing, and Working for salvation, and so teach them to trust in a Righteousness of their own; and do not tell them that All Christ's Righteousness is ours being imputed to us, and that Believing is our Conversion, to which you are to call men: If they Believe, they have a perfect Righteousness in Christ. III. That you overthrow the Gospel, in making it a Law. IV. And you make the new Covenant to be made with us, when Christ is the only party in Covenant with God. V. And you make the new Covenant to have Conditions, and so to be the same with the old. VI. You make Justifying faith to be a believing in Christ as a Teacher and Lawgiver, that you may lead in works: and not a mere Believing in him for Righteousness. VII. You make Faith to justify as a condition of our performance, and not merely an Instrument of our Justification, or apprehending Christ. VIII. You make faith in itself to be imputed to us for Righteousness, and not Christ only the object of faith. IX. That God is made Mutable by you, and forgiveth and justifieth them when they believe, whom he did not justify from eternity. X. That a justified man must be afraid lest his sin should unjustifie him again. XI. You make men think that they are able to believe of themselves. XII. You call men to Duttes, and to Mortification, before they believe and are regenerate. XIII. Instead of the Witness of the Spirit, you comfort men by the Evidence of their own holiness and righteousness. These with abundance more, are the errors, by which you corrupt and deceive poor souls.

Because Christ would have his Servants as Teachable as Children, and not to strive by needless disputes, I pray you be you the Teacher, and I will be the Learner, and tell me what you would have us believe in these particulars which you have named. And first of the first.

I. Men must be taught to come presently to Christ without staying for Preparations, and not discouraged, delayed or kept off.

By [Coming] I suppose you mean [Believing and Accepting.] I pray you teach me further then: Quest. 1. Must men believe in Christ before they Hear of him?

No: How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard?

Quest. 2. Must they Believe that he is the Mediator between God and man, before they have learned that there is a God: and that this God is True, and Just▪ Quest. 3. Or before they have learnt that man is a sinner▪ and deserveth death? and what sin is? Quest. 4. Or before they have learnt that we cannot redeem and save ourselves?

No: That were a contradiction.

Quest. 5. Must men Believe that Christ is the Son of God, and the Savior of his Church, before they have learnt what it is to be the Son of God? or what a Savior is? and what is the salvation which he hath wrought, and will vouchsafe us? before they understand the Articles of the Christian faith; that he was conceived, born, suffered, was buried, rose, ascended, is glorified, and the like?

No man can Believe that which he doth not Understand.

Quest. 6. Must men take Christ for their Savior, before they heartily pe • ceive that they want a Savior, through sin and misery▪ and that they are lost forever if he save them not? and that no other can do it?

No: this is an impossibility and contradiction.

Quest. 7. Must a man take Christ for his Savior, before he is willing to be saved?

Yes: He must come to Christ to make him willing, and not think that he must bring willingness with him: This is your Legal doctrine.

Quest. 8. Is not Accepting Christ, an Act of the will? a willingness that he shall be my Savior? And do you say, that a man must be willing to have Christ before he is willing? and not stay till he is willing?

You would make me ridiculous: I say not, that he must take Christ before he is willing; But he must come to Christ for a will.

In despite of edification you will stick in the Metaphor [Come to Christ]: What mean you by coming?

Poor blind soul! If you had been taught of God you would have known what it is to Come to Christ! But you will not come to him.

With such exclamations you cheat the ignorant! Cannot you tell your own meaning? What mean you by [Coming to Christ]?

I mean Believing in him, and casting myself wholly on him.

Still you stick in Metaphors: Can you cast yourself upon him for a will, before you are Willing? Is not that casting yourself, the act of your will, which we call Trust or Affiance?

You would hide your Lyes with words! You teach that men must have good desires before they come to Christ; as if they must bring with them good desires of their own, or by Preparatory Grace!

Quest. 9. Can a man Accept of Christ as a Savior to save him from sin and punishment and God's displeasure, and to justify, sanctify and glorify him, before he hath any desire to be saved from sin or punishment, or God's displeasure, or to be justified, sanctified or glorified?

He that hath no such Desires, must come to Christ for them, and believe.

Still [Coming] must hide your sense: Doth Christ give these Desires to be saved, before we Take him for our Savior by Consent? Or after?

You are catching me by craft. If I say [Before,] you will say, Then it is Preparatory to our Consent. If I say [After,] you will say, that it is impossible to consent to the Means till a man desires the end; and to Accept a Savior before he is willing to be saved. But besides this, you tell men that they must not come to Christ, till they are broken▪ hearted, and sorrow for their sins: You heat the Win • of the Gospel so hot, that it shall burn men's lips, and then invite them to it.

Quest. 10. Is it possible for a man Heartily to perceive that he is a heinous sinner, and hath displeased God abused mercy; hilled Christ, undone his soul, and wronged others, and not be sorrowful for it? nor be vile in his own eyes, or feel that he is a lost sinner?

No: but all this he must come to Christ for, or Believe for.

Do you mean that he must first Believe that the Gospel is True, and that Christ is an Offered Savior; or else, do you mean that he must first Accept him as offered for a Savior; or do you mean that he must first Believe that he is his Savior accepted? or do you mean that he must first Trust in him as his Savior? All these are different acts.

You would confound us with your distinctions to keep out the light: This is the trick of such carnal Sophisters.

Saul, You hear what this man hath to say against us. You hear that when he hath cried out against Preparations to Believing, that here are ten several Preparations which he cannot deny. I will now tell you what is our Doctrine and the truth, about Preparations.

We hold that Christ is the True Light who lighteth every man that cometh to God; but in various degrees, by various means: He is the Lord of Nature as its Restorer, Rom. 14. 9. All power in Heaven and Earth is given to him, and all things put into his hand, Matth. 28. 18, 19. John 17. 2, 3. John 5. 22. He teacheth those that have not the Gospel, (and those that have it, first) by the Light of Nature, many Natural Truths, as that there is a God who is Almighty, Wise and Good, that we owe him our Love and duty, that he is Just, &c. As the Sun enlighteneth the earth at its rising before it appear itself, so doth Christ the world. By the Gospel, he teacheth us more, even supernatural truths, about himself and our Redemption, &c. Some commoner co-operation of his Spirit goeth along with the Gospel, convincing and moving many that are not yet (or at all) converted: Those that Christ converteth savingly, are first in order brought to understand the Meaning of the word, and next to Believe the Truth of it, and so to Believe what Christ is, and what he hath done and suffered for us, and what need we have of him by sin and misery, and how freely he is offered to our salvation: And they are moved so seriously to consider all this, till it prevail with their wills, first to desire not only their own deliverance from Hell and misery, as all men may do, but also from a state of sin; and then to desire Christ as a Savior to effect it, and bring them home to God: And believing that he is freely offered to them, they next thankfully Accept him by consent, and Trust him and give themselves to him. And all this is Christ's own work upon them: but in this order and by these degrees. So that coming to Christ signifieth divers acts, of which one is preparatory to the other.

And whereas he tells you, that we keep men off from Christ till they are prepared, judge you whether he speak truth or falsehood. Do we use to call to sinners and say [Do not believe that Christ Reconcileth God and man till you first believe that there is a God. Do not make haste and believe that Christ will save you from misery before you believe that you are miserable: Or that he will wash away and pardon your sin, before you believe that you are sinners and need a pardon: Do not consent that Christ shall be your Savior before you are willing to be saved; or before you believe that he hath died, rose, &c. and is offered you.] What need we persuade men from Impossibilities? Is it we, or their own necessity that keepeth them from Consenting before they Believe, and from believing before they Understand? We do as it were entreat poor sinners who love their dungeon, to open the windows that the Light may come in: And these men rail at us, and say, that we persuade men not to let in the light till they have first opened the windows! What need we do that, when it is impossible to do otherwise? We persuade men to believe that they are sick, that they may go to the Physician: And they rail at us for persuading men to delay going to the Physician till they think they are sick. We exhort sinners that are asleep in sin, to awake and run the Christian race: And they rail at us, as if we persuaded them not to run it till they are awake.

So that the preaching of these men according to their Doctrine must be thus: [Come presently to Christ; stay not to hear the Gospel, or to consider of it, or to understand the meaning of it, before you Trust Christ as your Savior: Presently cast yourselves upon him before you know who he is, or what he hath done for you; and trust him for the pardon of your sin before you perceive that you are sinners, or feel any need of pardon: Stay not for a will, but Take him or Accept him for your Savior before you are willing of him, or willing to be saved.] Do you think this is the only Gospel-preaching?

I pray you Sir, tell me yourself, How would you preach to the Indians if you were Mr. Eliots assistant? or to any other Heathens? Would you at the first word call them to cast themselves upon Christ for salvation? before you taught them to know that there is a God, or a Law, or sin, or punishment, &c?

The Apostle called men presently to Believe in the Lord Jesus without delay, Acts 2. and Acts 16. and Acts 8. &c. And so should we.

1. What talk you of Delay? Are we for Delay, anymore than you? The Angel, Acts 12. that smote Peter and bid him arise and go forth, was not for his delay, because he bid him not go forth before he arose, and before his fetters were off. 2. And you forget that the Apostles spake to Jews who had the Preparatory belief of a God, and of the Law, and of the promise of the Messiah before. 3. And yet they first humbled them for sin, Acts 2. 37. till they were pricked at the heart; And the Jailor first trembleth, and both say, What must we do? Is this your kind of proof? And why did all the ancient Churches from the Apostles days teach men the Creed or Christian Doctrine, and Catechize them long before they baptized them? And I think the Anabaptists will do so now: And I think you would be loath yourselves to gather your Churches from among Heathens, Mohammedans or Infidels, till you had taught and prepared them as much (at least) as we require. But let us hear whether in the second point you have any better or wiser Doctrine to teach us?

II. You should teach men to believe that all our own Righteousness is as filthy rags, abominable to God, and to be cast away with our sins: And that we are neither to trust to, nor to look at anything in ourselves, for justification, or acceptance with God, or to procure eternal life: But that Christ hath both satisfied for our sins, and fulfilled the Law of Innocency for us. God imputed our sins to him, and he was by Imputation the greatest sinner in all the world; the greatest murderer, thief, fornicator, perjured person, rebel and ungodly man: For the sins of all the Elect did meet upon him, and were his: Therefore he was forsaken of God, and suffered the same Hell that we deserved. And God imputeth all his satisfaction and righteousness so to us, as that in God's account all the Elect (or at least All believers) did satisfy and fulfill all the Law in and by Christ: For he was our surety; and our Legal Person, though not our Natural person. So that what Christ was we were, and what Christ did we did, and what Christ suffered we suffered, in God's •• count or imputation: And so we are as righteous as Christ himself, because all Christ's righteousness is ours. And we have no other, nor need no other Righteousness, at least in order to our Justification: This Righteousness of Christ is it by which we are Justified by the Law of works, which saith, [Obey perfectly, or Do this and Live;] For we Did all that is required in and by Christ: In this Righteousness only God accep •• th us: We have Right to it from eternity by God's Decree of Election: and our Consciences perceive our right upon our Believing; And to set men on Doing themselves for Life, when they should only Do from Life, is to deceive them and undo them.

If these words did offer me any Light which we had not before received, I should gladly learn, and give you thanks. But if such talk as this, be all that must show you to • e wiser than your neighbors, and •••• rant you to rail at them as Legal Preacher • , and such as •••• •••• on by works, my soul must pity you, and all such poor sinners •••• ••• bled or seduced by you. But because this Head contain ••• many particular doctrines, I pray you let us speak to them in order.

I. And first about our own Righteousness. And seeing I am the Lea •• er, I must crave your answer as fi • ted to my own doubts. And Quest. 1. Do you know how many times the words Just, Righteous and Righteousness are used in the Bible?

No; I have not taken such an account as to tell you.

Let us see the Concordance. Here you find it about six hundred and twelve times used, besides the words [Justify, Justifying and Justification.] Quest. 2. Shew me how many of these six hundred Texts do not speak of such Inherent or Performed personal Righteousness, as is distinct from such as you describe in your sense of Imputation.

Try whether one of twenty or forty or an hundred have such a sense.

Not if such false teachers as you must be the expositor of them.

Let us try some of them, and be you the expositor. 1 Joh. • . 29. everyone which doth Righteousness is born of God. 1 Joh. 3. 7, 10. he that doth Righteousness is righteous. Whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God.

You choose out those texts which countenance your own ends.

My question is but, Whether God's word talk of any Righteousness, which consisteth in anything that is in or of ourselves:

Yes: that cannot be denied: But not in order to our Justification.

Of the use we must speak • non. Quest. 3. I next ask you then W ••• there all these texts be not True? and whether we may not speak 〈…〉

Yes: We question not the Truth, but the meaning of the 〈…〉

Quest. 4. Is this Righteousness a • such (in that 〈…〉 have it) abominable to God▪ Doth not God command it▪ and require •• to obey his Laws sincerely? And doth he hate the obedience of his •••• Is not Holiness his Nature and Image in us: And doth he hate his Image and the Divine Nature? Is it not the mark of a Malignant to be a Hater of Holiness? yea of the Devil himself? And can you think that God •••• Hater of Holiness? What I he that hath said, Be holy, for I am •••• , and Without Holiness none shall see God▪

If you were not an unholy deociver; you would not intimate by such questions, as if I took God to be a Hater of Holiness.

