The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined

Jam. 2. 20, 21, 22. 23, 24, 25 26.

Ans. He that shall exclude Good Works from Salvation, so as not to be the way and means appointed of God, wherein we ought to walk, who seek and expect salvation from God; and affirms that it is enough to Believe, though a man bring forth no Fruits of Faith, or good Works; if he pretend to be of that persuasion, on the account of anything delivered by Paul, in the Epistles to the Romans or Galatians, doth wrest the words and Sence of Paul, and is well confuted by that passage mentioned out of James.

But he that excluding all works from Justification in the sense declared, affirming that it is by Faith only, without works; and affirms, that the Truth and Sincerity of that Faith, with its Efficacy in its own kind for our justification, is evinced by Works, & the man's Acceptation with God thereon justified by them, doth not wre • t the words nor Sence of Paul; and speaks to the intendment of James.

2. Paul instructs us at large, how Sinners come to be Justified before God, and this is his professed design in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. James professedly exhorting Believers to good Works, demands of them, how they will acquit themselves before God and Man to be justified; and affirms that this cannot be done, but by works. Paul tells us what Justification is; James describes Justifying Faith by its Effects; but of this also elsewhere. To all this he subjoins.

I would know of you, who is a just or Righteous man? Is it not such an one, as apprehendeth, and applieth Christ's Righteousness to himself, or at most desires to do Righteously, is not he accepted of God?.

Ans. 1 Joh. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. 1 Joh. 2. 29. Acts 10. 34, 35. Ezek. 18. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

He to whom God imputes Righteousness, is righteous. This he doth to him, who works not, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4. 5, 6, 7. there is then a Righteousness without the woe • ks of the Law, Phil. 3. 10. To apprehend and apply Christ's Righteousness to ourselves, are expressions of Believing unto justification, which the Scripture will warrant, John. 1. 12. 2 Cor. 1. 30. He that Believeth, so as to have Christ made Righteousness to him, to have Righteousness imparted to him, to be freely justified by the Redemption that is in the blood of Jesus, he is just: and this State and Condition, as was said, is obtained by applying the Righteousness of Christ to ourselves; that is, by reckoning him, and his Righteousness by Faith, as tendered unto us in the offer and Promises of the Gospel.

Of desiring to do righteously, and what is intended by that expression, I have spoken before. But,

2, There is a twofold Righteousness, a Righteousness imputed, whereby we are justified, and a Righteousness inherent, whereby we are sanctified. There M. B. would oppose, and from the Assertion of the one, argue to the destruction of the other; though they Sweetly, and Eminently comply in our Communion with God. The other Righteousness was before evinced: Even our Sanctification also is called Righteousness, and we are said to be just in that respect.

1. Because our Faith and interest in Christ is justified thereby to be true, and such as will abide the fiery trial.

2. Because all the acts of it are fruits of Righteousness, Rom. 6. 19, 22.

3. Because it stands in opposition to all Unrighteousnesse, and he that doth not bring forth the Fruit of it, is Unrighteous.

4. With men, and before them it is all our Righteousness; and of this do the places mentioned by M. Biddle treat, without the least contradiction, or color of it, to the imputed Righteousness of Christ, wherewith we are Righteous before God.

The in • endment of the last Query in this Chapter, is to prove the Apostasy of Saints; or that true Believers may fall away totally and finally from grace. I suppose it will not be expected of me, that I should enter here into a particular Consideration of the places by him produced, having lately at large gone through the consideration of the whole Doctrine opposed; wherein not only the Texts here quoted by M. B. but many others, set off by the Management of an able head; and dexterous hand • , are at large considered, thither therefore I refer the Reader.

It might perhaps have been expected, that having insisted so largely as I have done, upon some other heads of the Doctrine of the Gospel corrupted by M. B. and his Companions, that I should not thus briefly have passed over this important Article of Faith, concerning Justification: but besides my weariness of the work before me, I have for a defensative farther to plead, that this Doctrine is of late become the Subject of very many Polemicall discourses; to what Advantage of Truth, time will show, and I am not willing to add oil to that fire, 2. That if the Lord will, and I Live, I intend to do something purposely, for the vindication, and clearing of the whole Doctrine its self; and therefore am not willing Occasionally to anticipate here, what must in another Order and Method be insisted on; to which for a close, I add a desire, that if any be willing to contend with Me about this matter, he would forbear Exceptions against these Extemporary Animadversions, until the whole of my Thoughts lie before him, unless he be of the Persons principally concerned in this whole discourse, of whom I have no reason to desire that Respect or Candor.

Places of Scripture Opened and Explained in the Preceding Treatise.

Cap.	Vers.	Pag.
GENESIS.
1.	1.	112
	26.	139
2.	16, 17.	114, 115
3.	4.	133
	16, 17.	116, 117
	22, 23.	83
5	1.	63
6	5.	144
6	6.	78
7	9	78 &c.
8.	21.	144
9.	6.	138
15	13, 14.	103
18	18, 19.	102
	21	89
	25.	484
22.	1, 2, 30, 11.	85.
EXODUS.
13.	17.	83
34.	7.	516
LEVITICUS.
16	2, 5. &c.	469
	21	474
25	25	583
NUMBERS▪
12	7, 8.	64
14	27, 30.	83
DEUTERONOMY.
8.	2	86, 87
13	3	86, 87
17	12, 13	488
18	18	371, 429
31	16, 17, 18.	103
32	26, 27	83
JOSHUAH.
2	11	52, 56
JUDGES.
16	7, 11.	295
RUTH
3	19	583
1 SAMUEL
2	3	97
	30	83
15	10, 11.	83
	29	78, 85
1 KINGS
8	7	52, 56
13	2	103
22	28	103
NEHEMIAH.
1	11	655
JOB.
4	16	64
9	22	485
19	25	582
26	13	354
42	7, 8, 9	611, 612
PSALMES.
2	7	236, 237, &c.
18	20, 21, &c.	659
22	1	565, &c.
33	6	354
40	6, 7.	471, 472▪ 476, &c 579, &c
51	7	145, 146
58	3	146
135	3	46
139.	7, 8, 9, 10.	52, 56, 101
147	5	69
PROVERBS
8	23	239, 240, &c.
	21	573
	30, 31	515
30	4	177
CANTICLES.
2	8, 9	514
ISAIAH.
8	13, 14	345, &c.
9	6	327, 328, &c. 572, 573
40	3	247
	13, 14	91
	18	67
41	21, 22, 27	104
45	22, 23	347
49	5	575, 579
	25	589
52	13	500, &c. 501, 525, &c
	4	516
	6	504, 505, &c.
	10	576, 577
	11	513, &c.
59	20	585
66	15	568, 569
JEREMIAH.
10	10, 11	407, 408
17	56	408, 409
23	6	247, 248
	23	52, 57, &c.
EZEKIEL.
5	2	233, 234 &c.
ZACHARIAH.
2	8	247, 249 &c. 252, &c.
9	11	588
12	10	346
MATHEW.
3	17	166
5	21, 22, &c.	385, 386, &c
	25, 26	590
8	16, 17	517
11	30	651
16	16	166, 167 &c
		321, 322
19	17, 18, 19	654
LUKE
• .	30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.	180 181, &c.
2	34	345
JOHN
• .	1, 2, 3, &c.	205, 206, &c.
		210, 211, &c.
	14.	216, 217, 218, 219, &c.
3	13.	222, 223
		380, 381
4	24	48, 381
4	24	48, 49
5	17, 18	169, 170
	19, 20, 30.	155, 156
	23	399, &c.
	27	4 • 1
	37	66
6	62	221, 222, &c, 382.
8	44	132.
	58	225, 226, &c.
10	29, &c.	119, 320, &c.
	30	171
	36	182, 183, & 222, &c.
• 2	41	286, 287, &c.
14	9	337
	10	155, 156
	28	187
15	26	359, 360
16	13, 14	358, 361. 362
	15	325, 326
	28	222, 223, &c.
17	5	242, 243, &c.
	10	325, c.
	18	222, 223, &c.
18	37	227
20	17	191
		189
20	28	262, 263, &c
		316, 317
ACTS.
•	22	154, 155
3	20, 22	370
4	24, 27, 28	457
10	38	154, &c
13	32 33	184, 579
	38, 39	475
15	18	91, 101
16	13	358, &c
20	28	262, 263, &c.
ROMANS.
1	2, 3	173, 174. &c
	32	487
2	5	60
	6, 7, 8	655
3	5	69
	25	476
	23, 24, 25.	593 602, 603, &c.
4	5	649
5	10.	615 616, &c.
	12.	119 1 • 9 140. & 146, 147,
	18	457, 558, &c.
8	28, 29, 30.	639
	33, 34	594
9	5	117, 318
	32, 33	345
	26	585
11	34, 35	91
	32	591
14	9, 10, 11.	152, 153
1 CORINTHIANS
2	8	342
8	6.	46, 47. 151, 152
		339, 340
6	20	6. 8
10	9	285, 286, &c
15	24, 28	188. 189
2 CORINTHIANS.
5	17	212
	19	457, &c.
	21	510
	18, 19, 20, 21.	617, 618, &c
GALATIANS.
4	8	408
6	2	384
EPHESIANS.
1	45	639, 659
2	12, 13, 14, 15, 16.	618, 619, &c
4	4	352
	5	15 • , 151, &c.
	6.	46, 47, 69
5	2	451
	6	69
	7	660
8	9, 10	662
PHILIPIANS.
2	67	289, 290, &c
COLOSSIANS.
1	15	323, 324
	16	267, 267, &c
	8	185
2	9	33 •
1 THESSALONIANS
2	4	87
5	17	666
2 THESSALONIANS
1	5	655
1 TIMOTHY
1	5	660
3	16	302, &c.
TITUS.
2	11	655
	13	257, 258
	14	596
HEBREWS.
	2	273
	3.	452, 283, 284, &c.
		337
	4, 5	185
	8, 9	191
	10, 11, 12	276, 277, &c
2	10	436
	16	309, 310, &c
		575
	14, 15	567, &c.
	17, 18	436, 437
3	4	151
4	12	91
	13	100
5	1	428, 429, &c.
	5	186
	6,7	452
	9,10	450
7	3	177
	15	449
	1 •	395
	25	450
	27	453
8	1,2,4	437, &c.
9	12	449, &c. 453
	15	597
	26	454
10	1,2,3,4.	467,468 &c.
	5	215, 313 476 477, &c. 574, 575
	9,10	570, &c.
JAMES.
2	20,21, &c.	664
3	9	65
1 PETER.
1	10,11	244, 245
	12	356,357
	18,19	596,608
2	24	537
3	18	457, &c
	19,20	244,245
2 PETER.
3	9	645
1 Ep JOHN.
3	10	659
	20	91,101
4	3	312,313
Cap.	Vers.	Pag.
5	3	651, &c.
	20	167, 254
		255, &c
JUDE.
	4	256
REVELATION.
1	5	185
	8	259,260,261
4	8	261, &c.
17	14	344
19	13	335,336
	16	345
	20	409
22	9	404
	14	655