Is it not Holiness which the Scripture and we mean by Inherent Righteousness?

But God hateth it not as Holiness, but as mixed with sin.

Do you Believe, and Love God sincerely, and Love the Godly, or not?

Better than such as you do, or else woe to me.

And doth God Hate all your Faith and Love because it is mixed with sin? If he do, What difference between it and wickedness? or between you and a wicked man? God can but hate what they do: and doth he so by all that you do also? Why then may not your Neighbors imitate God, and hate all that you do? why may they not then deride and persecute you, for that which is hateful to God? For shame never more blame then your scorners or persecutors.

I do not say that God hateth my Faith, Love, Humility and patience as such, but as mixed with sin. Therefore properly it is sin that God hateth, and not my Faith and Love itself.

And is all come to this? What mean you then to rail at us that say the same? We all say that God hateth our sin, and the faulty imperfection of our holiness and obedience? and what say you more?

But you say not that God hateth your Righteousness for the sin that cleaveth to it, though not for itself; as we do. Your Goodness is like an Apple fallen into the dirt or poisoned; and you are for wiping it, and keeping it: but God and wise men abhor it for the filth, and cast it away.

Then it seems you cast away all Love to God and man, all faith, all honesty and obedience, chastity and temperance, because sin cleaveth to it.

By casting it away, I do not mean, giving over to Love God and obey him, and turning wickedly to the contrary: but I mean that I count it dung in order to my Justification.

I perceive by Teaching me, you are but Learning to speak yourself. I further ask you, Doth not God Love the Faith, Love, Obedience and Holiness of his servants, notwithstanding all their faults and imperfections? Joh. 16. 27. The Father himself loveth you, because you have Loved me and believed, &c. 2 Cor. 9. 7. God loveth a cheerful giver. Psal. 11. 7. The righteous Lord Loveth righteousness; with many the like passages. Doth he not Love his Image?

That is, because we are in Christ; and our persons and graces and duties are accepted all in him, being perfumed with his righteousness, and all our sins and imperfections pardoned and covered thereby: And as our Graces are the works of the holy Ghost, and not primarily as ours.

Are you come so far already? All this is held not only by us, but by the Papists also. You confess then that for the merits of Christ's Righteousness, our sins are pardoned, and not only our persons, but our faith, Love and obedience, accepted and loved though culpably imperfect and mixed with sin. And so all your noise is come to nothing, and you say as we.

II. But having found that we must have Inherent Righteousness, let us next consider What use we may make of it, and how far it may and must be valued and trusted to. And Quest. 1. Tell me whether God hath made any promise of a Reward to it, or not? Turn to the word [Reward] in your Concordance, if you remember not the Texts, and see.

Your Legal principles and spirits makes the Scripture a snare and a stumbling block to you, as Christ himself is? When God talketh of Reward metaphorically, you take it properly, as if we could merit anything of God.

I only ask you, Whether God hath promised us a Reward?

Yes: But it is a Reward properly to Christ, by whose grace we live, and not to ourselves.

When Christ saith, [Great is your Reward in Heaven: and your father shall reward you openly,] Matth. 5. 12. & 6. 4, 6. and [you shall not lose your reward;] and Heb. 11. 26. [he had an eye to the recompense of reward;] and Heb. 11. 6. [God is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him, &c.] is the meaning, [Great is Christ's Reward in Heaven, and God will reward Christ openly, and is a Rewarder of Christ only as diligently seeking him? &c.]

You would make me ridiculous. I mean that it is for Christ's Merits or Righteousness which he did himself, and not for anything in us or done by us, that we are rewarded.

Say you so? Doth diligent seeking him, Heb. 11. 6. and praying and giving alms in secret, Matth. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. and suffering for Christ, Matth. 5. 11, 12. and feeding, visiting, &c. Christ in his members, Matth. 25. &c. mean only that which Christ did, and not we? Is it Christ's prayers, and alms, and charity and sufferings that the text meaneth? Look over many such texts and judge.

Still you would make my words contemptible. It is our duties that are rewarded, but it is not for themselves or any worth that is in them, but for the merits of Christ only.

If God have no respect to anything in our duties in his reward, tell me, 1. Why are they said so oft to Please him? and we are commanded to do those things that Please him? and 1 Joh. he heareth us because we do those things that Please him. 2. And why then doth he not as well, for Christ's merits or Righteousness, reward our sinning, our folly and vanity, our idleness, our dreams, or all our natural indifferent actions, as our Love, and holiness? 3. And why do you and all men regard or reward a loving thankful obedient child, more than one that will scorn you and spit in your face? And why do all Princes and Rulers make any difference between the righteous and the wicked, a rogue and an honest man? And why do Churches so strictly try the Godliness of their members? Why do you make any difference in your Communion? What meaneth Church discipline? And why are you yourselves so desirous to be esteemed Godly persons, and differenced from others, if God himself do make no difference? And how is the righteous more excellent than his neighbor? and called God's jewels and the apple of his eye, his peculiar people, a holy Nation, and his treasure? And why is it made the mark of a faithful man, Psal. 15. 4. that a vile person is contemned in his eyes, but he honoreth them that fear the Lord, if there be nothing in holiness and obedience anymore than in sin, for God to reward?

You delight to make me seem foolish, by your Cavilling! You might easily understand that I did not mean that good works are no more Rewardable than Idleness or Evil: But that they are not rewarded for their proper worthiness, as being faulty and so unjustifiable with God; but it is for the merits of the Righteousness of Christ, imputed to believers.

When you understand what you should say, you will speak intelligibly: But be not angry that your confusion is laid open to you. About Merit and Imputation we must speak distinctly afterwards. That no works of ours are Rewardable till their faultiness is pardoned, nor Rewardable according to the Law of Innocency, nor upon any terms but those of the Covenant of Grace, which freely giveth salvation to penitent believing accepters, which free gift, and acceptance of our duties, is purchased by the meritorious righteousness of Christ; all this we hold as fast as you do. We dream not of any access to God but by a Mediator, nor of any acceptance of ourselves or our duties, works or righteousness, but on the account of Christ's merits and intercession, by which the sins of our best works are pardoned, and life eternal freely given to obedient believers. Of the worthiness of our works we must speak more anon.

I smell whereabout you are: You make us hear the Pope that is in your belly: You mean as the Papists, that Christ hath merited that your works shall be meritorious.

Hath not Christ Merited that our holy Love and obedience be Rewarded?

Yes: but what's that to Merit?

Hath he not by his Merit made them Rewardable?

Yes, or else how can they be Rewarded?

Do you not know that by Merit the Papists themselves profess that they mean nothing but Rewardableness? At least do we Protestants mean anything else by it?

What the Papists or you mean, you best know yourselves; but I know what you say: And you both talk like the ignorant enemies of Grace.

Do you include the Jansenists who say that all Christ's Grace now is nothing but his irrestible efficient operation of Holy Love in the soul: and that God moveth us to it necessarily or insuperably? and that he now giveth no Grace merely sufficient, which is not effectual? or merely effectual to make us Able, but also to make us Act? and that now he leaveth nothing to our Free-will in Christ's gracious operations, but giveth in act all the Will and all the merit that men have? and that Fear and obedience of a Law written, is our own Legal Righteousness, (though it respect the new Law;) but Christ's Righteousness which he giveth us as distinct from our Legal Righteousness, is only his Spirit, or Love put into the heart?

I do not believe that any Papist is so much for free grace.

But if you deny it, and the book be opened, and it found there written, is it nothing to you to be found in falsehood?

But I say not as Jansen, that it is the Law written in us, but Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, which is our Righteousness.

Did you not even now confess an Inherent Righteousness?

Yes; but not to our Justification.

Of that more anon: By Justification, they mean Making us holy.

But Jansen is not a common Papist: why tell you me of him?

My business here is not to justify the Papists; but to understand your mind: I do not think you know what the Papists hold in it.

I am not ashamed to be a stranger to their Books: But I will bring one when you will, that shall open the abomination of their doctrine of merit; Till then it's you to whom I speak.

Content: we will make another days work of that. Tell me then whether it be Names or Things that you make so much ado about?

Both: we like not ill names: and worse false doctrine.

What are the Names that displease you? Is Reward or Rewardableness one?

No: if you will understand them well: For they are Scripture words.

Is worthiness one of them?

Yes; if you will say that we are worthy of the Reward or of salvation.

Do you not know that the Scripture usually so speaketh? Rev. 3. 4. They shall walk with me in white; for they are worthy: 2 Thes. 1. 5, 11. Worthy of the Kingdom of God: 1 Thes. 2. 12. Walk worthy of God: Luke 20. 35. That are accounted worthy to obtain that world—21. 36. That you may be counted worthy to scape all these things, and to stand, &c. Matth. 10. 11. Enquire who in it is worthy—13. If the house be worthy, let your peace remain. If it be not worthy, let your peace return—37. He that loveth Father or Mother more than me, is not worthy of me. Matth. 22. 8. They which were bidden were not worthy. Acts 13. 46. Ye judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life—Is not this Scripture?

By [Worthy] the Text meaneth not merit, but fitness to receive.

Our question is not now of the Meaning, but the Name you know.

I am not against the Scripture names, if well understood.

Merit is a name I perceive that you are against. And we make so small a matter of words, that you shall choose any other name of the same signification, and we will forbear this, rather than offend you: But yet tell me, Q. 1. What if the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were translated Deserving and Merit, would it not be as true a translation as Worthy and Worthiness, when it is the very same thing that is meant? Nay, when Merit of Condignity is the highest kind, which the Papists themselves mention and are reproved for, do you not hereby imply that Condignity is a bigger word than bare Merit?

Quest. 2. And I ask you, Whether all the ancient Teachers of the Churches since the Apostles, whose Writings are come down to us, do not familiarly apply these names 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Meritum to believers? And if you persuade men that all these Teachers and Churches were Papists, you will persuade most that believe you to be Papists too. But such is the success of over-doing!

Quest. 3. And I would know, Whether in common speech, Reward and Merit or Desert be not Relatives, as Master and Servant, Husband and Wife are? Is there any Reward which is not Meriti Praemium, the Reward of Merit? What mean you yourself else by the word Reward?

I mean God's free Gift without respect to merit or desert.

Doth not the usage of the World distinguish between a mere Gift and a Reward? What if you give money to the next man you meet without respect to anything in him, will you call it a Reward? Review all the Scripture Texts that speak of a Reward, and see whether they have no relation to any foregoing act in man. God gave Christ himself to the lapsed world: Was this Gift of Christ a Reward? God gave some Prophets, some Apostles, &c. and giveth the Gospel to Infidel Nations: Is this Gift a Reward? or ever so called? Your human nature is God's Gift: but is it a Reward? Nay, will you say, that the first Grace is a Reward; which is said to be Pelagianism?

Well: but Rewards are God's second Gifts as they follow the former, without respect to Worthiness or Merit.

That cannot be neither: If God first Give the world a Savior, and then give them the Covenant of Grace and Pardon through him, is this a Reward? If Christ first heal the sick man, and then cause him to walk, or if Peter and John first heal the lame man, and then cause him joyfully to leap, &c. is the second a Reward? If an Infidels Life be first preserved, and then the Gospel given him, is this a Reward?

No: but a Reward supposeth only our Fitness to receive a free gift, which is called our worthiness, and not our Merit.

Do you mean our Natural fitness or our Moral? A man is Naturally fit for his food, when he is hungry: Will you say therefore that his food is his Reward for being hungry?

Well; Let it be then his Moral, or rather his Spiritual fitness.

Your explications are but darkening: Spiritual is either Natural or Moral as well as corporal. The soul as a Spirit is in its nature fit to understand common things here in the body; Is this understanding its Reward for being a Spirit? But Heaven is a Reward.

Well: Call it a Moral fitness if you will: but what is that to Merit?

It is so much to it, as to tell the world that such as you, do revile others for holding the same which you are forced to profess yourself, and wrangle about mere words, and know it not. For by [Merit] is meant nothing else but [A moral aptitude for Reward] or that Rewardableness which consisteth in Moral Good or Evil, as freely done and had, and so acceptable to God as our Governor.

But tell me next what word will you choose to serve instead of Merit, that we may agree in it?

I know not what words to use that please you, when we are not agreed about the thing signified: I hold not any Reward in proper sense, but only free gift, and therefore how can I tell you what word to use instead of merit? I think the word Reward is used but figuratively.

Christ saith, [Matth. 6. 4, 6. Your Father which seeth in secret shall Reward you openly: Col. 3. 24. Ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: Heb. 10. 35. Cast not away your confidence which hath great recompense of reward: Heb. 11. 26. He had respect to the recompense of reward: v. 6. He that cometh to God must believe that God is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him: Mat. 16. 27. He shall reward every man according to his works.] I ask you again, What is meant here by Rewarding?

I tell you again, the meaning is, that as men show their liking of a thing that pleaseth them, by a proper Reward, so God showeth his liking of our duty by a free gift of some greater good, which therefore after the manner of men he calleth a Reward.