ERRATA.

Some of the mistakes in Printing may be thus rectifyed.

PAg. 45. lin. 5. task, l. 3. Christianity, I shall not, p:46. l:6. doth not profess, p:49. l. 22. question, p. 52. l. 12. r. and l:16. r. us. p. 54. l. ult. quantitative. p. 55. l. 27. indistant. p. 57. l. 2 distant. l. 16. distant. p. 60. l. ult. one. p. 63. l. 27. neither. p. 65. l. 27. r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 69. l. 30. though. p. 74. l. 2. phrase. p. 114. l. 16. unto. p. 134. l. 3. way of Salvation, p. 139. l. 5. mortality. p. 141. l. 6. r. a p. 142. l. ult. depended, p:151. l:34. r: but, p. 155. l. 5. r: disappear, p. 157. l: 9 dele that, l: ult. r. Luke, p. 167. l: 2. Apostles, p: 174. l. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p: 181. from l. 26. to which, l:25. in a parenthesis. p: 182. l. 5. invincible. p: 196. l:28. discern, p: 215, l:13. Heb: 10. p:243. l: ult. loquendi. p:276. l:33. repeat, p:666. l. 2. imputed, l:5, 6. receiving.

In the Appendix.

Pag. 32 l:8. his, p:33. l:35, contractibus, contractibus, p: 39. l: 13. should, p: 40. l: • if, l: •• tellitur.

Of the Death of Christ, and of Justification.

The doctrine concerning them formerly delivered Vindicated from the Animadversions of Master R. B.

OF this task I would complain if I durst: but I know not how it may be taken; and whither it may not occasion another Apology. So are writings of this nature, as waves that thrust on one another. Books (says one) are like good turns; They must be new covered, or it will rain through. I was in some hope to have escaped this trouble. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Chrysostom tells us, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I desire to be content with my portion, being better yet then that of Livius Drusius, who complained uni sibi nec puero quidem unquam ferias contigisse; so it be in and about things of real use, and Advantage to the souls of men I can be content with any pains that I have strength to Answer. But this is an evil, which everyone who is not stark blind may see in polemical writings: almost their constant end, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whence saith the Apostle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Having through the providence of God (whether on my part necessarily or wisely I know not, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) engaged in public, for the defense of some truths of the Gospel (as I believe) I was never so foolish, as to expect an escape without Opposition. He that puts forth a book, sentences his Reason to the Gantelope; everyone will strive to have a lash at it in its course, and he must be content to bear it. It may be said of books of this kind, as he said of children, (things often compared) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Anxiety, fear, and trouble, attend their Authors. For my own part, as I provoked no man causelessly in any of my writings, defended no other doctrine professedly but the common faith of the Protestant Churches, of which I found the Saints of God in possession, when I came first acquainted with them; so I have from the beginning resolved, not to persist in any Controversy, as to the public debate of it, when once it begins to degenerate into a strife of words, and personal reflections: so much the more grievous is it to me, to engage in this now in hand, of the necessity where of I shall give the Reader a brief Account. That as to the matter of the contest between M. B. and myself, M. B. is my witness that I gave not the occasion of it, so as to the manner of its handling, that I carried not on the Provocation, I appeal to all that have read my Treatise, which is now animadverted on. The fame person, & initium dedit, & modum abstulit. Some freedom of Expression, that perhaps I might righteously have made use of, to prevent future exacerbations I designedly forbore. I know that some men must have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Expressions concerning them, had need be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; or like the letters, that men print one of another, which are oftentimes answerable to that of Augustus to Mecoenas; vale mel gemmeum, medulliae ebur ex Hetruria, lasera-rietinum, adamas supernas, Tiberinum margaritum, cilniorum smaragde jaspis figulorum, berille Porsennae, carbunculum Italiae, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. I hoped therefore this business had been at an issue; Others also were of the same mind; especially considering that he had almost professed against proceeding farther in this controversy in some other Treatises and Apologies. For my own part I must profess my thoughts arose only from his long silence. The Reason of this I knew could not be that of him in the Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : seeing he could have done it as speedily as have written so much paper. The expressions in his books seemed to me, as the fermentation of a spirit, that at one time or other would boil over. I confess I was something delivered from the fear of it, when not long before the publishing of his Confession and Apology, I met with him, and had occasion of much conference with him at London, even about Justification, and he made not the least mention of this confutation of me, which he hath now published; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . but though this present contest might have been easily prevented, (as the Reader will instantly perceive) yet I presume the book was then wholly printed, and M. B. was not to loose his pains, nor the world the benefit thereof, nor the printer his ink and paper, for so sleight a cause, as the preventing of the aspersion of me for an Antinomian.

But jacta est alea, now it is out, we must make the best of it; and I hope the Reader will excuse me in what follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

But why must my Arguments be answered, and my self confuted? Two Reasons hereof are given. The first by very many Insinuations; namely, that I have delivered dangerous doctrines, such as subvert the foundation of the Gospel, plain Antinomianism; and these two positions are laid down to be confuted, viz: first, that the elect are Justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ, before they believe. Secondly, that justification by faith, is but in foro conscientiae, or in our own feeling, & terminated in conscience, & not in foro dei: further then conscience may be so called: & my Arguments for them are answered, Chap. 8. pag: 189. But what should a man do in this case? I have already published to M. B. and all the world, that I believe neither of these propositions; must I take my oath of it, or get Compurgators, or must we have no end of this quarrel? Let M. B. prove any such thing, out of any thing I have written, and as Nonius says, out of Naevius, ei dum vivebo, fidelis ero. I am sure this minds me of that passage in the Jewish Liturgy, placeat tibi domine liberare me à lite difficili, & ab adversario difficili, sive is ad foeàus tuum pertineat, sive non pertineat. The following Examination of the particulars excepted against by M. B. will make this evident, whence it will appear, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : yea but.

Secondly, two or three Reverend brethren told him, that to that part which he hath considered, it was necessary I should be confuted; Who these reverend brethren are I know not; I presume they may be of those friends of M. B. that blame him for replying to M. Blake, but say for all the rest with whom he hath dealt (of whom I am forced to be one) that it is no matter, they deserved no better. Whoever they are, they might have had more mercy then not a little to pity poor men under the strokes of an heavy hand. Nor do I know what are the Reasons of the brethren, why my name must be brought on this stage; nor perhaps is it meet they should be published. It may be it is necessary that M. Owen be confuted among Antinomians, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But what if it should appear in the issue, that M. Owen hath deserved better at their hands, and that this advise of theirs might have been spared? But not to complain of I know not whom. To those Reverend Advisers I shall only say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but if it appear in the issue, that I was charged with that which I never delivered, nor wrote, and that my Arguments to one purpose, are answered in reference to another, and that this is the sum of M. B's. discourse against me, I shall only recommend to them some verses of old Ennius, as I find thē in Aus: Pop:

What then shall I do? I am imposed on to lay the foundation of all Antinomianism, (as M. Burgess is also) to maintain Justificaon from Eternity, or at least in the Cross of Christ, of all that should believe; and justification by faith to be but the sense of it in our consciences (which last I know better and wiser men then my self that do, though I do not) & so reckoned amongst them that overthrow the whole Gospel, and place the Righteousness of Christ in the room of our own believing and repentance, rendering them useless.