If it be a Metaphor, I ask you but the Meaning and Reason of the name. If it be because it followeth our duty, then every gift that followeth our duty, is a reward, without any further respect to that duty, but the order of time: but that you denied before; Else Christ's Incarnation, and the Apostles, and the Gospel, and all that ever followeth our duty, should be a Reward. But if you mean, that it is called a Reward, as it is a sign of God's approbation of our duty only, then if God should tell men that he Approveth of their duty, it would be a reward, though he immediately annihilate them, or should never do them any good: which I think you will not say. If you say, that all three must concur, viz. that it be 1. A Benefit or Gift, 2. Following duty, 3. Signifying an Approbation of it, you come almost up to all that is asserted by them that you quarrel with: If God should by some benefit to one man signify that he approved the duty of another, or of a thousand more, and should annihilate them all; this were no reward to them. Therefore when you have talked all that you can devise to say, you must say, that there is some Fitness in the duty for that approbation and benefit, and that the Relation of the Gift to that Fitness, is it that denominateth it a Reward: And that though there be no Cause in man of any Acts of God ex parte agentis, yet are there Causes in man of our Reception and of the effects, ex parte recipientis; And so that man's Rewardable duties are his Moral aptitude, cause or condition, why he rather than one that doth otherwise receiveth that Gift, which is called the Reward.

But we are gone from our question de nomine, and have already dispatched also that de re: Have you anymore to say of any Matter besides words (in which you confess we speak as the Scripture doth) in which we differ?

Seeing you like not my explications, tell me fully what you hold yourselves, and then I shall better know whether we differ in sense or words only.

It's great pity for the Churches sake, but you would have understood that first, before you reviled us as Legal, and not have spoken evil of what you understand not. But it's better now, than not at all. Our judgment is as followeth:

I. That God hath three Essential Attributes, which he expresseth and glorifieth in his works; His Vital Power or Activity, his Wisdom, and his Will or Love: That all these are and operate conunctly; but yet each appeareth in eminency in its special effects: That God's Power eminently appeareth in the Being and Motion of things; and his Wisdom eminently in the ORDER of things; and his LOVE in the Goodness and Perfection of things: That accordingly he is, 1. The first Efficient, 2. The chief Dirigent, 3. The ultimate Final Cause of all.

II. That as to man, he is Related to us, 1. As our Creator, the Cause of our Being, Nature and natural Motion, as the Fountain of Nature: where Power is most Eminent. 2. As our Governor, and the God of ORDER, and the Dirigent Cause; where (all Attributes concur, but) Wisdom is most Eminent: 3. As our most Bounteous Benefactor, and most Amiable Good and End, where Goodness or Love is most eminent.

III. That accordingly God is the Author of Nature, Grace and Glory; and since the fall, of Natura, Medela, Sanitas, of our Nature, our ORDER and Gracious Government, and of our Holiness and Happiness; and so is our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

IV. That neither Man, Angel or any Creature can possibly have any good, but by God's gift, anymore than they can make themselves or a World: And this Gift must needs be free, seeing the Creature hath nothing that is good, but what it hath of God, and nothing to give him that can add to him, or but what is absolutely his own.

V. God is to us 1. Our OWNER, 2. Our RULER, 3. Our BENEFACTOR antecedently. And no man can Merit of God as he is an Owner or a mere Benefactor; for so he freely disposeth as he pleaseth of his own: But only of God as a Ruler, as is after opened.

VI. Therefore it is blasphemy to hold that man or Angel can Merit of God in point of proper Commutative Justice, which giveth in exchange one thing for another, to the benefit of the receiver: For as is said, God cannot Receive any addition to his perfection, nor have we anything but his own to give him. Luke 17. 10. we are thus unprofitable servants as to a Proprietor in point of Commutation; though the unprofitable servant be da •• ned, Mat • h. 25. 30. in another sense; that is, who improveth not his Masters stock to the benefit of himself and others, and the pleasing of his Ruler.

VII. Mans Duty therefore meriteth only in point of Governing distributive Justice: And not every way neither in respect of that; For Governing Justice is distinguished according to the Law that governeth us: which is either 1. The Law of Innocency, or 2. The Law of Grace: And no man since the fall can Merit of God according to the Justice of the Law of Innocency, which exacteth personal perfection.

VIII. The Law of Grace is in its first notion, a free gift of Christ, Pardon and Right to Life Eternal by Adoption, to all that will Accept it believingly as it is offered, that is, according to the nature of the Gift. And this Gift or Conditional promise and pardon no man can merit: For Christ's perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice hath already merited it for us; and so hath left us no such work to do: Nor is there the least place for any human Merit or Rewardableness from God, but on supposition of 1. Christ's Merits and Meritorious Righteousness, 2. And of this free gift or Act of Oblivion and Life, already made to us without our desert.

IX. But yet this is not a mere Gift, but also a true Law: God is still our God and Governor, and Christ is Lord of all, Rom. 14. 9. He that is a King and Ruler hath his Laws and Judgment: That which is a Gift in the first respect, hath 1. Its condition, 2. Many commanded duties, and so is a Law of Grace in other respects. And it is only in respect to this Law of Grace that man is Rewardable, or can Merit.

X. The Gift is from God as Benefactor, considered as Good and in itself. But it is from God as Sapiential Rector quoad ordin • m conferendi, as to the Order and Reason why one man rather than another receiveth it. So that we Merit not of God as Benefactor nor as Rector by the Law of Innocency or Works; nor yet as to the Value or Goodness of the Benefit, which is a free Gift: But only of God as Rector by the Law of Grace, which regulateth the Reception of his free gifts, merited by the perfect Righteousness of Christ, and so only as to the Order and Reason why one more than another receiveth that free gift.

As if a Father hath many Sons, One living obediently, Others playing the prodigals, and upon his freely-offered pardon and grace one receiveth it thankfully, and the other refuseth it scornfully: Here both the obedient and the penitent son, have all upon free gift, as to Commutative Justice; but on various terms: And yet both merit in point of paternal Governing Justice; but very differently: One meriteth of strict Fatherly Justice; The other only of a forgiving Father, quite on other terms: And it is a Comparative Merit, by which he is fitter for pardon than the Sons that despise it, and spit in the Fathers face.

XI. God as a Benefactor and a Governor, giveth some benefits Antecedently to any duty of man: And these are never a Reward to us, (but of Christ perhaps, in some instances.) As Legislation, so the benefits of it, and that attend it, are before Reward and Judgment. But other benefits are given by God both as Benefactor and Legislator, upon condition of some duty of ours in the Antecedent gift, and so in the Judicial sentence and execution that duty is rendered as the reason of our actual Right to them: And these are a Reward.

XII. Our first Grace is no Reward, nor merited, because it antecedeth all conditional duty of ours.

XIII. Our first Reception of Right to Christ, Pardon and Life, being given on the condition of penitent Acceptance in faith, may be called a Reward, because they are consequent gifts on condition: But because the condition is so slender a thing as the thankful Acceptance of a free gift, Divines agree not of the fitness of the name [Reward and Merit] while they wholly agree about the thing. But our after-mercies and final Glory, being promised on the condition of such a faith as worketh by Love, obedience and improvement of God's mercies in good works, and patience, perseverance and conquest of the Flesh, the World and the Devil; therefore they have more unanimously agreed not only de re, but that the names of Reward and Rewardableness or Merit and Worthiness are here fit; but used only in the fore explained sense.

XIV. And though the Scripture oftest use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which most properly signifieth wages, which sounds as more than premium a Reward, yet we wholly grant you that this is figuratively used, and that no man deserveth wages or anything commutatively of God: But every Scripture Metaphor hath its reason; And the reason of this is evident. Though God cannot be Profited, he can be Pleased. And his Will or Pleasure is the End of all his Government and Works: And he is Pleased most in that which doth the World, the Church and ourselves the most good, for in that he is most glorified: Now he so maketh his Laws and Promises, as if our own and other men's good were his, and his Reward for our Pleasing by Order, Justice and Goodness, he calleth wages metaphorically, being instead of profiting him.

XV. By all which it is most obvious that we are not at all the less, but the more beholden to God, for the Merit or Rewardableness of our actions: For as all the Benefit is free Gift, so it is of his Grace that we do anything that is good, and that he accepteth it as Rewardable: And if it be any honor to a man to be good rather than bad, and the Righteous be more excellent than his neighbor, it is an addition of mercy, that God will honor those that honor him, and commandeth others so to do, Psal. 15. 4.

XVI. And now the case is very plain, both that Reward and Rewardableness (called Merit) there is, and why it is and must be so.

1. How can God be a Governor, and have a Law, and be a Judge, and Righteous in all this, if faith and godliness be not Rewardable? It is the second Article in our faith, and next believing that There is a God, that He is the Rewarder of them that diligently seek him, Heb. 11. 6. And when you would extirpate all faith and godliness on pretence of crying down Merit, you may see what over-doing tends to.

2. The very nature of all God's Laws and Promises evidently infer a Reward: Without it there were no such thing as Faith, Hope, Desire, Joy, Content, forsaking all: Psal. 19. 11. In keeping them there is great reward. 58. 11. Verily there is a Reward for the righteous.—

3. There is notoriously a Reward even in this life, Matth. 19. 29. Who would change the profit and pleasure of a holy life here, for that of the unholy?

4. Reward and Rewardableness are found in the very Law of Nature itself: In that we are made for God as our end, and it is God himself who is our Reward: And holiness hath a natural tendency to happiness, yea, is the beginning of it itself: And as God is said in Nature to make sin punishable, in that he hath so formed Nature, that sin shall bring suffering in and with it (as poison brings pain and death); so in Nature he hath made our duty and holiness Rewardable, in forming man so, that health, peace and happiness shall be in and after it. Prov. 9. 12. If thou be wise, thou art wise for thyself.

5. The Light of Nature teacheth Parents, Masters, Princes and all Governors to take Goodness to be Rewardable, and Crimes to be punishable: And nothing is more universally approved by the common notices of human nature than Justice, or abhorred than Injustice. Nature saith as 2 Sam. 23. 31. He that ruleth over men must be just: And as Isa. 10. 1. Woe to them that decree unrighteous decrees: And as Prov. 17. 13. Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house: Conscience will rebuke him that rewardeth evil to him that deserved it not, Psal. 7. 4. The better any man is, the more he is for Justice, and abhorreth the unjust, (and Alexander Severus, and Antonine, and such Just Princes and Judges, are honored by all Subjects and Historians.) And as all Power is of God, and Rulers are but his Officers, (Rom. 13. 4, 5, 6.) so their Righteous Government is but the inferior part of God's own Government, (as the King governeth by his Judges and Justices): And therefore it is God that Rewardeth and Punisheth by them. And indeed by the same reason that men deny a Reward to duty (the faultiness being pardoned through Christ) they would infer, that there is no Punishment for sin: But God saith, Isa. 3. 10, 11. Say to the Righteous It shall be well with him, and say to the wicked It shall be ill with him. He will plentifully reward the proud doers, Psal. 31. 23. Yea, they reward evil to themselves, Isa. 3. 9.

6. Holiness is God's Image, and the product of the Holy Ghost; and the Devil and Malignants labor to dishonor it: And contrarily God honoreth it, and by his Rewards will honor it openly before the world, Matth. 6. 4, 6. And Christ will come in glory to be glorified in his Saints, and admired in all them that believe, even because they have believed, 2 Thess. 1. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

7. God will Govern man according to man's nature and capacity; else what need of Scripture, Ministry, &c. And man is naturally a Lover of himself, and God will make him know that he hath no need of him, but it is himself that shall be the gainer if he obey, and the loser if he sin: even to Cain after his first sin God saith, If thou do well, shalt thou not be accepted? but if thou do evil, sin lieth at the door. Man is an Intellectual and free agent: and therefore God will set before him life and death, good and evil, Deut. 30. 15. and whether they will hear or not hear, he will send his word, Ezek. 2. 5. and they shall be told of such Motives as should suffice to prevail with men of reason.

8. Man hath many and great Temptations to overcome; And as they work morally toward his deceit and ruin, so God will suitably give him such Moral motives as are fittest to move him to resist them: And therefore he will offer man so full and sure and glorious a Reward, as is fit to disgrace all the offers of the Devil, and will make men know that his Rewards are such, as no pleasure or profit of sin should stand in any competition with. Yea, he himself who is God All Sufficient will be our exceeding great Reward, Gen. 15. 1. No wonder if Moses (like other believers) despised the honors of Pharaoh 's Court, and chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, because he had respect to the recompense of reward, Heb. 11. 25, 26. And Paul went towards death rejoicing in these hopes, that having fought a good fight, and finished his course, henceforth a Crown of Righteousness was laid up for him by God the Righteous Judge, 2 Tim. 4. 8. who is not unrighteous to forget his servants work and labor of Love. And all believers are therefore steadfast and immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, as knowing that their labor is not in vain in the Lord, 1 Cor. 15. 58. And they work out their salvation with fear and trembling, laying up a treasure in Heaven, Matth. 6. 20. and laying up a good foundation for the time to come, and pressing forward for the prize, Phil. 3. 8, 9. and laying hold upon eternal life.

All this leadeth us to our own works, and sets up the Law, and taketh down Christ and his righteousness, and is mere Popery, for human Merits.