Shall I undertake to confute M. B's. book, at least wherein we differ, & so acquit myself both from Antinomianism & Socinianism in the business in hand? out (1) The things of this discourse are such, and the manner of handling them of that sort, that M. B. heartily in the close of his book, begs pardon for them, who have necessitated him to spend so much time to so little purpose; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As I see not yet the necessity of his pains, so I desire his reverend Advisers may thank him for this Intercession, for I suppose myself (at least) not concerned therein. But this I can say, that I am so far from engaging into a long operous contest, in a matter of such importance and consequence, as the subject of that book is represented to be, that I would rather burn my pens and books also, then serve a provocation so far, as to spend half that time therein, which the confutation of it would require from so slow and dull a person as myself.

2. He hath in his preface put such terrible Conditions upon those that will Answer him, that I know no man but must needs be affrighted with the thoughts of the attempt. He requires, that whoever undertake this work, be of a stronger judgment, and a more discerning head, then he; that he be a better proficient in these studies then he; that he be freer from prejudice then he; that he have more illumination and grace then he: that is! that he be a better, wiser, more holy, and learned man, then M. B. Now if we may take M. B's. character, by what he discourseth of his mortification, and sincerity, his freedom from prejudice, &c: as there is no Reason but that we should; I profess I know not where to find his match, much less any to excel him, with whom I might intercede for his pains in the consideration of this Treatise: for as for myself, I am seriously so far from entertaining any such thoughts in reference to M. B. that I dare not do it in reference to any one godly Minister that I know in the world; yea I am sure that I am not in respect of all the qualifications mentioned, put together, to be preferred before any one of them. If it be said, that it is not requisite that a man should know this of himself, but only that he be so indeed; I must needs profess, that being told before hand that such he must be, if he undertake this work, I am not able to discern how he should attempt it, and not proclaim himself, to have an opinion of his own qualifications, answerable to that which is required of him.

3. It is of some consideration, that a man that doth not know so much of him as I do, would by his writings take him to be immitis and immisericors, a very Achilles, that will not pardon a man in his grave; but will take him up, and cut him in a thousand pieces. I verily believe, that if a man (who had nothing else to do,) should gather into one heap all the expressions, which in his late books, confessions, and Apologies, have a lovely Aspect towards himself, as to Ability, Diligence, sincerity, on the one hand, with all those which are full of Reproach and contempt towards others, on the other, the view of them could not but a little startle a man of so great modesty, & of such eminency in the mortification of pride as M. B. is. B • t

Had I not heard him profess how much he vallued the peace of the Church, and declare what his endeavors for it were; I could not but suppose upon evidences which I am unwilling to repeat together, that an humor of disputing and quarreling was very predominant in the man: however though a profession may pass against all evidences of fact to the contrary whatever; yet I dare say that he lives not at 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

That he hath been able to discern the positions he opposes in the beginning of his eighth chapter to be contained in any writings of mine, as maintained by me, I must impute to such a sharpsightednesse, as was that of Gaius Caligula; to whom, when he inquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not embracing the moon, it was replyd, solis (domine) vobis diis licet invicem videre.

What shall I then do? shall I put forth a Creed, or an Apology to make it appear, that indeed I am not concerned in any of Mr. Baxtor's Contests; but.

1 I dare not look upon myself of any such consideration to the world, as to write books to give them an account of my self, (with whom they very little trouble their thoughts) to tell them my faith and belief, to acquaint them when I am well, and when I am sick, what sin I have mortified most, what books I have read, how I have studied, how I go, and walk, and look, what one of my neighbors says of me, and what another; how I am praised by some, and dispraised by others, what I do, and what I would have others do, what diligence, impartiality, uprightness I use, what I think of other men: so dealing unmercifully with perishing paper, and making books by relating to myself, worthy deferri in vicum vendentem thus & odores,

Et piper, & quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis; And I should plainly show myself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

2 I know there is no need of any such thing; for all that know me, or care to know me, know full well, that in and about the doctrine of justification by faith, I have no singular opinion of my own, but embrace the common known doctrine of the Reformed Churches, which by God's good Assistance in due time, I shall further explicate and vindicate from Papists, Socinians, and Arminians; I cannot complain, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I have companions and councellours. And in truth it is very marvelous to some, that this learned Person, who hath manifested so great a tenderness on his own behalf, as to call their books monsters, and themselves liars, who charged his opinion about justification with a Coincidence with that of the Papists, should himself so freely impute Antinomianism to others, an opinion which he esteems as bad, if not every way worse then that of the Papists about justification; but contenti simus hoc Catone; which is all I shall say, though some would add;

3 I must add, if for a defensative of myself, I should here transcribe and subscribe some Creed already published, I must profess, it must not be that of M. B. (pag. 12, 13,) which he calls the Worcester-shire profession of faith; and that as for other Reasons, so especially for the way of delivering the Doctrine of the Trinity, which but in one expression at most differs from the known confession of the Socinians: & in sundry particulars, gives to great a countenance to their abominations: For instance, the first Article of it, is, I believe that there is one only God, the Father, infinite in being, &c: which being carried on toward the end, and joined to the profession of Consent, as it is called, in these words, I do heartily take this one God, for my only God and chiefest good, and this Jesus Christ for my only Lord Redeemer and Savior, evidently distinguishes the Lord Jesus Christ our Redeemer, as our Lord, from that one true God; which not only directly answers that Question of M. Biddles, how many Lord's of Christians are there in distinction from this one God, but in terms falls in with that which the Socinians profess to be the tessera of their Sect, and Churches, as they call them, which is, that they believe in the one true living God the father, and in his only Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Nor am I at so great an indifferency in the business of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as to those expressions of, from, and by the son, as that confession is at; knowing that there is much more depends on these expressions as to the doctrine of the Trinity, then all the Confessionists can readily apprehend. But yet here, that we may not have occasion to say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ! I do freely clear the Subscribers of that Confession from any sinister opinion of the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus Christ, though as to myself I suppose my Reasons abundantly sufficient to detain me frō a subscription of it. But if this course be not to be insisted on, shall I

3 Run over all the Confessions of Faith, and Common places which I have, or may have here at Oxford, and manifest my Consent with them in the matter under Question. I confess this were a pretty easy way to make up a great book: but for many reasons it suits not with my judgment, although I could have the Advantage of giving what they positively deliver in Abundance as their main Thesis, and foundation, without cutting off discourses from their Connection and coherence, to give them a new face and Appearance, which in their own proper place they had not, or to gather up their Concessions to the Adversaries to one purpose, and applying them to another: And therefore I shall wholly wave that way of procedure, although I might by it, perhaps keep up some good reputation with the Orthodox.

To have passed over then this whole business in silence would have seemed to me much the best course, had I not seen a man of so great integrity and impartiality, as Mr. B. (who so much complains of want of Candour and Truth in others) counting it so necessary to vindicate himself from imputations, as to multiply books- and Apologies to that end and purpose, and that under the chains of very strong importunities, and entreaties to turn the course of his studies and pains to things more useful; wherein his labors, (as he says) have met with excessive estimation and praises. And may doubtless well do so, there being (as he informs us) too few divines that are diligently & impartially studious of Truth: and fewer that have strong judgments, that are able to discern it, though they do study it. (Pref.) which though Mr. B. arrogates not to himself, yet others may do well to ascribe to him. I hope then he will not be offended, if in this I follow his steps, though haud passibus aequis: and, longo post intervallo. Only in this I shall desire to be excused, if, seeing the things of myself are very inconsiderable, and whatever I can write on that Account being like the discourses of men returning e lacu furno{que}, that I multiply not leaves to no purpose. I shall then desire

1. To enter my Protest, that I do not engage with Mr. B. upon the terms and conditions by him prescribed in his Preface; as though I were wiser, or better, or more learned then he; being fully assured, that a man more unlearned then either of us, and less studied, may reprove and convince us of Errors; and that we may deal so with them, who are much more learned then us both.

2 To premise, that I do not deliver my thoughts and whole judgment in the business of the Justification of a sinner: which to do, I have designed another opportunity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and shall not now prevent myself.

These things being premised, I shall

1. Set down what I have delivered concerning the 3 heads, wherein it is pretended the difference lies between us.

2. Pass through the Consideration of the Particular places, where M. B. is pleased to take notice of me and my judgment and Arguments, as to the things of the Contests, wherein he is engaged: And this course I am necessitated unto; because as M. B. states the Controversies he pursues in the beginning of the eighth Chapter, I profess myself wholly unconcerned in them.