If this be God's Word, and Christ's own Law and Doctrine, then you infer that Christ taketh down himself, and his own righteousness, and sets up man and human merits. But give me leave to tell you, that if you deny [the Reward of Evangelical duty, and the Rewardableness or Worthiness (or Merit) of such duty, as it is but our Merit or Worthiness of the free Gift of Christ and Life, given by Paternal Love and Justice, to believing Penitent accepters, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace,] 1. You do contradict so much of the most express Texts of Scripture, as alloweth us to suspect that really you believe not the Scripture to be true, or that it is not it, but your own contradicting fancy, that is the measure of your belief; and you may on such terms hold the vilest absurdities, even what you list, as in despite of Scripture, while you pretend that it is for you.

2. You will deny the honor of God's Image on man, and the work of the Holy Ghost, and the design of Christ, who came to destroy the works of the Devil, and save his people from their sins, and purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works.

3. You will disgrace the Church of God, which Christ washeth and sanctifieth, and render it too like to the unsanctified world.

4. You will leave man no ground for true assurance of Justification or Salvation, while the difference between the worthy and unworthy is taken away.

5. You will harden the wicked in their false presumptuous hopes, and teach them to say, We are but unworthy, and so are all.

6. You will destroy the comfort of well doing, by denying the reward, and making it seem to be in vain.

7. Hereby you will take down all holy diligence in our Christian race and warfare, while you deny the prize, and recompense of reward, Heb. 11. 26. We run for an incorruptible Crown, 1 Cor. 9. 25. Phil. 3. 14.

8. You will strengthen all Temptations, while you take down that which should be set against them. See Luke 12. 4. Heb. 4. 1. & 12. 28, 29. Matth. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, &c. Matth. 5. 10, 11, 12.

9. You will disgrace the Word and Ministry and all Means, if after all we are never the more accepted.

10. In a word, you deny God's Government, in denying his Governing Justice and Judgments, and that is to deny God to be our God: Yea, you deny all Religion, all the Kingdom of Christ, all Law, all Judgment, all Retribution, Heaven and Hell, all the true difference between Good and Evil, Holiness and Sin, all Praise and Dispraise, while you deny the Reward and Rewardableness of holy obedience by the Paternal Government of the Law of Grace: and that glory, honor and peace is to everyone that doth good, both Jew and Gentile, Rom. 2. 7, 10.

You would persuade us that holiness is good for nothing, if it be not Rewardable; as if you knew of no other use of it; so ignorant are natural men of the things of God which are spiritually dis • erned: I will tell you that which your carnal mind cannot understand; 1. Holiness, Faith, Love, Obedience, &c. are God's free Gifts, excellent in themselves without a Reward: 2. They are Fruits of the Spirit, and marks and signs of our future felicity, though they deserve it not. 3. I told you that they are Rewards to Christ, and Gifts to us.

1. That they are God's Gifts we doubt not: But are not Faith, Love and Obedience also the Acts of man by that Grace which is the gift of God?

Yes, they are man's acts; but it is God that worketh them in us.

And tell me if you can, 1. Why God cannot Reward those acts which are done by his own Grace? Cannot God make the Promise of a Reward to be a fit Moral Means for his Spirit to work by? Nay, doth not the scope of the Scripture tell you that he doth so?

2. Is there ever the less worthiness in it, because God causeth it? Tell me without shifting, Is an honest man no more worthy of a Princes favor than a Thief? If you are no more worthy of liberty, and protection, and life, than Atheists and Rebels, why do you call men Persecutors for using you as if you were such? Why call you men Malignants for hating, deriding and opposing godly men, if they deserve no better than the worst?

They deserve better from men, but not from God.

Do you deny Rulers to be God's Officers, and that they are to make this difference by his appointment, and therefore it is done by God? 3. But without shifting tell me, Doth not every good action or inclination deserve praise from God and man? Doth it not deserve to be accounted and called just as it is?

All our Righteousnesses are as menstruous rags: and what praise then do they deserve? Can that deserve praise, which deserveth Hell?

1. Come on then, let Conscience be a while unmuzzled: Why do you so much praise those of your own Church or Opinion? Why praise you so much the Ministers and people that are of your way? Why do you make a difference between them and such as are against you? 2. Why do you so aggravate the sin of those that vilify, deride and persecute you? Why call you the Saints, the precious ones on earth, God's treasure and peculiar people? 3. Why were you lately so angry with the Ecclesiastical Politician, the Debate-maker, and other such Books, which vilify men whom you and I have better thoughts of, if they deserve no more praise than the vilest men? 4. Why were you so angry lately when you heard of one that reproached you? and so pleased with one that proclaimed your wisdom and goodness, and took your part? 5. And if good actions deserve not praise from God himself, why doth he praise them so greatly in his Word? Why will he say before all the world, Well done good and faithful servant? &c. 1. Dare you call God Ignorant Legalist? or charge him with mistakes? 2. Doth not everything and person deserve to be thought and called just as it is? Else lying or silence must be the virtue, and Truth the Vice. 3. Is there no more good in a Saint than in a Devil? If there be, doth it not deserve to be called just as it is? 4. May not he who deserveth Hell by the Law of Works or Innocency, be yet Morally fit for, that is, Worthy of Heaven, according to the Law of Grace, which pardoneth his sins, and freely giveth him Christ and Life? 5. Doth not God praise his Servants more than the Devil or wicked men do? And will you not please the Devil and Malignants, to tell them the contrary? And is it not the mark of a just man, that a vile person is contemned in his eyes, but he honoreth them that fear the Lord, Psal. 15. 4. Doth not God himself praise Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Job, &c. Wrangle not against the unresistible Light. Our light must so shine before men, that they may see our good works, and glorify our heavenly Father, Matth. 5. 16. Christ will come at last to be glorified in his Saints, and admired in all them that do believe, because the Gospel was believed by them, 2 Thess. 1. 10, 11. No man hath seen God at any time in his Essence; 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 but we see him here in a glass; and that is, in his Works and Image; in which it is that his glory shineth: And to say that God's Works and holy Image are not worthy (or Morally fit) to be praised, is to deny God his praise and glory on earth: He that despiseth you, despiseth me (saith Christ) and consequently him that sent me, Luke 10. 10.

Faith, Love, Holiness, Obedience, Patience are worthy that God should be praised for them, but not Man: for they are worthy as God's works, but not as ours.

1. They are none of our works as the chief agents, but only second causes under God: And are not second causes to be praised in their places and degree? Will you not praise Sun and Moon and Stars, and all God's works, that he may be praised for them? Do you not praise a good Servant, a good Horse or Dog, a good House or Land? yea, and your Friend or Teacher? Do you not praise your own party, when you say that they are wiser and better than others?

2. Believe and regard the Word of God. Do none of these Texts following speak of Praise as due to men, in subordination to God? Deut. 26. 18, 19. The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, and to make thee high above all Nations, in Praise, and in Name, and in Honor, and that thou mayest be an holy people to the Lord thy God. Prov. 27. 21. As is the fining pot for Silver, and the furnace for Gold, so is a man to his praise. Isa. 62. 7. Give him no rest till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth. Zeph. 3. 19, 20. I will get them praise in every land, &c. I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth. Rom. 2. 29. Whose praise is not of men, but of God. John▪ 12. 43. They loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. 1 Cor. 4. 5. Then shall every man have praise of God. 2 Cor. 8. 18. The brother whose praise is in the Gospel, &c. Phil. 4. 8. If there be any praise, think of these things. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Governors are sent by him for the praise of them that do well. See Prov. 27. 2. & 28. 4. & 31. 30, 31. 1 Cor. 11. 2. Prov. 29. 23. Honor shall uphold the humble in spirit. & 21. 21. He findeth life, righteousness and honor. Psal. 149. 4. This honor have all his Saints. Prov. 3. 16. & 4. 8. & 8. 18. & 15. 33. & 20. 3. & 22. 4. Eccles. 10. 1. John 5. 44. Rom. 2. 7, 10. They that by well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life: Glory, honor and peace to every man that worketh good. & 9. 21. & 12. 10. & 13. 7. 1 Tim. 5. 17. The Elders that rule well are accounted worthy of double honor. & 1 Tim. 6. 1. 1 Sam. 2. 30. Them that honor me, I will honor. Psal. 91. 15. John 12. 26. If any man serve me, him will my Father honor. 1 Pet. 2. 17. Prov. 13. 18. Do you believe and regard no one of all these words of God?

I grant that God will praise the good, but not because we are worthy of it.

1. Have I told you that he himself calleth his servants worthy? and will you contradict God's Word? 2. Dare you yet deny anything to be worthy to be called what it indeed is? Is not a Christian worthy to be called a Christian? and a sober man to be called a sober man, and an honest man to be called an honest man? Must humility make us liars? Tell me, Are you worthy yourself to be accounted and called an Infidel, a Heathen, an Apostate, a Heretic, a wicked ungodly man, that never repented, nor did good?

That were to lie or slander, to call one what he is not.

Are you not worthy then to be called contrarily, that is, what you are?

•• ought so to be called, but not for my worthiness.

Must God and man account you such as you are not fit or worthy to be accounted? And will you go on to accuse and contradict God's Word? Your fancy hath got some harsh conceit of the sense of the word [Worthy] and that cometh still into your mind, as if it meant a worthiness which supposed not that all that we have is of mercy and grace: when the Scripture meaneth no such worthiness, but such as is that of a loving, dutiful, thankful Child, of the inheritance; A moral fitness.

Well, suppose that our actions and we are worthy of Praise, that is, to be called as they are; yet they are worthy also of dispraise, that is, to be accounted as menstruous rags, defiled with sin, and deserving Hell; and is not this a pitiful praise?

Did you ever hear us deny any of this? Why talk you of that which we are all agreed in? But 1. It is not holiness, but the faulty imperfections of it, and the sin that is contrary to it, which deserveth Hell. 2. And the faults of sincere believers deserve not Hell according to the Law of Grace, by which we are to be judged, so as to be liable to it, but only so as to be accounted condemnable, had we not been pardoned.

But if our faith and holiness deserve some praise, what's that to the deserving of salvation? or being worthy of Heaven?

All these words your obstinacy hath put me to use, to convince you that Faith and Holiness is worthy of anything at all, and that the word [Worthy] which God himself useth of them, is not abused by God, nor false. But what it is that God will account the righteous worthy of, the Scripture must determine; where I have shown you before that the words are plain. They are counted worthy of God, 1 Thess. 2. 12. and of his Kingdom, 2 Thess. 1. 5. Worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection, Luke 20. 35. They shall walk with Christ in white, for they are worthy.

Still I grant it in the Scripture sense, but not in yours.

To end this tedious talk with one that seemeth loath to understand, say Yea or Nay to these two questions. 1. Do you allow of the use of the word [Worthy]?

Yes: because it is in Scripture.

2. Do you deny it to be true in the sense I have opened, that is, that we have that worthiness which is nothing but a Moral aptitude for that promised Reward, which as to the worth of it is but God's free gift, merited for us by Christ, and is only a Fathers Reward as to the ordering of it as our Governor, even a Reward of grateful Children.

No: I cannot deny this sense to be sound.

Then you grant both Name and Thing: And are not you ashamed then to have so long traduced and reviled such as hold and say but that which you are forced to justify? and to make poor souls believe that works are cried up, and Christ is injured, and men's salvation hazarded by it, when yet you confess that all is true, in word and sense.

But when the Papists abuse such phrases to error, though the Scripture use them, we must do it sparingly and with caution.

1. But is that a good reason for you to revile those that use them in the Scripture sense? 2. And if you will forsake Scripture words as oft as men misuse them, it will be in the power of any Heretics to drive you from all Scripture phrase, by abusing all. 3. And how can you more effectually promote Popery, than by forsaking Scripture language, and leaving it to their possession and use? Will not men think then, that the Scripture sense is liker to be with them, than with you? Were it not better for you to hold to the Word of God, and only detect and disclaim men's ill expositions of it?

BUt if I grant you, that salvation is the Reward of our own faith and holiness, I shall never grant you that we are Righteous by it before God, or that it is any part of that Righteousness by which we are justified: for that is only the Righteousness of Christ.

I hope you are not willing to wrangle about words not understood. Quest. 1. Do you think that the words [Righteous, Righteousness and Justification] have but one sense in Scriptures, and in our common use?

No: you proved more before.

Quest. 2. If the Devil, or Men, or a mistaking Conscience, should say that you (or any Saint) is an Infidel, or hath no faith, how must you be justified against that charge?

By denying it, and by maintaining that I do believe.

Very good: Then faith itself as faith doth so far justify you.

And Quest. 3. If you be charged to be Impenitent and never to have truly Repented, how must you be justified against that charge?

By denying it, and averring that I did Repent.

So then, your Repentance itself must so far justify you. And Quest. 4. If you are charged to have been an ungodly person to the last, or not to have loved God, or your neighbor, not to have called on God, nor confessed Christ before men, nor to have fed, clothed and visited him (as you could) in his members, or not to have mortified your fleshly lusts, but to have lived after the flesh, in murder, theft, whoredom, drunkenness, &c. What is your righteousness against this accusation?

I must defend myself against a lie by denying it to be true: I must be so far justified, that is, vindicated against Calumny by my innocence in those points.

Very good: so far then you must be justified by your godliness, love, obedience, mortification, innocence and works. And what if you be charged as an Hypocrite to have done all that you did in mere dissimulation, how must you be therein justified?