The things then that I am traduced for maintaining and giving countenance unto, are

• 1. The justification of the Elect from Eternity.
• 2. Their Justification at the Death of Christ, as dying and suffering with him.
• 3. Their Absolution in heaven before their believing.
• 4. That Justification by Faith, is nothing but a sense of it in the Conscience.
• 5. That Christ suffered the idem which we should have done; and not only tantundem. Of all which very briefly.

1. For the first, I neither am, nor ever was of that judgment; though, as it may be explained, I know better, wiser, and more learned men then myself, that have been, and are. This I once before told M. B. and desired him to believe me, ( Of the Death of Christ pag. 33.) If he will not yet do it, I cannot help it.

2. As to the second, I have also entreated M. B. to believe that it is not my judgment in that very book on which he animadverts; and hoped I might have obtained Credit with him, he having no evidence to the Contrary: (let the Reader see what I deliver to this Purpose pag. 34. 35) In what sense I maintain that the Elect died and rose with Christ, see pag. 82. 83. 84.

3. The third, or Absolution in heaven before believing. What I mean hereby I explain pag. 77. and 79. (Let it be consulted.)

It was, on I know not what grounds, before by M. B. imposed on me, that I maintained Justification upon the Death of Christ before believing: which I did with some earnestness reject, & proved by sundry Arguments, that we are not changed in our state and Condition before we do believe. Certainly never was man more violently pressed to a warfare, then I to this contest.

4. That Justification by Faith is nothing but a sense of it in conscience, I never said, I never wrote, I never endeavored to prove. What may a man expect from others who is so dealt withal by a man whose writings so praise him, as M. B's. do.

5. For the last thing, what I affirm in it, what I believe in it, what I have proved, the preceding Treatise will give an account to the Reader. And for my judgment in these things, this little at present may suffice. M. B's. Animadversions, in the Order wherein they lie, shall nextly be considered.

The first express mention that I am honored withal is towards the end of his Preface, occasioned only by a passage in my brief Proem to M. Eyres his book of Justification. My words as by him transcribed are: For the present I shall only say, that there being too great evidence of a very welcome Entertainment and Acceptation, given by many to an almost pure Socinian Justification, and exposition of the Covenant of Grace &c. To which M. B. subjoins: But to be almost an error, is to be a truth. There is but a three • between Truth and error, and that which is not near to that error, is not Truth, but is liker to be another error, in the other extreme. For Truth is one strait line, Error is manifold, even all that swerves from that line in what space or degree soever.

Malum omen! and the worse because of choice; whether this proceed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or whether it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it matters not; but I am sure it is sophistical. The Doctrine of Justification, which I reflected on; I did not say was near to Error, or almost an Error, but near to Socinianism or almost Socinian: If M. B. takes Error and Socinianism to be terms convertible, I must crave liberty to dissent. That which is almost error, is true: but that which is almost Socinianism may be quite an Error, though not an error quite so bad, as that of the Socinians concerning the same matter. He that shall deny the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, and maintain that our performance of new obedience is the matter of our Justification before God, according to the tenor of the New Covenant, and yet grant the satisfaction of Christ, and assign it a place (some or other) in the business of our Justification, his doctrine is but almost Socinian, and yet in my Judgment is altogether an Error. And so the heat of this first Conflict is allayed, Pulveris exigui jactu: Its foundation having been only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

But notwithstanding this seeming discharge, perhaps it may be said, that indeed this was not an honest Insinuation; there being no such doctrines abroad amongst us, as hold any blameable correspondency with the Socinian doctrine of justification; And it is not an ingenious and candid way of proceeding, to seek to oppress truths, or at least opinions, that are managed with a fair and learned plea, with names of public Abomination, with which indeed they have no communion. I confess this is an unworthy course, a path wherein I am not desirous to walk: I shall therefore from their own writings give the Reader a brief summary in some few propositions, of the doctrine of the Socinians concerning justification, and then nakedly without deprecating his censure, leave him to judge of the necessity and candor of my forementioned expressions. They say then, that

1. Justifying faith, or that faith whereby we are justified, is our receiving of Christ, as our Lord & Savior, trusting in him, and yielding obedience to him.

Credere in Jesum Christum, nihil aliud est, quàm Jesu Christo confidere, & idcirco ex ejus praescripto vitam instituere. Socin: Justificat: Synop: 2. p. 17. fides est fiducia per deum in Christum, unde apparet, eam in Christo fidem duo comprehendere: unum, ut non solùm deo, verùm & Christo confidamus: deinde ut deo obtemperemus, &c: Catech: Racov: Cap: 9. de fide: vide Volkel. de verâ religione, lib: 4. Cap: 3. p. 179, 180. Smalc: refut: Thes: Franz: dispute: 4. p. 103. & disp: 6. p. 184. Credere in Christum nihil aliud est; quàm illi confidere, hoc est, ipsi, sub spe promissionum, ab eo nobis factarum, obedire &c. Smalc: Refut: Thes. Franz: disp: 7. p 209. sides in Christum, est, fiduciam in eum collocare, & credere illū esse omnibus obtemperantibus sibi aeternae salutis causam. Si proprie & strict sumatur ab obedientiâ differt. Sed per Metonymiam quandam synechdochicam, saepe tam late sumitur, ut omnia pietatis & justitiae opera comprehendat: Schlicting: Comment: in Cap: 11. ad Heb: p. 519. Quid est Credere in nomen Christi? Res: eum excipere, ejus dictis fidem habere, ei confidere, ei denique obtemperare: Dialog: Anon: de justifi: p. 4. Ex his quae hactenus dicta sunt, satis intelligi potest, etiamsi verissimum sit, quemadmodum scriptura apertissime testator, nos per mortem Christi, perque Sanguinis ejus fusionem servatos esle, nostraque peccata deleta fuisse, non tantùm hoc ipsum credere, esse eam fidem in Christum, quâ, ut Sacrae literae docent, justificamur, id quod multi & olim putarunt, & hodie putant, adeóque similiter credunt: longe enim aliud est, istud credere, & sub spe vitae aeternae ab ipso consequendae, Christo obedire; quod necessario requiri ad justificationem nostram, antea à nobis demonstratum est. fragment: de justifi: Faust: Socin: Opusc: p. 115. That

2. Faith in justifying is not to be considered as an hand whereby we lay hold on the righteousness of another, or as an instrument, as though Righteousness were provided for us, & tendered unto us, which would overthrow all necessity of being Righteous in ourselves.

Patet quàm inepte Meisnerus fidem vocet causam instrumentalem, quâ justificationem (seu justitiam) apprehendamus, seu recipiamus; patet denique quàm falso (qui error ex priore Consequitur) fidem, quae virtus aut opus est, justificare neget Quid magis perversum, & Sacris literis adversum dici potuit? parum nobis fuerat, omnes reliquas virtutes, & pia opera, à comparandâ nobis salute excludere, nisi etiam ipsam in deo fidem, virtutum omnium matrem & reginam, de suo solio deturbatam, tam faedâ ignominiâ notasset fidem perverse prorsus intelligitis, non enim tanquam conditionem adipiscendae justificationis consideratis, sed tanquam instrumentum vel manum &c: Jo: Schlicting: dispute: pro Faust: Socin: ad Meisner: p. 129. 130, 131. de eo quod homo justitiam accipiat, nihil legitur in sacris literis, & si id explicetur ex mente adversariorum, ridicula est fabula; fides vero non est accurate loquendo causa instrumentalis, sed causa sine qua non (efficiens) justificationis nostrae: Smal: Refut: Thes: Franz: disp: 4. p. 103.

3. Nor yet doth faith, repentance, or obedience, procure our justification, or is the efficient or meritorious cause thereof.

Ut autem cavendum est, ne ut body pleriq, faciunt, vitae fanctimoniam at{que} innocentiam, effectū justificationis nostrae coram deo esse dicamus; sic diligenter cavere debemus, ne ipsā vitae sanctitatē at{que} innocentiam, justificationem nostrá coram deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae justificationis coram deo causam efficientē, aut impulsivam esse affirmemus. Sed tantummodo &c: Socin: Justifi: Synop: 2. p. 14. fides justificationem non meretur, neque est ejus causa efficiens; non ignoramus fidei nostrae nequaquam esse ea merita, quibus justificatio quâ sempiterna continetur felicitas, tanquam merces debita, sit tribuenda. Hinc porro consequitur, fidem istam, quamvis obedientiam & pietatem in se comprehendat, nequaquam tamen per se, & principaliter efficere, ut justificationis beneficium consequamur. Volkel. de verâ Relig. lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 181. Smal. Refut. Thes. Franz. dispute. 4, 5, 7: obedientia nostra quam Christo praestamus, nec efficiens, nec meritoria causa est nostrae justificationis. Socin Thes. de justif. p. 17. vide Anonym. Dialog. de justif. pag. 32.

4 But the true use of our faith (and repentance) as to our justification before God, is, that they are the causa sine quâ non, or the condition whereby according to the appointment of God, we come to be justified: and so is imputed to us:

Diligenter cavere debemus, ne vitae sanctitatem & innocentiam, justificationem nostram coram Deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae coram Deo justificationis causam efficientem, aut impulsivam esse affirmemus, sed tantummodo causam sine quâ eam justificationem nobis non contingere decrevit Deus. Socin. Synop. justif. 2. p. 14. id à nobis revera exegit, ut in Christum credamus, vitam emendaremus (quam conditionem Salvâ sanctitate & majestate suâ non poterat non exigere) Crel. de Causis mort. Christi. pag. 5. Interim tamen sic habendum est, cum Deus non nisi illis, qui fidem virtutemque pro suâ virili parte colunt, vitam sempiternam designaverit, fiduciam istam ne quidem causam meritoriam, aut principaliter efficientem, sed causam sine quâ non (ut loquuntur) justificationis nostrae esse. Volkel. de verâ Relig. lib. 4. cap. 3 pag. 181. Quod vero ad nos pertinet, non aliter reipsa justi coram Deo habemur, & delictorum nostrorum veniam ab ipso consequimur, quàm si in Jes. Chris. credamus. Socin. Justif. Synop. 2. pag. 11.

Itáque nemo justificatus est coram Deo, nisi priùs Christo confidat, eique obediat. Quae obedientia sunt illa opera ex quibus nos justificari Jacobus Apostolus affirmat. Socin Thes. de justif. pag. 14. Sunt enim opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia, quam Christo praestamus, licet nec efficiens nec meritoria, tamen causa (ut vocant) Sine quâ non justificationis coram Deo, atque aeternae salutis nostrae, id. ibid. imputatur nobis a Deo id quod revera in nobis est, non aliquid quod à nobis absit, vel in alio sit, nempe quod firmiter in animo decreverimus nihil dubitantes de Dei promissionibus, neque considerantes nostram infirmitatem nos propositum fidei certamen decurrere velle. Anonym. Dialog. de justifi. pag. 29. (haec vero corrigit Faustus Socin. Notae in Dial. pag. 64. beatitatem & remissionem peccatorum nobis imputari asserens.) Certum est ex Sacris literis requiri ad hoc, ut quis consequatur apud Deum Remissionem peccatorum, & ita coram Deo justificetur, ut de illo merito dici possit, quod pactum Dei servet. Fragment de justif. Apparet Paulum absolute intelligere opera quaecún • tandem illa sunt. Quod tamen non eam vim habet, ut à causâ justificationis nostrae omnium quaecun{que} opera, & quocun{que} modo considerata, excludere velit. Sed sensus ipsius est, nulla esse opera quae tanti sint, ut propter ipsorum meritum justificari possimus. Quando scilicet nemo est, qui perfectissime & integerrime per totam vitam, ea opera faciat, quae sub vetere sive sub novo Testamento praescripta sunt, id quod tamen omnino requiritur, sive requiretur ad hoc, ut pro ipsâ operâ tanquam ejus rei aliquo modo meritoria, justificatio contingeret. Diximus autem aliquo modo meri toria, ut ab ipsis operibus excludamus, non modo absolutum & maxim proprium meritum, quod oritur ex ipsâ operum praestantiâ per se consideratâ. Sed etiam illud, quod minùs proprie & respective meritum est, quod ex solo Dei promisso oritur ac proficiscitur, adeo ut nemo nec per illud, neque per hoc meritum, suorum operum justificationem, & absolutionem a peccatis suis, adipiscatur, &c. vid. Plu. fragm. de justificat. Faust. Socin. pag. 110. Cum Paulus negat nos ex operibus justificari, considerat opera tanquam meritoria, & sua ipsorum vi hominem justificantia, & consequenter ejusmodi, quibus si ad Dei praeceptum examinentur, nihil prorsus desit; at Jacobus operum nomine eam obedientiam intelligit; sine quâ Deus hominem sibi carum habere non vult; seu mavis opera ejusmodi sine quid bus dici nequeat, ullâ ration hominem Deo obedire: ex hâc collatione ipsorum duorum Pauli & Jacobi locorum, & sententiarum, manifestum est, quemadmodum ad justificationem nostram non requiritur necessario perfecta obedientia mandatorum Dei, sic ad eandem justificationem omnino requiri, ut Dei mandata ita conservaremus, ut merito dici possit nos Deo obedientes esse. Fragm. Faust. pag. 122.

5 That our justification, is our Absolution from the guilt of sin, and freedom from abnoxiousness unto punishment for it, and nothing else. Our Regeneration is the • nudition of our Absolution, and in them both, in several respects, is our Righteousness. Justificatio est cum nos Deus pro justis habet, quod eâ ration facit, cum nobis & peccata remittit, & jus vitae donat. Catech. Racov. cap. 11. de Justificat: Justificatio nihil aliud est, quam peccatorum Remissio. Schlcting. contra Trinit. pag. 147. Justificatio nostra coram Deo, ut uno verbo dicam, nihil aliud est quam à Deo pro justis haberi: hoc vero fit per absolutionem peccatorum. Socin. Synop. Justif. 2. pag. 11. Justificatio nihil aliud est, quam pro justo habere, itemque peccata remittere & condonare. id. pag. 13. 14. Quaero primùm quid sit Justificatio? R. peccatorum absolutio Anon. (ni fallor O storod) dial: de Justifi: p. 2. Hic tacit continetur ea sententia, quam nos supra ab initio attigimus, & non obscure refutavimus, justificationonē vid: à justo faciendo dici, & à justitiâ ac sanctitate quâ quis sit praeditus; cum tamen certissimum sit, justificationem in Sacris literis aliud nihil significare, quàm justum pronuntiare, sive ut justum tractare. Faust. Socin. notae in Dial. de justif. pag. 60. Sed manifestum est Paulum negare, non modo ex operibus legis, sed simpliciter, ex operibus nos justificari; Itáque aliâ ration omnino est hic nodus solvendus, & dicendum, Paulum, operum nomine non quae libet opera intelligere, nec quolibet modo accepto, sed quae suâ vi hominem justum coram Deo reddere possunt, cum negat nos ex operibus justificari, qualis est absoluta & perpetua per totum vitae curriculum legis divinae observatio Faust. Socin. notae in Dial. de Justif. pag. 74.

Formalis itáque (ut ita loquar) justificatio nostra coram Deo fuit, & semper erit, propter carnis nostrae infirmitatem, remissio peccatorum nostrorum, non autem impletio divinae legis, quod Paulus operari vocat. Veruntamen nulli re ipsâ conceditur ista remissio, nisi Deo confisus fuerit, seque ipsi regendum & gubernandum tradiderit. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Virum Clariss. de fide & operibus.

6 That the way whereby we come to obtain this absolution is this: Jesus Christ the only Son of God, being sent by him to reveal his love and Grace to lost sinful mankind, in that work yielding obedience unto God even unto death, was for a reward of that obedience, exalted, and had divine authority over them for whom he died, committed to him, to pardon and save them, which accordingly he doth, upon the performance of the condition of faith and obedience by him prescribed to them, at once effecting an universal conditional application of all: actually justifying every individual upon the performance of the Condition.

Ipsi Jesu, tantam in coelo & terrâ, tanquam obedientiae scilicet usque ad mortem crucis insigne premium, potestatem dedit, ut eis, &c. Socin. Synop. Justific. 1. pag. 4. Interea tamen haudquaquam negamus, Christi mortem, conditionem quandam fuisse remissionis peccatorum nobis concedendae: quatenus conditio fuit Christo imposita, sine quâ potestatem obtinere ex Dei decreto non potuit, peccata nobis remittendi, & nos ab aeterno interitu vindicandi. Crel. de Caus. mort. Christ. pag. 8. (Paulus ea à fide opera removet, quae perpetuam perfectissimámque, per omnem vitae cursum obedientiam continent. Jacobus ergo ea intelligit Volkel. de verâ Relig. lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 180. ad 461.) vide plura.

Quia nos Christus ab aeternâ morte liberavit, & ut nos liberare posset, mortuus est, jure dicitur eum pro nobis, & pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse, & sanguinem ipsius nos emundare à peccatis: neque enim nos dicimus, Christum ob hoc vel solum vel principale obedivisse, ut nos ad se imitandum extimularet, sed constantissime affirmamus, illum ideo patri suo obedientem, & pro nobis mortuum fuisse, ut potestatem divinam, interveniente morte sua, consecutus, salutem nostram administrare, & tandem reipsâ perficere posset. Smal. Refut. Thes. Fran. disp. 4. pag. 108. Quamvis autem certissimum ac testatissimum sit, Jesum Christum Dei filium sanguinem suum in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum fudisse: Tamen ipsa mors Christi per se sine Resurrectione, &c. Socin. Thes. de justify. Thes. 3. vid. fragm. de justificat. pag. 115.