By denying the charge, and appeal to God that I was sincere.

So then, your sincerity is so far your justifying righteousness. And what if you are charged with Apostasy, that you fell from Grace, must you not be justified by pleading your Perseverance?

These are none of the Justification which the Scripture speaketh of: which is only against true accusations, and not against false ones.

Say you so? What if one be truly accused, that he hath no part in Christ? and that his sin is unpardoned? or that he is under the guilt of damnation by the obligation both of the Old Covenant and the New? or that he never truly repented or believed? or that he is unsanctified, and never sincerely obeyed Christ, &c. Is this man justifiable?

No: I say not that all men are justifyable: But whoever is Justified in Scripture sense, is justified only from a true Accusation.

What is that true Accusation?

That he is a sinner, and deserveth damnation according to the Law, and that he hath no righteousness of his own.

Must he not confess all this to be True, if it be True? And is not confessing the Guilt which he is accused of, contrary to justifying him? Do you not see here what Confusion you cast yourself into for want of noting the various senses of Justification? If by Justifying we mean Making an unjust man just, then it is true that he is justified from his Guilt, that is, he is pardoned; and he is justified from the Laws condemnation, that is, a man condemned by the Law is pardoned; and he is justified from his reigning sin, that is, he is sanctified: But this Justification is not opposite to Accusation, but to Being unjust. But if you speak of Justification by Plea or Sentence, it is contrary to Accusation of Guilt: And so no man is justified that is not Just, or Guiltless in the point of which he is accused. God will by no means clear the guilty, or justify the unjust, Exod. 34. 7, 8. nor say of the wicked, Thou art Righteous, Prov. 24. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 17. & 2. 23. Jer. 11. 20. Rom. 1. 32. & 2. 2.

But that you are quite mistaken in saying, that Scripture never mentioneth Justifying man from a false accusation, these and many such Texts show, Rom. 8. 33. Isa. 50. 8. Prov. 17. 15. 1 Kings 8. 32. James 2. 21, 24, 25. Rom. 2. 13. Luke 7. 29. Matth. 11. 19. & 12. 37. Isa. 43. 9. 26. Luke 10. 29. & 16. 15. Deut. 25. 1. Exod. 23. 7, &c.

And how widely differ you from most Protestant Divines, who say that Justification is a Judicial Sentence of God as Judge? Though indeed it is of divers sorts.

But it is not Scripture Justification, unless it be perfect: And all that we do is Imperfect. To justify him in someone thing, is not Justification by faith, but another thing.

1. No doubt but Scripture mentioneth both particular Justification as to some particular causes, and a more large Justification from all things that would damn him in Hell. And this latter is the Great Justification by faith, mentioned so oft in Scripture, that is, Upon and by believing we are first made just, by free-given pardon and right to life, (and true sanctification with it); and we are sentenced just, because so first made just. But this is not without our Faith and Repentance. 2. And that Faith and Repentance are a Righteousness Evangelical, that is, a performance of the conditions on which the Covenant of Grace doth freely give us right to Christ, pardon and life; and so are the Constitutive causes of that subordinate Justification.

But your subordinate Righteousness hath no hand in our Justification.

This is but singing over the old Song, by one that will not consider what is answered. Have you thought on all the Texts even now cited▪ Hath faith no hand in our Justification? Hath the performance of a Condition, and the Moral Disposition of the Receiver, no hand in the Reception of a Gift? What think you is the meaning of Christ's words, Matth. 12. By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned? What meaneth St. James, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only? Are men justified by that which hath no hand in their Justification?

Christ meaneth [before men] and so doth James, and not before God.

This is notoriously false, as contrary to the plain Text: Christ speaketh of the Account to be given of our words in the day of Judgment, verse. 36. And James speaketh of that which men are saved by, verse. 14. and that Justification which Abraham had, and that in an instance where Man did not justify him, and of that which was faiths life and perfection, verse. 17, 22. and of God's imputing faith for, righteousness, as to a friend of God, verse. 23. And is this nothing but Justification before men?

This is not the justifying of the man, but of his faith?

1. You contradict the Text which saith [Abraham, Rahab, A man is justified by Works]. 2. You contradict yourself; For if the faith be justified, the man is justified to be a true believer: For how could a man that fulfilled the Law, as Christ (and Angels) did, be justified, but by justifying his actions? And how can he that fulfilleth the Gospel conditions, be justified in that point, but by justifying that he fulfilled them?

At least I may say, that this is not the great and notable Justification, which is only by Christ's Righteousness.

We are not contending for its preeminence, but its truth and necessity in a subordinate place. Indeed we have one Justification by our Judges sentence, which hath many parts and causes: God as Donor is one cause, and God as Judge another; And Christ as meriting is the only meritorious cause of the Justifying Gift and Covenant, and Christ as Intercessor another cause, and Christ as Judge another; And our Righteousness as it is our Right to Impunity and life another, and our faith and Repentance are conditions: All this is sure.

But the Justification by faith is our Universal Justification; and that can be only by Christ's Righteousness: And we are not to trust to a Righteousness mixed of Christ's and ours; nor doth Christ's Righteousness need to be patched up with our menstruous rags.

1. No question but Christ's Righteousness is perfect, and ours imperfect, and ours is no patch or supplement to Christ's: He is not made righteous by our righteousness, but we by his.

2. But that which is perfect in him, is not made perfectly ours; nor formally ours in itself, as distinct from its merited effects. It is not ours as it is Christ's. Christ that is our Righteousness, is also made of God to us wisdom and sanctification: And will you say therefore, that we are not to be Wise or Holy, by any Wisdom or Holiness of our own, for fear of adding our patch to Christ's?

3. You use to say that Christ's Righteousness is ours as Adams sin is ours; and say some, as Adams Righteousness would have been, had he persevered. But 1. Adams Righteousness would have indeed made an Infant initially just by propagation, that is, the innocent Child of an innocent Parent: But as soon as that Infant had the use of Reason and Choice, he must also have a Righteousness of his own, or perish: And this is no patch to Adams righteousness. And indeed in his Infancy he must have a seminal Holiness of his own to justify him, as well as the relation of a Son of Adam.

2. So also, though we are guilty of Adams sin by propagation, yet we have with that guilt, 1. An inherent pravity of our own, 2. And at age our actual sin: And both these are our unrighteousness, as well as Adams sin imputed to us.

Even so Christ the second Adam is a Root of a righteous seed: Our Contract by faith is as to him, what our Natural propagation is as to Adam; that is, the Condition of our Interest in his merits: We have as believers an initial righteousness in our relation to Christ; But we have also from him, 1. Inherent habitual righteousness; 2. The actual righteousness of faith, and true obedience and love. And these have their proper use and office, without which we must perish.

4. And I must tell you, that the word Universal is too big to be properly given to any man's justification or righteousness, but Christ's: Properly he only is Universally justified or righteous, who hath no unrighteousness at all imputable to him, and is justifyable in all things: But the best believer, 1. Was once a sinner originally, 2. Did oft sin actually, 3. Hath still sin in him, 4. And for some sin may be punished by the Magistrate, 5. And for sin is judged and punished by chastisements and death by God, 6. And the earth still cursed for our sake: 7. Yea, which is worst of all, we are still under the pena • ty of some privations (alas! how great) of God's Spirit and its Grace, and our Communion with God. And all this must be confessed; And such a one is not Universally justified or just.

But still our own Righteousness doth but make us such as thankful persons must be for their Justification by Christ, and is no part of that Justification by faith: For if faith itself be that Righteousness, we have not faith by faith, and faith is not imputed to faith, but Christ's Righteousness is it that is imputed.

Of Imputation in due place; 1. What need you talk against that which none of us assert? Do we not all hold, that our personal Gospel-Righteousness is subordinate to Christ's, and is by his Gift, as ou • Wisdom and Sanctification is? Who dreameth that our faith is any part of Christ's Righteousness? But why do you waste time in vain cavilling against plain certain truth? Is there anything in Name or Thing asserted by us that you can deny or question?

Quest. 1. Do you deny that Scripture commandeth us to Believe that we may be justified?

No.

Quest. 2. Or that we are commanded not only Thankfully to Accept, but Thankfully to obey our Lord, Redeemer and Savior?

No.

Quest. 3. Date you deny, that life or death eternal dependeth on this as a Condition or Moral means? and that we shall be judged according to it?

No. I deny it not.

Quest. 4. Is it not a Law that thus commandeth us, and by which we must be judged?

Yes, If it were no Law; there were no duty and sin in belief and unbelief.

Quest. 5. Is not a man so far just and justifyable by that Law, as he keepeth it? and justifyable against the charge of being one that must be Damned, by producing the Condition of pardon and life performed?

Yes, I deny it not.

Quest. 6. And doth not the same Law virtually justify the performer now, whom it will justify as the Rule of Judgment at last?

Yes, no doubt.

Quest. 7. And is not the Name of Righteousness many score times given in Scripture to our own actions done by Grace, and measured by the New Covenant?

Yes, I cannot deny it.

Why then while you deny neither Name nor Thing, what wrangle you about?

And let me plainly tell you, that such men as you by indiscreet everdoing are not the least of Satan's instruments to bring the Gospel under scandal, and harden the world in Infidelity and the scorn of Christ; while you would so describe the Christian Religion, as if this were the very heart and sum of it [Believe that all the Elect have fulfilled perfectly all God's Law by another, and that Christ did it as personating each of them, and therefore no crime of their own is imputable to them, nor any kind or degree of Goodness or Righteousness in and of themselves, is at least required of God, as any means or condition, of their present or future justification by their Judge, or as having any hand therein.] As if God were become indifferent what we all are, so that Christ be but Righteous▪ for us: when as it was Christ's grand design to restore lapsed man to God, which he doth not only by Relative benefits, but by Renewing them to his Image in love and holy obedience.

Have you not lately and oft been told, that holiness and obedience are necessary now; but it is to other Ends than to justify us; (as for Cratitude, &c.)

1. We easily grant it is for other Ends than Christ's Merits were, and not to justify us as they do; nor in that Causality. They are not to purchase for us a free gift of pardon and life, nor the Holy Ghost, &c. as Christ did. 2. But again tell me, Hath not Christ a Law that commandeth our obedience to those ends (as Gratitude) which you mention? And is not the keeping that Law a thing that the same Law will so far justify us for? Yea, a Condition that life dependeth on? And if the Cause in Judgment be, Have you kept it or not? must you not in that be accordingly Justified or Condemned? Give over cavilling against plain necessary truth.

By this you will fall in with the Papists, who take Justification to be partly by Christ's Righteousness, and partly by our own: and partly in pardon, and partly in faith and holiness.

Tell not me of the Names of Papists or any, to frighten me from plain Scripture truth. 1. Why may not I rather say, Why go you from all the ancient Writers and Churches, even Augustine himself, by your new and contrary opinion? Was true Justification unknown for so many hundred years after the Apostles? 2. The most zealous Antipapists do confess that some Texts of Scripture do so take the word Justification: And multitudes of Texts so take the words Righteous and Righteousness. And he that will impartially consider them may find, that more Texts than are by us so confessed, do by Justifying mean [Making us Just, and so Accounting us] on all these causes conjunct, 1. As being Redeemed by Christ's Merits, 2. And freely pardoned, 3. And having Right to life, 4. And renewed to God's love and Image, 5. And so justifyable at the Bar of Grace by the Law of faith and liberty.

3. And the reality of all the Matter of this Doctrine is past doubt, if the Controversy de nomine Justificationis were not so decided.

III. YOu bring in your doctrine of personal Righteousness to Justification, by feigning Christ to have made a new Law; whereas the Gospel is but a Doctrine, History and Promise, and not a Law, and so no Rule of Righteousness and Judgment; And this many Protestants have asserted.

I have read some such sayings in some men: And some I think meant no more, but that Christ did only expound, and not add to the Law of Nature, called by them the Moral Law: And these I have excused for their unhappy kind of expression. But for the rest, that mean as the words sound universally, they subvert Christianity, and as the Arians denied Christ's Godhead, so do they his Office and Government, and are somewhat worse than the Quakers, who say, that the Spirit within us, is the Law and Rule of Christ; which is better than none: I pray answer me,

Quest. 1. Is Christ the King and Ruler of the Church?

Yes.

Quest. 2. Is not Legislation the first and principal part of Government?

Yes.

Quest. 3. Do not they then that deny Christ's Legislation, deny his Government?

Yes.

Quest. 4. Is it not essential to Christ as Christ (the name signifying Relatively his Office) to be King?

Yes.

Quest. 5. Do they not then by this deny Christ to be Christ?

No: for they confess that he hath a Law, but not that he made any since his birth.

We grant 1. That the Law of Nature now is His Law: 2. And that the first Edition of the Law of Grace to Adam after the fall, was his Law: 3. And Moses Law was partly his. But you will not say that we are under this last, nor I hope that he hath no other than the two first.

Why, what other can you prove?

It is the Name or the Thing that you deny; (for you use to confound the cases:) 1. Whether the name be fit, judge by these Texts.

Gal. 6. 2. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the Law of Christ.

James 1. 25. The perfect Law of Liberty.

Rom. 8. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, &c.

Rom. 3. 27. Boasting is excluded? By what Law? Of Works? Nay, but by the Law of faith.