7. That as to good works, and their place in this business, Paul speaks of the perfect works of the law, and legal manner of justifying, which leave no place for Grace or pardon: James of Gospel works of new obedience, which leave place for both.

Sola fides justificat, at non quatenus sola, praesertim side plenâ & permanente justification loquamur, quatenus quibusvis bonis operibus opponitur. Hoc est particula exclusiva sola, non quaevis opera, sed opera de quibus Apostolus loquitur, opera legis, opera plena, ob quae non secundum gratiam justificatio imputatur, sed secundum debitum tribuitur, excludit. Non excludit autem ullo pacto opera ex fide provenientia, cum Jacobus expertissime doceat, hominem justificari ex operibus, non ex fide tantùm: Schlichting dispute. pro Socin. ad Meisner. pag. 290. 291. In iis locis, ubi Apostolus fidem operibus opponit, de operibus ejusmodi agit, quae & perfectam & perpetuam obedientiam continent, qualem sub lege Deus ab hominibus requirebat: Verùm non de iis operibus, quae obedientiam, quam Deus à nobis qui in Christum credidimus, requirat, comprehendunt. Racov. Catech. cap. 9. de fide. Hinc jam demum intelligo non bona opera, quae Deus ipse praeparavit, sed legis opera à justification nostrâ excludi. Anonym. Dial. de Justif. pag. 47.

8 That the denial of our faith and obedience to be the condition of our justification, or the asserting that we are justified by the obedience of Christ imputed to us, is the ready way to overthrow all obedience, and drive all holiness and Righteousness out of the world.

Quod Christus factus sit nobis à Deo justitia. 1 Cor. 1. 3. id minime eo sensu dici, quasi loco nostri legem impleverit, sic ut nobis deinceps ipsius justitia imputetur, &c. Schlicting ad Meisn. dispute. pro Socin. pag. 277. Tertius error est, Deum imputare credentibus innocentiam & justitiam Christi: Non innocentiam, non justitiam Christi Deus imputat credentibus, sed fidem illorum illis imputat pro justitiâ. Smal. refut. Thes. Franz dispute. 4. p. 104. alterum est extremum, quod vulgo receptum est, non sine summâ animarum pernicie; Videlicet, ad justificationem nostram nihil prorsus bona opera pertinere, nisi quatenus sunt ipsius justificationis effecta. Ubi qui ita sentiuut &c. idem.

9 That as the beginning, so the continuance of our justification, depends on the condition of our faith, repentance, and obedience, which are not fruits consequent of it; but conditions antecedent to it. Socin. Thes. de justificat. p. 18. Fragmenta de justify. p. 113 and therefore in the first place we are to be solicitous about what is within us, about our sanctification, before our absolution, or justification. Socin. Epist ad Ch. M N. de fide & operibus. Sic tandem apparet vestigationem nostram circa ea esse debere, quae in nobis invenientur, cum justificati sumus-Quocirca diligenter primùm vestigare debemus an res istae, sive utráque, five una tantùm, & utra (si modo res diversae sint) ad nos justificandos pertineat, ac deinde quid sint, aut quales esse debeant, ne erremus, nobisque videamur illas habere, cùm tamen longe ab eis absimus. Quod enim ad misericordiam Dei attinet, Christique personam, una cum iis omnibus quae idem Christus pro nobis fecit, & facturus est, quamvis hae sunt verae, & praecipuae causae justificationis nostrae, tamen aut jam illarum sumus, erimúsve participes, antequam intra nos certum aliquid sit, & sic supervacaneum est de illis cogitare, quatenus per ea justificari velimus: aut illarum, nec jam sumus, nec futuri erimus participes, nisi priùs intra nos certum aliquid sit, & sic de hoc accurate quaerere debemus, id autem nihil est, praeter fidem & opera. Socin.

10 As to the death of Christ, our sins were the impulsive cause of it, and it was undergone for the forgiveness of sins, and occasioned by them only, and is in some sense, the condition of our forgeivness.

Causa impulsiva externa sunt peccata nostra, quod itidem aperte Sacrae literae docent, dum aiunt, Christum propter peccata nostra percussum, vulneratum, & traditum esse. Crel. de Caus. mort. Chris. p. 2. What was the procuring cause of Christ's death?

A: He was delivered for offenses, Biddles Cat. Chap. 12. p. 69: Though some (not of them) say, that his death was rather occasioned, then merited by sin; as they speak sometimes. Finis ideo mortis Christi, ut sacrae literae sat aperte docent, est remissio peccatorum nostrorum, & vitae nostrae emendatio, ad quorum finem priorem vel solùm, vel potissimum, illi loquendi modi referendi sunt: Cum dicitur Christum mortuum esse pro peccatis nostris, seu pro nobis. Crel. de caus. mort. Christ. pag. 1.

11 That absolution and pardon of sin are by no means, the immediate effects of the death of Christ.

Cùm Sacrae Scripturae asserunt Christum aut pro peccatis nostris, aut pro nobis esse mortuum, aut sanguinem ejus esse effusum in remissionem peccatorum, & siqua sint his similia, eorum verborum ea vis non est, ut significent omnino effectum illum, qui morti Christi in his locutionibus tribuitur, proxime fuisse ex eâ consecutos. Crell. de Caus. mort. Christi. p. 35.

And now let the Christian Reader judge, whether I had any just occasion for the expressions above mentioned or no; if he be resolved that those words had better been omitted, I shall only profess myself in a very great readiness to pass by such mistakes in others, but leave myself to his censure.

And with this touch by the way am I (as far as I have observed ) dismissed to the eighth chapter; where all that I am concerned in will receive an equally speedy dispatch.

In the entrance of that Chapter, M. B. lays down two propositions that he rejects, and another that he intends to prove.

Those he rejects were before mentioned, and my concernment in them spoken to.

That which he proposes unto confirmation, is:

The Justification by Faith, so called in the Scripture, is not the knowledge or feeling of Justification before given, or a Justification in, and by our own Conscience, or terminated in conscience; but is somewhat that goes before all such Justification as this is, and is indeed a Justification before God.

There is but one Expression in all this Proposition, that I am concerned in; which the Reader may easily discover to be plucked into the thesis by head and ears! & that is, terminated in conscience. What it is I intend by that Expression, or what inconsistency it hath with that M. B. asserts in pretended oppositiō unto it, he doth not explain Now I say, that in the sense, wherein I affirm that Justification is terminated in conscience, I may yet also affirm, and that suitably to the utmost intention of mine in that expression, that Justification by Faith is not a knowledge or feeling of Justification before given, nor a justification in, or by our own Consciences, but somewhat that goes before all such justification as this is, and is a justification before God; I am then utterly unconcerned in all M. B'. Arguments ensuing, but only those that prove and evince, that our justification before God is not terminated in our Consciences: which when I can find them out, I will do my endeavor to answer them, or renounce my Opinion. I find indeed in some of his following Conclusions the words mentioned; but I suppose he thought not himself that they were any way influenced from his Premises. I know he will not ask, what I mean then by terminated in Conscience; seeing it would not be honorable for him to have answered a matter, before he understood it. But upon this Expression chiefly is it, that I am enrolled into the troop of Antinomians.

But that is in the matter of laws; these are but words. Now though I have just cause to abstain from calling in Associates in my Judgment, least I should bring them under the Suspicion of Antinomianism; (though not of the ruder sort) (pag. 190.) or at least of laying the foundation of Antinomianism, which M. Burg. after all his pains against them, is said to do: ( Praef: ) (but the best is, he does it superficially and without proof) (Praef: ) • nd although I cannot come up to the judgment of the man, whom I shall name; yet being he is deservedly of good esteem in the judgment of others, and particularly of M. B. for his opposition to the Antinomians, I will for once make use of his Authority for my shield in this business; and see if in this storm I can lie safe behind it. It is M. Rutherfurt, who in his learned Exercitations De gratiâ. Exercit: 1. Cap. 2. Tit Quomodo justificamur fide; having treated of the matter of Justification pag. 44. thus proceeds: Dicent ergo Arminiani, nos hic justificationem sumere pro sensu & notitiâ justificationis: ideóque Homines fide justificantur, idem valet, ac Homines tum demum justificantur, quando credunt, hoc est, sentiunt se justificari, cùm anteà essent justificati. Nugae & tricae siculae! nan • justificari est plus quàm sentire se justificari: Nam (1) est Actus dei absolventis terminatus in conscientiâ hominis, citati & tracti ad tribunale tremendi judicis; qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiâ &c. Now if this man be an Antinomian, I am sure he much mistakes himself; and yet he says justification may be terminated in conscience and, yet not be a sense of an antecedent justification, nor from Eternity.

But how it may fare with him, I cannot guess; M. Pemble, and D. Twisse, (quanta nomina) are in the next page recounted as the Assertors of the position here opposed by M. B. & indeed as to some part of it they are; by yet, if I durst say it, they were not Antinomians: but M. B. knows these things better then I.