Mic. 4. 2. For the Law shall go out of Zion, &c.

So Isa. 2. 3. & 8. 16, 20. & 42. 41. The Isles shall wait for his Law.

1 Cor. 9. 21. We are under the Law to Christ.

Heb. 8. 10, 16. I will put my Laws into their minds—and hearts.

James 4. 12. There is one Law-giver, &c. Isa. 33. 22.

2. For Name and Thing note the terms of Equivalence and Connotation:

1. All the Texts where Christ is called a King, and his Kingdom named, (why should I needlessly recite them?)

2. All the Texts that mention his Commanding and Commandments, the same which we mean by a Law. Matth. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you.

Acts 10. 42. & 13. 47. Acts 10. 33. 1 Cor. 7. 10. John 15. 14. If ye do whatsoever I command you. 17. These things I command you.

So John 15. 12. & 14. 21, 31. 1 Tim. 1. 1. Titus 1. 3. 1 John. 3. 23. & 4. 6. John 13. 34. 1 John 5. 3. & 2. 4. & 3. 24. 1 Cor. 14. 37. Acts 1. 2. Acts 17. 30. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, & c. Rev. 22. 14.

3. All the Texts that mention his Covenant, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being a Legal institution.) Heb. 8. 6. He is the Mediator of a better Covenant, & 8. 13. & 8. 10. & 10. 16. & 12. 24. Gal. 4. 24.

4. All those Texts that not only call him Lord of all, but say that All power in Heaven and Earth is given to him (therefore Legislative power) Matth. 28. 18. and all Judgment committed to him, John 5. 22. The Government is laid upon his shoulders, and of the increase of his Government there shall be no end, Isa. 9. 6, 7.

5. De re, how can that man be a Christian, that denieth that Christ hath made us any Law, and so denieth his Kingdom and our obedience?

I argue from the definition: That which hath the essential parts of a Law is a Law: But Christ hath made that which hath the essential parts of a Law: Therefore he hath made a Law.

The Major is past dispute; The Minor I prove: That which hath a Precept making Duty, and a Promise and Threatning, instituting the Retribution by Rewards and Punishments, as an Instrument of Government, hath all the Essentials of a Law: But such is made by Christ: Ergo—

The Minor (which only needs proof) I prove by parts and instances. 1. There is a Command to believe in God as our Reconciled Father by Christ: 2. To believe in Christ as Incarnate, and the Mediator, conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, fulfilling all righteousness, dying, buried, for us, justifying us by his blood, rising, ascending, glorified, interceding, that will raise the dead, and judge the world, &c. We are commanded to believe all the Gospel: And to give up ourselves to Christ in the Covenant of Baptism, to trust in him, to pray in his name, &c. We are commanded to believe in the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of Christ, and to live in Communion with the Christian Church, to observe the Lord's day (the first of the Week,) to preach and hear the Gospel, to receive the Lord's Supper, to imitate Christ, to receive his Apostles and Ministers, to relieve his members as such, to take Moses Law as abrogated or ceased; And do you that are so strict in condemning all human impositions as bold additions, believe that Christ himself hath made no Laws for Ordination, Sacraments, Preaching, Worship? and why fear you adding then? can one add to Nothing? And what a lawless sort of persons are you, if you will neither have Christ nor Man to make Laws for you?

2. And as to Promises and Threats or Penalties (of a far sorer punishment, Heb. 10.) I am ashamed to stand to prove them to you. [He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] is sure a Law. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? See that ye reject not him that speaketh —Heb. 4. & 10. These mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me, Luke 19. 27. with abundance such.

Pardon here that my indignation suffereth me not to be longer or colder, but shortly to tell you further, that to deny Christ's Law is, 1. To deny him to be a King, and to be Christ, 2. To deny his Kingdom, 3. And his Government, 4. And his Gospel, 5. And his Officers power, both Kings and Pastors, 6. And your own subjection, 7. And all duty and obedience to him, 8. And the being of all sin as against his Laws. 9. And all Judgment according to his Laws, 10. And all reward for keeping his Laws, 11. And all punishment for breaking them, 12. And all duty to preach, learn or meditate on them, 13. And all blame on such as silence such preaching, 14. And indeed the very being of all Law and Government in the world: For since the Promise Gen. 3. (or at least now) there is no Law of God in the world, but what is the Redeemers Law: Even the Law of Nature now is in his hand, and is the Law of the Redeemer to lapsed Nature. And all the world had a new Law of Grace made to Adam in the first Edition; and the Church hath it now in the second Edition. And now what part of Christianity do you not destroy?

Choose you now whether you will come off by confessing that you erred and differed from us but in a word not understood, or whether you will allow us to take you for downright Heretics? And bethink you whether those rash and self-conceited Divines that have reviled Papists and Arminians for saying that Christ's Gospel was a Law, or that he made a new Law, have done good service to the Christian or the Protestant Cause▪ or have rather done much to harden the Rapists into a more confident conceit that Protestants are Heretics?

IV. Mr next Charge it, that you feign the Covenant to be made with us, which is made only with Christ. Do you not remember that even the Westminster Assembly say in their larger Catechism, that [The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the Elect as his seed?] But you feign it to be made with the Elect, nay, to others immediately, and not only as Christ's seed, in him, nor to Christ at all.

I will not waste time in expounding or censuring other men's words: but as to the matter, is it not a most shameful thing, that a man of your profession and pretensions to knowledge, should confound those two Covenants which children should be taught in their Catechism to distinguish?

By [a Covenant] here we mean, 1. A Covenant offered and imposed, which is also a Law: 2. A Covenant consented to and mutual. And now tell me,

Quest. 1. Was it not a distinct Law that was made to us, from that which Christ was obliged by? I mean the Law of Grace and Faith? Was Christ commanded to Repent of his sin? or accept a Savior? or pray for pardon? or mortify his lusts? or trust another to reconcile him to God? or be Thankful for such mercies? or any such like Remedying means and duties for himself?

No: that must not be imagined.

Quest. 2. Is not all this commanded by the Law of Grace?

Yes: If it be a Law.

Quest. 3. Was not Christ under a Law, which bound him, 1. To obey all the precepts of nature perfectly without sin? 2. To obey all the Mosaical Law as far as he was capable? 3. To do all this a sa Mediator to reconcile God and man, And to die for sinners, to work Miracles, to send out Apostles, to gather a Church, to intercede for us, and to present us Justified and perfect to his father? And are we obliged to do so too?

No one so imagineth.

Quest. 4. Did not Christ as a Covenanter undertake all this? And do we do so too? And do not we in Baptism ourselves, consent and promise, to take God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for our Father, Savior and Sanctifier, and to forsake the flesh, the world and the devil? Is it Christ only that is Baptized? Nay did Christ ever receive such a Baptism as this, to wash away his sins, and deliver him a pardon? Is it Christ or we that at Baptism make these promises to God? Is it to Christ or us that Christ himself saith, If thou believe and repent thou shalt be saved? Doth Christ as King make Laws and Covenants to bind himself only? Who seeth not, that hath any sense of Scripture matters, that The Mediators case, office and work is one, and ours another: that It is one Law that was given him, and another to us: yea, that which seemeth the same was another, being not formally but materially only the same (and forma denominat:) For he was to fulfil the Law of Moses and of Innocency, to such ends (as a Redeemer) and with such difference from our case, that it was not formally but materially (and that but in part) the same Law: and so his Baptism was formally another thing from any ones Baptism else in the World. It was one thing that Christ promised and undertook in his Covenant with the Father, and it's another thing that we undertake and promise. It's one thing that God promiseth to Christ upon his Merits (that he shall see of the • ravail of his soul and be satisfied) and another thing that he promiseth us (that our persons shall be Justified, sanctified and saved.) In a word, by the Law given to Christ, Christ himself is Governed as a Subject, and Justified and Rewarded by God as his Judge for fulfilling it. By the Law given to us, we are the subjects and Christ is the Governor, Lawgiver and our Judge, who will Justify, reward, or condemn and punish us.

I know not how that man can preach the Gospel that knoweth not the difference between the Law and Covenant made to and with Christ as Mediator, and the Law and Covenant made to and with us, and in Baptism solemnly professed! Children should not be ignorant of it.

But it is the same thing which is promised to Christ and us, viz. that we shall be justified and saved; and this is promised first to Christ, and therefore the words cited may be justified: Christ is the seed of the woman who is first to break the Serpents head, Gen. 3. 15.

1. The same thing may be promised to different persons, in different Covenants: To promise to Christ that his elect shall be saved, and to promise Believers that they shall be saved, are two promises.

2. What one word do you find in Gen. 3. of a Covenant or promise made to Christ? It's true that he is the principal Seed there meant (though not the only:) But he is the Promised Seed: It's one thing for a promise▪ to be made to Christ, and another thing that Christ as the vi • torious seed • be promised to man. There is no promise in Gen. 3. to Christ mentioned •• (and what can be meant by a Promise of God to God himself?) but a prophecy and promise of a Savior to man: But if there had, that would not have proved these two to be one.

Understand the tenor and difference of these several Laws and Covenants of God, or pretend not to understand the Scripture: viz. 1. The Law and Covenant of Innocency made to Adam. • . The Law and Covenant made to and with the Mediator for our Redemption. 3. The promise, Law or Covenant of Grace of the first Edition, made to Adam▪ and all in him, and renewed with Noah and mankind in him. 4. The Law▪ and Covenant both of Common Grace and of Peculiarity, at once given to Abraham, and perfected in the Law and Covenant of Works made by Moses with the Jews. 5. The Law and Covenant of Grace made by the▪ Incarnate Mediator (and the Father by him) in the second perfect Edition, with eminent peculiarity.

V. BY feigning the Covenant of Grace to have Conditions, you make it to be a Covenant of works.

Either by works you mean [any human acts;] And so all God's Covenants with man (and his Laws) are of works; that is, It is some act of man that they require: For what else can be commanded? Or you mean as Paul doth, when he calls the Jews Law, a Law of works: And if so, you falsify his doctrine or ours. Prove if you can that by works he meaneth every human Act, and that Faith itself is either no Act of man, or the works meant by him.

Faith is a work, but it is not put in the Covenant as a work required of us, but as a gift to be given to us freely.

Judge whether it be required of us, and that formally as a condition, by such texts as these: (yea whether obedience be not required as a Condition of our salvation, which is promised thereupon?) 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. Rom. 10. 8, 9, 10, 13. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead (N. B. this is an act distinct from accepting his Righteousness) thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness, and with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation.—For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Matth. 6. 14, 15. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if &c. Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have Right to the tree of life, &c. See Isa. 1. 16, 17, 18. & 55. 6▪ 7. Luk. 13. 3, 5. 1 Joh. 1. 9. Act. 3. 19. Heb. 5. 9, &c.

God promiseth a Reward to our Actions, not as ours, but as h • own gifts.

1. Enough is said of Rewards before: We shall not by such talk as this believe either that God Rewardeth himself, or that he Rewardeth not us. But we easily grant that he rewardeth us for nothing which cometh not from his free bounty: For no creature can have any other good.

2. But if Faith, and Love, and Obedience be not commanded to us, but only given us, then they are no Duties, but Gifts only; and unbelief, hatred of God, and disobedience is no sin, nor brings no punishment.

At least they are no Conditions of the Covenant.

Do you think that they are any proper Means of our Justification and Salvation as their End? or not?

Yes: I dare not say, that they are no means at all; Faith and Repentance are Means of our Pardon, and Holiness and Perseverance of our Glorification.

What sort of means do you take them to be?

They are such Gifts of God as in order must go before Salvation.

Going before, signifieth only Antecedency, and not any Means.

One Gift maketh us fit for a thankful improvement of another.

This speaketh them only to be a Means to our Thankful improvement, and not to our Right to the things to be improved.

I do not think that they are a means of our Right or title.

Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the tree of life, &c.

It may be translated [that wash their garments] and [that they may have power upon] as Dr. Hammond noteth.

1. The Alexandrian Copy which giveth him this occasion, is singular, and not be set against all other (though the Vulgar Latin go the same way). Beza who yet thinks that a transposition of two Verses hath darkened these Texts, this Book being negligently used, because many for a time took it not for an Apostolical Writing, (or Canonical,) yet saith, that it is contra omnium Graecorum codicum fidem, that the Vulgar goeth.

2. But all's one in sense: For [to wash their Garments] is [to be sanctified or purified from sin] and not only from guilt of punishment: And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth such a Power as we call Authority o • Right (usually.)

But what maketh you deny Conditions on man's part?

Because, 1. It is supposed that a condition is profitable to him that requireth it. 2. It is some Cause of the benefit. 3. It is to be done by the performers own strength: whereas God giving • s Faith, that can be no condition on our part which is first a Gift from him that requireth it: For to give it first, maketh it no condition of ours.

Here we see what it is to quarrel about ambiguous Words: No one of these is true that you say, of the common nature of a condition; or at least as we mean by that word.

1. Civilians define a Condition to be Lex addita negotio, qua donec praestetur eventum suspendit. As it is Required it is only Modus promissionis, donationis vel contractus: as Performed it is only a Removal of an Impediment, and a Disposition of the Receiver. So that as the Non-performance is but the suspension of a Causation, so the performance of a Condition as such, is no Cause efficient: But it is dispositio subjecti, which you may call a necessary Modus of a Material Cause, as the Recipient may improperly be called; Dr. Twisse therefore calleth faith Ca • sa justificationis dispositiva.