But what say I to the whole position? pag: 190. One learned man (so am I called, that the sacrifice may not fall without some flowers on it's head; which I professedly shake off, and dare not own my name amongst them who are, or ought to be so stilled) saith, that Absolution solution in heaven, and justification differ as part and whole, and that justification is terminated in conscience, and so makes a longer work of justification then they, that say it is simul & semel, or then I, whom M. Cr. blames for it; and so that whole begun in eternal Absolution, (or 〈◊〉 Christ's death,) and ended in conscience, should contain immanent and transient Acts together, and no small number of our own, as there described.

Ans. Though I do not perfectly understand the Coherence of these words, yet the intendment of them being more obvious (and being myself in great hast) I shall not stay to make any further enquiry thereabout.

What I mean by Absolution in heaven, the Reader if he please may see, chap: 12. pag: 75. 76, 77, 78. of that Treatise, whence M. B. urges these expressions: It is neither eternal Absolution, nor Absolution from Christ's death (if from denote a simulty of time, and not a connection in respect of causality, in which sense M. B. will not deny that Absolution is from Christ's death ) but an Absolution at the time of actual justification, when God gives Christ to us, and with him all things, that I intend.

That by asserting this Absolution in heaven, and justification to differ as part and whole, and justification to be terminated in conscience, I make longer work of it, then those, who say it is simul & semet, is said; simul & semel, refer unto time, I expressly affirm as M. B. knows (or ought to have known,) that there is in these things an order of Nature only. At the same time wherein God absolves us in heaven, (the term of the stipulation for our deliverance being accomplished) by reckoning Christ to us, or in making him righteousness to us, He infuses a principle of life into our souls, whereby radically, and virtually the whole is accomplished.

That actual justification should contain permanent and transient Acts together, and that it is so by me described, is affirmed by a failure of M. B's memory. Having made this entrance and progress, adding the judgment of some, whom he calls most learned and judicious (as he is perspicax ingeniorum arbiter ) He concludes his first section in these words: so that howsoever some by plausible words would put a better face on it, the sense of all seems to be the same, that Justification by Faith is the revelation of God in, and by the conscience, that we are formerly justified; and so their justification by faith, is the same that we commonly call the Assurance or knowledge of our Justification, in some degrees at least, I prove the contrary: and so falls he into his Arguments.

That this is my sense, I profess I knew not before; and should be sorry I should dwell so little at home, that M. B. •• uld know me, and my mind, better then I do myself. I look upon him as my friend: and

But yet he may possibly be mistaken; for the present I will make bold to deny this to be my sense, and refer the Reader for Evidence to be given to my negation, unto that chapter of my book, whence M. B. gathers my sense and meaning. Let them then that are concerned look to his following Arguments (especially those two whom he affirms to have more wit then the rest, p: 204.) and woe be to them, if they find as many distinct mediums as there are figures hung up as signs of new Arguments. For my own part, whatever my thoughts are to the whole business pleaded about, I shall not, (be they as mean and base as can be imagined;) cast them away in such a scambling Chase as this. Only whereas pag. 205. speaking to somebody, (I know not whom) whom he acknowledges to have some learning and wit, he says, that the Act of the promise, law, or grant, constituting Right, giving Title, remitting the obligation to punishment, in its self, is totally distinct from the Act of declaring this to ourselves, which is said to be terminated in conscience, and is before it, and may be without it &c. I shall (if it please him) desire, that it may only with a little alteration be thus rendered; The Act of the promise (not that I approve that expression, but at present it will serve the turn) giving Right &c. is complete Justification by Faith, and is in its self totally distinct from, and in order of time before any act of God justifying terminated in our consciences, and proved with one clear Testimony or Argument speaking to the terms and sense of the proposition, And I shall confess myself, as to what I have as yet published of my judgment about this business, to be concerned in the discourse; and so passing through the pikes of 56 Arguments, I come to the ninth chapter where I am again called to an account; Three things doth M. B. propose to confirmation in this chapter.

• 1. That the Elect are not justified from eternity.
• 2. That they are not justified at Christ's death.
• 3. Not while they are infidels and impenitent.

Any man living would wonder how I should come to stand in his way in this chapter. But strong currents sometimes pass their bounds in their courses, and bare all before them. Real, or reputed success gives great thoughts and pretexts for anything, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( Demost: Olymp: ) In the very Treatise which M. B. considers in these imputations, I have expressly denied, (and in particular to M. B. ) that I maintain any one of these; if he should send but his servant, and tell me, that he is not to be found in such an opinion, I would believe him. But quid verba audiat facta cum videat? If I do maintain them indeed, must I be believed upon my denial? but, en tabulas! let my book traduced be consulted. I dispute as well as I can against justification from eternity; and that I cannot do it like M. B. is my unhappiness, not my Crime; I hope everyone must not be sentenced to be of an opinion which he cannot confute so learnedly, as another more learned man may. For justification at the death of Christ (though I must assure the Reader, that I have other thoughts of the great Transaction of the business of our salvation in the person of our Representative, then are consistent with M. B's. principles, or then I have yet published, wherein I have the consent of persons as eminently insighted in the mystery of the Gospel, as any I know in the world) I directly affirm, and endeavor to prove that the Elect are not then actually justified; but notwithstanding what is done for them, until their own actual believing, they are obnoxious to the law &c. as at large chap. 12. p. 75. of that Treatise, which includes the last particular also.

But we must proceed, non qua eundum est sed qua itur; in the entrance of his ninth chapter M. B. attempts to prove, that the Elect are not justified from eternity, and concludes his discourse: The words of one that writes this way are these: Here two things may be observed.

1. What we ascribe to the merit of Christ. viz: the accomplishment of the condition, which God required to make way, that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself might be in actual force: and so much (I leave to himself to consider how rightly) doth M. B. assign to our works; Thes: 26.

And all know, that a condition as such, is no cause, but an antecedent, or causa sine qua non. And is not the death of Christ here fairly advanced, and his merits well vindicated? My constant affirmation is, and still was, that man's works are not in the least degree truly and properly meritorious, and that they are such mere Conditions of our salvation, (not of our first justification) as that they are no causes of any right we have (no not to a bit of bread, much less) to heaven. Do not these men well defend the honor of Christ's merits then, if they give no more to them, then I do to man's works? that is, not to be the meritorious cause so much as of an hours temporal mercy; that is, to be properly no merit at all: It seems to me therefore that they do by their doctrine of eternal justification or pardon, not only destroy justification by Faith, but also all the merits of Christ, and leave nothing for them to do, for the causing of our pardon or justification before God. Nay, whether this learned man can make Christ's sufferings, and obedience, so much as a bare condition, let them consider that read him affirming, that conditions properly must be uncertain, and nothing is so to God: therefore there can be no condition with God, therefore Christ's death could be no more.

What is most admirable in this discourse I know not.

1. I am suggested to maintain justification from eternity: I am one that write that way: I am one that that by the doctrine of justification from eternity, overthrow justification by Faith, & the merits of Christ. What I shall say more to this business I know not: the Comoedian tells me all that I can say is in vain.

2. Me thinks it had been equal, that M. B. who requires ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) that men judge not anything in his Aphorisms, but according as it is interpreted, in this his confession, should have interpreted this passage of mine, by the Analogy of what I have written in the same book about the death of Christ and merit thereof. He would have found ( and in these things doth my soul live ) that all the Mercy, Grace, or Privileges whatever, of what sort soever, that in this Life we are made partakers of, all the Glory, Honor, and Immortality that we are begotten a new to an hope of, is by me everywhere ascribed to the death of Christ, and the merit thereof, as the sole causa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of them all. The making out of this takes up the greatest part of my writings and preaching. I can truly say, that I desire to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified; And I shall labor to make the Honor, Glory, Exaltation, and Triumph of the cross of Christ, the whole of my aim and business in this world. May I be convinced of speaking, uttering, writing any one word to the derogation of the honor, efficacy, power of the death and merits of our dear Lord Jesus, I shall quickly lay my mouth in the dust, and give myself to be trampled on by the feet of men, which perhaps on other accounts I am only meet for. It is only that Christ may have the preeminence in all things, that I will voluntarily contend with any living. That as a King, and Priest, and Prophet, he may be only, and all in his Church, is the design of my contesting.

But is not this expression to the derogation of his merits? I say if it be, I disavow it, condemn it, reject it. If the intendment of the expression be not, that the Lord Jesus Christ, by the performance of what was prescribed to him of his Father, that he might save us to the utmost, according to the compact between Father and Son, did merit, purchase, and procure for us all the grace, mercy, salvation promised in the new Covenant, I desire here to condemn it. But if that be the sense of it (as the words immediately going before, with the whole tenor of the discourse do undeniably evince) I would desire M. B. a little to reflect upon his dealings with other men, upon their pretended mistakes, in representing him and his judgment to the world. All the Advantage that is given to this Harangue is from the Ambiguity of the word condition. It is evident that I take it here in a large sense for the whole prescription of Obedience unto the Lord Jesus, whereupon the promise of all the good things, that are the fruits of his death, is made to him, which being grounded in voluntary compact, and laid thereby in due proportion, gives rise to merit properly and strictly so called. If the Reader desire farther satsfaction herein, let him but read that very Treatise which M. B. excepts against, where he will find abundantly enough for the clearing of my intendment. Or to him, that looses his time in perusing this Appendix, I shall recommend the foregoing Treatise, for the same purpose.

3. For what M. B. ascribes to our works, I shall not (for my part ) much trouble myself whilst I live, being little or not at all concerned therein: He is not for me to deal with.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theog.

If I dispute in print anymore, (as I hope I shall not) it shall be with them, that understanding my meaning, will fairly, closely and distinctly debate the thing in difference, and not insisting on words and expressions to no purpose (especially if their own hast allows them not oftentimes to speak congruously ) shall press and drive the things themselves to their issue.

M. B. proceeds in his second Section to prove, that all the Elect are not justified at the death of Christ: In this passage one expression of mine, about the sense of Rom. 4. 5. is taken notice of; but that relates to a business of a greater importance then to be now mentioned. Something M. B. discourses about the state and condition of the Elect in reference to the death of Christ: some texts to that purpose he considers; but so jejunely, so much below the majesty of the mystery of Grace in this particular, that I shall not make his discourse an occasion of what may be offered on that account. Something I have spoken in the former Treatise, concerning the transaction of the compact, and Agreement, that was between the Father and Son, about the salvation of the Elect. Of their Interest and concernment therein, with the state of his body, of those that were given him, on that account, God assisting hereafter.

But p. 228. from words of mine, which from several places of my Treatise are put together, he makes sundry inferences, and opposes to them all two conclusions of his own, pag. 229.

This man (says he) seems to judge, that the name of complete justification is proper to that in conscience, and not to be given to any before: He seems also to judge, that justification hath degrees and parts at many 100 or 1000 years distanced one from another; or else absolution at least hath, which we have hitherto taken for the same thing with justification: For he calls that inconscience complete justification: so saith he, absolution in heaven and justification differ as part and whole; so he

It seems M. B, Knowes not what my judgment is, by his repeating, that, it seems this is his judgment; he might have stayed from his confutation of it, until he had Known it: it is not for his honor that he hath done otherwise.

I deny that it is my judgment, that the name of complete justification is proper to that in conscience. Nor do I know of any proper or complete justification in conscience; I only said complete justification is terminated in conscience: If M. B. know not what I mean thereby, let him stay a little, and I shall explain myself.

It is most false, that I judge justification to have degrees and parts at an 100 or 1000 years distance; unless under the name of justification you comprise all the causes and effects of it, and then it reaches from everlasting to everlasting.

That Absolution in Heaven (as I call it) is before our actual believing in order of time, I have nowhere said, but only in order of nature; and that M. B. hath not disproved.

What M. B. thinks of absolution and justification to be the same, is no rule to us; when he proves it, so it is: but to what I, and others have said, M. B. opposes two conclusions, pag. 229. whereof the first is.

1. We did neither really, nor in God's account die with Christ when he died, nor in him satisfy God's justice, nor fulfil the Law. the second.

2 Though Christ was given for the Elect more then for others, yet is he no more given to them then to others; before they are borne, or before they have faith.

The first of these (he saith) (he means the first of them before mentioned, which the first of these is set down in opposition unto) is of so great moment, and is the heart and root of so many Errors, yea of the whole body of Antinomianism, that I had rather write as great a volume as this, &c.

What it is that I intended by dying with Christ, M. Baxter does not know, nor guess near the matter. The consideration of God's giving the Elect to Christ, of his Constitution to be a common person, a Mediator and surety, of the whole compact, and Covenant between Father and Son, of his Absolution as a common Person, of the Sealing, Confirmation, and the Establishment of the Covenant of grace by his death, of the economy of the Holy Spirit founded therein, of the whole grant made upon his Assention, must precede 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 the full and clear interpretation of that expression. For the present it may suffice, I have not said that we did satisfy God's justice in him, or satisfy the Law in him, so that we should be ( personally considered,) the principles of the satisfaction or obedience; nor that we so died in him, as to be justified, or absolved actually upon his death, before we are borne; so that I shall not be concerned at all if M. Baxter's thoughts should incline him to write a Volume as big as this, about his confession, which is no small content to me.

For the second; that Christ was given to the Elect more then others, I say not; because I say., that he was not given, as a Mediator, Price, and Ransom for any other at all. When the demonstrations that Christ died for all, which M. Baxter hath somewhile talked of, are published, I may perhaps find cause (if I see them) to change my mind: but as yet I do not suppose that I shall so do. That he is given to any before they are borne, I have not said; though they are given to him before they are borne, or that he is given to them in order of time before they do believe; but this I say, that faith and forgiveness of sin is given them for his sake: which, when M. Baxter disproves, or pretends so to do, I shall further consider it, as being a matter of importance: with his strife of words (if I can choose) I shall no more trouble myself.

This process being made; Sect. 3. M. Baxter lays down the conclusion as contrary to them before, which (as he informs me ) are maintained by myself and others.

No man now living, was justified, pardoned, or absolved actually from the guilt of sin and obligation to death at the time of Christ's death or undertaking, or from eternity, or at any time before he was borne, or did believe.

After I know not how many Arguments brought forth to confirm this position, my Argrments against it are produced and answered; but what the learned man means I profess I know not: Unless disputandi prurigine abreptus, he cares not what he says, nor against whom, soe he may multiply Arguments and Answers, and put forth books one upon another. In that very book of mine which he animadverts upon, I use sundry of those very Arguments, which here he useth, to prove the same Assertion for the substance of it, as M. Baxter hath here laid down. And this I had assured him, as to a former mistake of his. My words are pag. 33. as for Evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is completely justified, that it should precede believing, I have not only not asserted, but positively denied, and disproved by many Arguments: to be now traduced as a Patron of that opinion, and my Reasons for it publicly answered, seems to me somewhat uncouth. Further now to acquit myself from that, which nothing but selfefulness, oscitancy, and contempt of others can possibly administer any suspicion of, I shall not turn aside.

Yea, but I have said, that the Elect upon the death of Christ, have a right to all the fruit of the death of Christ to be enjoyed in the appointed season: because this is made the occasion of so many outcrys of Antinomianism, and I know not what, I shall direct the Reader to what I have affirmed in this case, & leave it with some brief Observations to his judgment, having somewhat else to do, then to engage myself in a long wordy contest with M. Baxter: who knowing not of any difference between himself and me, would very fain make one, wherein he may possibly find his labor prevented hereafter, and a real difference stated between us, if any of his rare notions fall in my way.

The discourse is, pag. 69. lin. 23. unto pag. 72. lin 24.

The sum of all is this; upon the death of Christ, that is, on the consideration of the death of Christ; upon his • ndertaking, (for surely I suppose it will be granted, that his death was no less effectual upon his undertaking to them who died before his incarnation, then afterwards upon his actual accomplishment of that undertaking,) to be a Mediator and Redeemer, it becomes just, right, and equal, that all the good things which are the fruits of his death, should be in a due and appointed season made out to them for whom he died, in their several generations.

What says M. Baxter to this? 1. Suppose this be so, yet they are not actually absolved, but only have a right to it; Who said they were? do I offer to make any such conclusions? do I dispute against M. Baxter's Position, or for justification upon, or at the death of Christ, or his undertaking? homini homo quid interest?

But I say, there being such a right to these good things, they have a right to them. Crimen inauditum Caie Caesar! Did I not also say how I understood that expression? though I used it to make out the thing I intended, yet did I not say directly, that that right was not subjectively in them: that is, that it was not actionable as I expressed it; that they could not plead it; but it was as above: Yea but then this is no more but non injustum est, this is false as I have shown. Many Divines think, that this was the estate between God & sinners antecedently to the consideration of the death of Christ, or might have been without it, viz. that it was not unjust with God to pardon and save them; By the death of Christ there is a jus of another nature obtained; even such as I have described in the Treatise M. Baxter opposeth: But then God doth not give those good things to us upon condition; I say he doth not; taking Condition in it's strict & proper sense in respect of God: Though he hath made one thing to be the Condition of another. All Graces are alike absolutely purchased for us; but not alike absolutely received by us: The economy of the Gospel requires another order; The Frst grace, M. Baxter confesseth is bestowed upon us absolutely, & without condition; & this grace is the conditiō of the following privileges, as to the order of cōmunicatiō: & all the difference between us is about the sense of the word condition in that place. Which when I have nothing else to do, I will write a Volume as big as this is about.

This is that I say; Christ hath purchased all good things for us: these things are actually to be conferred upon us in the time and order by God's Sovereign will determined and disposed. This order