2. So it be an act of our own, it is no way necessary that it be done without the Commanders help or gift: For he that giveth us to believe, doth give it by this means, even by commanding it, and making it a Condition of his further benefits, that so he may induce us as rational free agents, to perform it ex intuitu mercedis, or by the motive of the end or benefit. For he causeth it by suitable means. And no doubt, but faith, and the rest, are free acts of ours, though caused by God's grace.

3. And it is accidental to a Condition, that it be any way commodious to the Imposer. What profit is it to a Father that his Child put off his Hat and say, I thank you? And yet he may make that a condition of his gift. What profit is it to a free Physician, that the Patient observe his order in taking his Medicines? And yet he may give them on that condition.

But yet I will add, that as usually men make that the condition of a Gift or Contract, which the person obliged is backward else to perform, and that which is somewhat either for the Donor or Contracters Interest, or the Ends of his contract: so God who taketh his Glory and Pleasure in his Children's Good, to be as his Interest, and the End of his Gifts, and knoweth how backward we are to our duty, doth on these accounts impose on us our duty and conditions, his Pleasure and Glory being instead of his Commodity.

But if [If] be a conditional Particle, and if God's suspending by the tenor of his Donation, our Right to Justification upon our free believing, and our Right to Salvation on our free obedience, do prove Conditionality (as it doth all that we mean) then you see that the new Covenant hath conditions.

Doth not God promise us the first Grace, even to take the hard heart out of our bodies, and give us hearts of flesh, and new hearts, &c. And I pray, what condition can the first grace have, unless you will run in infinitum, to seek Conditions of Conditions?

1. This is a Cause of great moment, of which I have myself had darker thoughts than now I have. 1. If one Benefit of the Covenant have no Condition (viz. the first,) will it follow, that none of the rest are given upon condition? May not God in Baptism give us a Right of special Relation to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, his Love, Grace and Communion, Pardon, Adoption and Glory, on condition of Faith and Repentance, and yet himself give us that Faith and Repentance which is the condition of the rest?

2. But upon fuller consideration it will appear, that It is not the first Grace that those promises mean, by a new and soft heart: For whoever will examine them, shall find that the Texts mention Conditions and also antecedent Grace: And indeed, [A new and soft heart] is but the same thing which the New Testament calleth Sanctification. And yet that Sanctification is promised as consequent to Faith as its condition: And our ordinary Divines do accordingly distinguish of Vocation and Sanctification; holding that in Vocation the Act of Faith and Repentance are caused by God's Grace, before proper Habits; and that Sanctification is the Habits (specially of Love and Holiness) following them, (vid. Ames. Medull. de Vocat. Rolloc. de Vocat. Hookers Souls Vocat. & Humil. Rogers of Faith, &c.) And this is the new and fleshy heart.

But what need we more to prove that Covenant Conditional which I mean, when it is nothing but the Baptismal Covenant? where sure the condition is notorious, and every Baptizing Minister prerequireth the profession of it.

VI. AS to this your sixth Charge, I have said so much elsewhere, in my Disputations of Justification, and in other Books, that I cannot justify the tiring of Readers by repeating it: And will say now but this little following:

1. That Paul doth not distinguish between justifying faith, and saving faith, but excludeth the Works excluded by him, from being the causes either of Justification or Salvation.

2. That if [Receiving Christ's Righteousness] be meant by them properly and physically, it is no sort of faith at all; but only [the effect of the donation,] which they call [Justificari,] or passive Justification: But if it mean a moral metonymical Reception, that is nothing but [Consent to have the offered gift]; And if only Consent to have Christ's Righteousness be Justifying faith, then all the Assenting part is excluded (in which Scripture much placeth it, and most Divines in part, and many in whole, besides Cam • ro and his followers). And so also all the Affiance or Fiducial • cts are excluded, which almost all include; even that which they call Recumbency being distinct from Consent.

3. All these acts following are essential to Justifying faith, as well as this Consent to be Justified:

1. An Assenting belief in God, in the baptismal sense. 2. An Assent to the truth of Christ's Person, Office and Doctrine. 3. A belief in the Holy Ghost. 4. A belief of Pardon, Sanctification and Glory as possible, purchased and offered by Christ. 5. A Consent that God be our God in Christ. 6. And a Consent that Christ be our Teacher. 7. And our King, and Ruler. 8. And our Intercessor. 9. And our Judge and Justifier by sentence (and as our Advocate). 10. A belief of his Resurrection, Power and Glory. 11. A Trusting to the Father and the Son according to these forementioned Offices. 12. A Consent to be Sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

4. Plainly our Justifying and Saving Faith in Paul's sense is the same thing with our Christianity, or becoming Christians: And the same thing with our Baptismal faith and consent.

5. To believe in Christ as Christ is in Scripture Justifying faith: But to accept his righteousness only, and not to believe in him as our Lord, and our Teacher and Intercessor, &c. as aforesaid, is not to believe in him as Christ.

6. In my Answer (ubi sup.) to Mr. Warner, and elsewhere, I have detected the fraud of their quibling distinction, who say, that All this is in faith quae justificat, but not quà justificat, as supposing a falsehood, that any act of faith quà talis justifieth.

7. They that say that only our Acceptance of Christ's Imputed Righteousness is the Justifying act of faith, and that to expect to be Justified by any other (viz. by Believing in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, and believing a Heaven hereafter, and believing the Truth of the Gospel, and of Christ's Resurrection, Ascension, Glory, &c. and by taking him for our Teacher, Ruler, Intercessor, &c.) is to expect Justification by Works in Paul's disclaimed sense, and so to fall from Grace; I say, they that thus teach, do go so far towards the subverting of the Gospel, and making a Gospel or Religion of their own, as that (I must tell them, to move them to repentance) not only the adding of Ceremonies is a small corruption in comparison of this, but many that in Epiphanius are numbered with Heretics, had far lesser errors than this is.

VII. ANd I have said so much in the foresaid Disputations of Justification and other Books, of Faiths Instrumentality and the reason of its Justifying interest, that I cannot persuade myself now to talk it out with you all over again; but only to say,

1. That I have fully oft proved from many plain Scriptures, that pardon and salvation are given (with Christ) in the Covenant of Grace, on Condition of a penitent believing fiducial acceptance. And therefore that it is most certain that faith is a Condition of our Justification; and so to be professed in Baptism.

2. The name of An Instrument given to faith, and its Justifying as an Instrument, are of men's devising, and not in God's Word.

3. But as to the sense, It is certain that faith is no Instrument of our Justification (God's or Mans,) if it be meant properly of an Instrumental efficient cause.

4. But if it be taken Metaphorically, for an Act whose Nature or essence is An Acceptance of a free Gift, and so by Instrumentality be meant the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere, that is, Faiths very Essence in specie, then no doubt it is what it is.

5. Or if by an Instrument be meant, A Moral aptitude or Disposition of the person to be justified (answerable to the Dispositio Recipientis vel materiae in Physicks) then it is such an Instrument. But how well this is worded, and what cause there is to contend for a word both of human invention and metaphorical, and this as if it were a weighty Doctrine, I leave to sober judgments.

6. But it is certain that the Accepting Act of faith is but its Aptitude to be the condition of the Gift, and therefore that its being made by Christ the Condition is its Moral nearest interest in our Justification.

VIII. WHat do you but subvert the Gospel, when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness? When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christ's Righteousness Imputed to us, you say it is by faith imputed.

Do you think any sober Christians here really differ? or is it only about the Names and Notions? Which ever it be; 1. Of the name, Is it not oft said that Faith is and shall be imputed for Righteousness, Rom. 4. 22, 23, 24. James 2. 23.

Yes: I must grant the words, but not your meaning.

Where doth the Scripture say, that Christ's Righteousness is Imputed to us? Remember that it is only the Name that I ask you of.

It saith that Righteousness is Imputed: and what Righteousness • an it be but Christ's?

I tell you still, it is only the phrase or words that we are first trying. Are these the same words [Righteousness is Imputed] and [Christ's Righteousness is Imputed?] If not, where are these latter words in Scripture?

Grant that the words are not, and your words are.

Then the question is, Whether Scripture phrase or man's invented phrase be the better and safer in a controvertible case? And next Whether you should deny or quarrel at the Scripture saying, that [faith is imputed to us for righteousness] and not rather confute our misexpounding it, if we do so?

Well, Let us examine the sense then: What Righteousness is it but Christ's that is said to be imputed to us?

It is none but what we have from Christ: But the phrase of Imputing supposeth it ours: And the meaning is no more, but that [we are reputed Righteous]: And the causes are not included in the phrase of [Imputing righteousness to us]; but in the words before and after. As Imputing sin to us, (and not Imputing it) is but to Repute, reckon or judge us sinners, or by sin guilty of punishment (or not guilty); so is it here. So that it is supposed, 1. That Righteousness, that is, This Relation of being Righteous, is the thing imputed: 2. Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious cause: 3. The Gospel Donation is the instrumental Cause: 4. Our Faith in Christ is the condition, and as such the subordinate matter necessary on our parts. And that faith is imputed for Righteousness, plainly meaneth but this, that Christ having merited and satisfied for us, all that is now required on our part to denominate (or primarily constitute) us Righteous, is to be true Believers in him, or true Christians.

And I further ask you, Do you thus paraphrase the words [Faith, that is, Christ's Righteousness, is imputed to us for righteousness?]

Yes: I do so: because the act is put for the object.

Were it so said but once, and otherwise oft, you had some color for this: But when it is never said [Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us] and so oft said [Faith is imputed for righteousness,] how shall ever the Scripture be understood at this rate, if still by [faith] it mean not faith at all, but Christ's righteousness? And why must not all other places that mention faith, be so understood also?

But read the Texts, and set all together, and see what sense thus will be made of it.

Rom. 4. 3. [What saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it, that is, not his believing, but Christ's Righteousness, was Imputed to him for righteousness.] Is this a sober and modest paraphrase, or a shameless violence? Doth not [it] refer to [believing God] before mentioned?

Vers. 4, 5. [To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned (or imputed) of Grace, but of debt: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (that is, not his faith, but Christ's righteousness) is counted for righteousness.] Is this a modest Exposition?

Vers. 10, 11. [We say that Faith (that is, not faith, but Christ's righteousness) was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness: How then was it, (that is, not his faith, but Christ's righteousness) reckoned?—In uncircumcision: And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the fiath, (that is, not of the faith, but of the righteousness of Christ's righteousness) which he had being uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of them that believe, that righteousness (that is, Christ's) might be imputed to them also—who walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had, &c. (doth faith here also signify no faith?)

Vers. 13. When the promise is said to be [through the righteousness of faith] and Vers. 14. [faith made void] is it no faith that is here also meant by faith?

And Vers. 16. [It is of faith—to that seed, which is of the faith of Abraham] is not faith indeed here meant by the word faith?

So Vers. 18, 19, 20, 21. [Who against hope believed—And being not weak in faith—he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strong in faith—And being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able to perform] is it no faith that is meant in all these words? yea, or no act of faith, but accepting the righteousness of Christ?

So next Vers. 22. [And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness] that is, Not his faith; but by [It] is meant only Christ's Righteousness, though it was faith that was over and over mentioned as the antecedent.)

So Vers. 23, 24. [It was not written for his sake only that it (that is, not faith, but Christ's righteousness) was imputed to him; But for us also to whom it (that is, not faith) shall be imputed if we believe (is not that faith neither?) on him (that is, God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (which is a distinct act from Consenting to have his righteousness:) who was delivered to death for our offenses, and was raised again for our Justification;] Is the meaning that we are justified by the Imputation of Christ's Resurrection so to us, as that in Law sense we rose again in him, and by Rising fulfilled the Law of Innocency?

I will not for shame and weariness thus go over other such Texts: but I must be so faithful as to say, that if good men, and wise men, and men that cry down the Papists and others for adding to God's Word, and corrupting it, and calling it a Nose of Wax, and introducing new Articles of faith, will yet own such Expositions as these, and accuse those that own them not, they are as great Instances as most I remember, except the defenders of Transubstantiation, how far education, or custom, or human dependence, or faction and partiality and prejudice, may blind the reason of professed Christians and godly men. And that man that dare lay his comforts and hopes of justification and life upon such expositions of God's Word, should be modest in crying down the false hopes of others, and reproving them that build upon the sand.

You have made a long discourse to make us odious upon a false supposition: We do not say, that in all or any of those Texts, by faith is not meant faith: but only that it is not faith as faith, or as an act of ours, but as connoting its object, the Righteousness of Christ.

1. Alas! a great number of better men than you, have too oft and plainly said without distinction that [Faith is not imputed to us for righteousness]. I hope they meant better than they spake; but I would it could be hid from the world, that these words are not only in the Independents Savoy Confession, but even in the Confession of the Westminster Assembly, cap. 11.

2. But what mean your cloudy words, [It is not faith as faith, but as connoting the object?] They that cannot speak clearly, seldom clearly understand what to speak. The Question is, Whether it be really and properly Faith, that is meant in all these Texts? or whether it be only Christ's righteousness? If you say, that It is both in several respects, you grant then that it is saith itself in one respect, that is imputed to us for righteousness. If it be only the object and not faith, why is it so often called [faith, believing, being persuaded, &c.]

Will you say, that It is not faith as an act of ours only? Whoever dreamt it was? For à quatenus ad omne: If as an act, then every act (even plowing, and walking, and sinning) would justify us.

Will you say, that It is not Faith as a Moral Virtue or Good act only? Who saith it is? For then every moral good act would justify men.

Do you say, that It is not by faith as faith in genere? It is granted you: For else (à quatenus ad omne) any act of faith would justify, even believing that there is a Hell.

Will you say, that it is not any other species of faith, besides our baptismal faith? We grant it you.

But if you will also say, that It is not this species, even the Christian faith neither that is meant, but only the object of it, then, 1. Why say you, that it is Faith as connoting the object; contradicting yourself: for if be not faith at all, it is not faith as connoting; that which is not, doth not connote. 2. And why say you, that it is not faith itself essentially? Is not the object essential as an object to the act in specie? Is it not essential to our Christian faith to be a Believing in Christ?

3. But what sober unprejudiced Christian that readeth the Text throughout, and hath not been instructed to pervert it, can choose but see that it is Faith itself that the Apostle speaketh of? and that it is our personal Relation of Righteousness that it is said to be imputed for? And who can believe that this is the sense [Abraham's faith was imputed to him for Christ's Righteousness?] or this either [His faith, that is, Christ's Righteousness and not his faith, was imputed to him for Christ's Righteousness?] Undoubtedly by faith is meant faith, and by Righteousness is meant our own Relation. But it is most easy to discern, that the plain sense is [Christ being presupposed the Meriter of our Justification and Salvation, which he hath given the world conditionally by a Law of Grace, (or Covenant Donation,) by which now he ruleth and judgeth us, all that this Covenant, Gift or Law requireth on our part to make us Righteous, and entitle us to the Spirit, and everlasting life, is that as P • nitent Believers we accept Christ and life according to the nature, ends and uses of the gift; (and this also by his grace).]

Reader, hold close to this plain Doctrine, which most of the lower sort of Christians know (who have not fallen into perverters hands) and you • will have more solid and practical and peaceable truth about this point, than either Dr. Thomas Tully, or Maccovius, or Mr. Crand •• , or Dr. Crisp, or the Marrow of Modern Divinity , or Paul Hobson, or Mr. Saltmarsh, or any such Writers do teach you in their learned Net-work Treatises, by which (being Wise or Orthodox overmuch, being themselves entangled and confounded by incongruous notions of man's invention) they are liker to entangle and confound you, than to show you the best method and grounds for the peace of an understanding dying man.

Christ's Righteousness is Imputed or Reckoned to be as it is, the total sole Meritorious Cause of all that Grace and Glory given us in and by the Conditional Law or Covenant of Grace, and of our Grace for performance of the Conditions; and it needeth nothing at all of ours to make it perfect to this use; nor hath our faith any such supplemental Office. But this condition of our part in Christ, and of our Right to his Covenant-gifts, must be performed: and the sentence of Absolution or Condemnation, life or death, must be passed on us accordingly; it being not Christ, but we by this very Law, that are to be Judged, Justified or Condemned. And this is the Condemnation that light is come into the World, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil: But to as many as Received him, he gave Right to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his name: And there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit: For being perfected, he is become the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him: And it is not they that cry Lord, Lord, that shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of our heavenly Father: For Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that to come.

IX. OF this also I have said so much in my Apology to Dr. Kendall, and in the two first parts of this Book before, that I shall now put you off with this short notice:

1. There is nothing changed, or new in God: That which on his part is in God the Cause of our Justification, is his eternal simple essence.

2. But God's Essence, Understanding, or Will considered simply in itself is not to be called, Mans Justification: But the effect produced by it; And partly the extrinsic object as terminating God's act, and so by extrinsic denomination or connotation, God's Essential Intellect and Will is said, de novo to justify. But it is only man that is really changed.

3. The New effect in man from which God is said de novo to justify him, is 1. A new Right or Relation to Christ, pardon and life, and to the Father and the Holy Ghost: 2. A new objective termination of God's estimation, acceptance and complacency: And 3. A new heart hereupon at the same instant given us. I think none of this is from eternity: And that as God did de novo make the world, and judge it existent, and love and order it as existent, without any change in him, (as also millions of creatures proceed from his simple Unity) so is it here. And this needeth no more words with knowing or teachable men: And to others there is no end.

THis fear of losing our justification, which you teach men, is most injurious to God's free grace and immutability, and a rack for Conscience to destroy men's peace.

I have said so much of this before about Perseverance and Assurance, as forbiddeth me tedious repetitions. Here needeth no more but this explication of the matter which you confound:

1. Fear is either Causeful or Causeless.

2. Fear is either such as hindereth comfort, or such as helpeth it.

3. Fear is either a Duty, or an unavoidable natural passion, or a sin of unavoidable infirmity, or a more deadly or heinous sin.

4. It's one thing to cause and cherish Fear, and another thing to teach men that cannot avoid it, how to deal by it. And now I assert,

1. Too many are confident that they are justified, who ought not only to Fear that they are not, but to know it.

2. Too many that are Justified fall into such decays of Grace, and heinous sin, as that it becometh thereupon their duty to fear lest their hearts should deceive them, and they prove unjustified, till they rise by repentance and revived Faith. The uncertainty becoming unavoidable, some Fear in an uncertain person is a duty, without which he would show a contempt of God and his salvation.

3. Too many Justified persons have Grace so weak and unactive, and sin so strong, as that in that case, both uncertainty and fears are unavoidable to them: A Certainty beyond fear, supposeth a very high proportionable degree of all other Graces; (For the new creature in the chief parts useth to increase or decrease together:) But few have such high degrees of Grace.

4. A fear of particular great and heinous sins (which must be Repented of, if you will be saved) must be moderately feared by all Christians; none being certain that they shall escape them.

5. A believing lively apprehension of the dreadfulness of God's Judgment, as he is a consuming fire, and one that can cast soul and body into Hell, with so much as is necessary to vigilancy and labor for prevention, is all men's duty, Luke 12. 4, 5. Heb. 12. 28, 29. And on this consideration if we will serve God acceptably, it must be with reverence and godly fear. And we must keep under our bodies (with Paul) and bring them into subjection, lest having preached or professed, we should yet be cast awayes.

6. Needful cleansing, repenting and preventing fear, doth secure and further our comforts, by removing the sin and danger that would hinder them.

7. All our enemies and dangers are not overcome till the end. And danger must be escaped by moderate fear. God who brings his servants over all their dangers, will save them by a sober fear and vigilancy, and not by fearlesness of the evil.

8. But all that fear which includeth error or unbelief, or distrust of Christ, is sinful, and to be resisted with all our care; And the more distrust, the greater is the sin.

9. All Fear that driveth from Christ, and faith, and hope, and love, and true consolation we cry down daily, as injurious to God and man.

10. We teach all Christians to contend with utmost diligence, to get up to the highest Trust, Love, Joy, Thanksgiving and Praise, as the proper Evangelical excellency, nearest Heaven: and to get as fast as they can above that fear which hath torment, which is cast out as love groweth perfect: and to pray and seek for the Spirit of Adoption, of Power, and Love, and a sound mind, instead of the Spirit of fear and bondage: And not to place too much of their Religion in that very fear which in its season is a duty, much less in hurtful sinful fear: But always and in all things to Rejoice in the Lord, with Love and Gratitude, and confidently to cast all their cares on him.

11. But as all men here are imperfect in Holiness, Faith and Assurance, and in their doubts, some fear of the event (besides mere reverence of God) is their duty, so we teach men how so to live in an uncertain fearing state, as safeliest to get above it.

12. And we know that sin, wickedness, presumption, self-deceit and pride are so common in the world, that Fear is very needful to the most; and we have cause to call with Paul to many proud Professors, Be not high minded, but fear (even lest God should cut them off as he did the Jews); and Having a promise of entering into his rest, let us fear lest any of us come short of it, Heb. 4. 1. And Christ thrice over reciteth his urgent exhortatory words, Luke 12▪ 4, 5. I say to you my friends—I will tell you whom you shall fear—Fear him who when he hath killed, hath power to cast into Hell; yea, I say unto you (the third time) fear him: Is not this authority full, and these words plain and very earnest, even to his friends?

13. And it is not fit to make such a Doctrine a fundamental certainty, which we find none of all the Churches of Christ held from the Apostles days for many and many hundred years (that ever I could read or hear of,) I mean that [all the Justified persevere]. Be it never so clear to you, that which now is, and so long was thought so far from clear and sure to the Churches of Christ, as it is no fit foundation for the Churches Concord, so neither for a Christians everlasting hopes, to be so much laid on it, as by some they are.

X. & XI. OF the first of these I have said so much before, that I will here pass it by. And as to the second, you are a man of pernicious principles, and downright heretical and damnable, if indeed you would have us call no unregenerate persons to any duty whatsoever. Answer me these Questions:

Quest. 1. Would you not have your Wife, Children and Servants taught, that it is their duty to love, honor and obey you? and your neighbors to deal justly with you? and the Rulers to protect you, and the Judges to do you Justice?

I speak only of Religious and not Civil duties.

You are indifferent it seemeth as to the Interest of God's honor and men's salvation: Let those alone, so be it your own interest be secured. Duty to you, must be preached, but not to God. But would you not have them taught to do you service as to the Lord, and as such as from him shall have punishment or reward? and to submit themselves to the Higher Powers for conscience sake as to the Ministers of God? and • o Honor Father and Mother in obedience to God, and that by his reward their days may be long? Should not all be done to the Glory of God?

Yes, it should be; but the wicked cannot do it: Therefore they must be first made Godly, and the Heart renewed, that the life may be amended.

We are as much and more for Heart-work, and for beginning there, than you are •• we know that God accepteth not the hypocrite, that draweth near him, and honoreth him with the lips, when the heart is far from him: The outward actions are no further Good or Bad, than they are •••• or from the Will. The Divine Nature, and Image of God, and life of the new creature, is the new heart by the Love of God shed abroad upon it by the Holy Ghost. But,

Quest. 2. Are we to call men to no duty at all, to the getting of a new heart? Should we not persuade them to hear God's Word?

Ye • : How shall they believe unless they hear?

Quest. 3. Must we call them from the Tavern, Ale-house, Gaminghouse, Play-house, Whore-house, yea, from their lawfuiler employments that they may hear in season? and call Martha to choose Mary's part, and those that say, They cannot come because of their Oxen, Farms and Business, to change that mind?

Yes, no doubt of it: Zacchaeus must be in Christ's way.

Quest. 4. Must we not persuade them to take heed how and what they hear? and to set their hearts to all God's Words, and to see that they despise not him that speaketh? but he that hath ears to hear, let him hear; and to consider of the truth and weight of all, and to search the Scriptures to see whether the things be so?

I deny none of this.

Quest. 5. May we not persuade them to come and talk and reason the case with Friends or Ministers, that we may convince them?

Yes no doubt, as well as to hear in public.

Quest. 6. May we not Catechize them, and teach them the Principles of Christianity, that they may understand them?

Yes, as to the Matter; but to teach them your forms of Questions and Answers, is but formality and deceit.

What? May we not teach them the words of Christ and Scripture? How shall the matter be understood without words? And what better words, than the words of Scripture?

But a Form of the same words is but formality.

Hath God forbid us to use the same? Are Children and ignorant people fit to understand the mysteries of God, if you speak them every time in new or other words? or can they so remember them? And when the use of words is to signify Things, and the Matter is one and the same (for we have but one God, and Christ, and Gospel) what wild work will you make of it, if you speak the same things every time in other words? Are all those words equally fit to signify the same Things? Certainly some particular words are more fitted to each matter than other: And should not the fittest be most used? Doth not Christ deliver us a form of Baptism, and a form of the administration of his last Supper, and a form of Prayer? Are there not forms prescribed in God's Word, of the Priests Benediction, and what the people shall say when they offer Sacrifice? Are not all the Psalms forms of Prayer and Praise (and were indeed the Liturgy of the Jews)? Doth not Joel put a form of prayer into the mouths of Penitents? Doth not Paul teach us to use Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord? Eph. 5. 19. Doubtless it is not only David's Psalms that are meant by these three words; but Hymns and Songs fitted to Gospel Worship: And if you would have none of them premeditated, nor be twice the same words, you would soon make yourself ridiculous to the world. If you say that this Precept was for them that could do so being filled with the Spirit, I answer, 1. It's true that they had their extraordinary endowments, which made a difference in the manner (as also in Praying and Preaching): But shall we dream that therefore the same duties belong not to us to be performed in the best manner that we can? 2. A man may from the Spirit pour out his soul to God in forms of Prayer and Praise, though the words were premeditated.

In a word, if you would have all forms of Creeds, Prayer, Praise and administration of Sacraments, and Catechisms cast away, you are an enemy to God's true Worship, and the safety and edification of the Church, yea, you must cast away all the Scriptures, which are God's form of instruction, recorded for the Churches use to the end of the World.

Quest. 6. But I further ask you, May we not persuade bad men to examine themselves, and to find, know and confess that they are bad and ungodly? and to lament it?

Yes, that cannot be denied.

Quest.