A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness
And where • as some say, It is no Privation, and consequently • o punishment, to lose that which they never had.
I answer, It is very false: If they had but an offer of, it and conditional Promise (specially so free and sure a one) and were put into a possibility of it, and a way to attain it, so that their own refusal only depriveth them of it (or their Impenitency and Ingratitude) this is properly a Privation and a Penalty: Though it's true, according to their Doctrine that deny Christ's general Satisfaction, and that he purchased to all men a possibility of recovery, it would be no punishment to miss of it, as being but a Negation, and no Privation.
4. Also and most principally from the matter of the several Conditions of the penal and premiant Acts, are God's Laws specified and distinguished. The Condition of the first Threatning, was the least particular sin; the Condition of the Threatning of the New-Law, is only final Impenitency, Infidelity and Rebellion against the Lord that bought us, in respect to the penalty of everlasting wrath and death: But lesser sins are oft punished with some withdrawings of the Spirit of Grace, and some sense of God's displeasure, and temporal affictions. The Condition of the Promise of the first Law was perfect obedience, without the least sin: This is now ceased (though Mr. G. deny it); for, 1. The matter of the Condition now would be naturaliter impossible: man having once sinned, it is impossible he should be perfect, and that which i • done, should again be undone. It is therefore • n intolerable conceit for us to conceive, that God offers life to sinners, on condition that they be not sinners; and that he hath a Covenant in this form. [If th • u have not sinned in Adam, thou shalt live. God's Promises run not upon terms of natural impossibility: For such a Promise is indeed a Threaten • ng or Sentence, and no Promise, and is equivalent in Law-sense to this, [Because thou hast sinned in Adam, thou art guilty of Death.] 2. The Conditions of the Promises are future or present usually, and not somewhat past; at least, where Duty is the matter of the Condition, as here it is. And when the time of the Condition is expired (as it is when it is become naturally impossible) the Promise ceaseth 3. God is as it were, obliged by his Promise, while it is in force: But when the Condition is absolutely violated, God can no longer stand obliged. Our Covenant-breaking disobligeth him. 4. Cessante naturali sub • ecti capacitate c • ssat promissio: But the capacity of all Mankind is ceased of receiving the benefit of the first Covenant on its ter • s; therefore, &c.
Mr. C. saith, This would as well prove, that the Precept ceaseth, because man is uncapable of obeying it.
I answer, 1. A man loseth Benefits by his own fault, but no man must be freed from Duty or Penalty by his own fault. Nemo ex proprio crimine commodum recipit, we may lose our own right by our sin, but God loseth not his. 2. The Law doth cease to oblige us to Obedience absolutely perfect: It doth not command us now that we shall not be guilty of Adam 's sin. 3. But for the time to come, Obedience is not naturaliter impossible, but only moraliter per accidens ex prava disp • sitione, which aggravates sin but excuseth not from duty: But our capacity of the Reward, on the terms of that Covenant, is as naturally imp • ssible, as it is for contradictory Propositions to be both true, [Peccavimus in Adamo,] and, [Non peccavimus in Adamo.]
Mr. C. objecteth, That it may seem unreasonable that the Promise ceased, and the Threat be in force.
I answer, The contrary is true: Nothing more reasonable, than that man's sin should forfeit his own right, and disoblige God, without forfeiting God's right, and disobliging themselves. So much of the Condition of the Promise of the first Law.
Now I add for Comparison: The Condition of the Covenant, or Promise of the Law of Grace, is Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience, which much differs from the former Condition. Of this more fully anon. So much of the Specification of God's Laws by the Conditions, the Promise and Threat; and so of the Specification of them from the matter of each part.
3. God's Laws are specified from the divers Relations of the Legislator, and • he divers rights of Government: And so God's first Law of Nature was made by him as Creator, or as Rector ex jure Creationis: But his Law of Grace is made by him as Redeemer, or as Rector ex jure Redemptionis. Here I might easily show a multitude of mischievous errors that follow the denying universal Redemption quoad pret •• m & satisfactionem: But I pass them. Especially note here these three things following: 1. That the jus Redemptionis doth not destroy the the former jus Creationis; but supposing it is superadded to it, and somewhat subordinate. 2. That therefore the Law of God, as Creator is not destroyed or abrogated by the Law of the Redeemer, but is superadded, and that in a certain Subordination to it. 3. That yet the said Law of Creation stands not now alone (as God's right of Creation to the Government stands not alone, but conjunct with his right of Redemption:) And therefore, 1. The Threatening is not now remediless as then it was, but conjunct with, and potentially or virtually destroyed by the remedying Law. 2. And therefore the Precept is not now to the same ends only, or wholly as before the fall: The immediate end indeed is the same, that is, that man be obliged to Duty to his Creator; but remotely there is this change, the end is not now to retain perfect man in his perfection, nor to keep him from falling from his first felicity, or forfeiting his right to the benefit of that Covenant: And the immediate remaining end, remaineth not alone: For the Law of Nature is not now only to oblige us to obey the Creator, but also the Redeemer: And it is also to be the Rule of our sincere Obedience, which is the Condition of our Salvation: So that now the Law of Nature (or the Moral Law) is the Law of God as Creator and Redeemer both: For all things are delivered into the hands of Christ, and therefore the Laws. As if the Subjects and Laws of a Nation of pardoned Rebels, should by the King be delivered to his Son as their Governor, having procured their pardon: So that there are no Laws in the World now but the Redeemers Laws. But yet we must still observe a wide difference between his Law of Grace, which is proper to God-Redeemer as Redeemer; and this remnant of the Law of Nature, which the Redeemer found the sinner under when he redeemed him, and which was with the sinner delivered up to him, partly still to oblige the sinner to duty, partly to oblige him to punishment, that so he might be a fit subject for the Law of Redemption, whose very nature is to be a remedying Law, to dissolve the obligation of the former.
4. God's Laws also are specified, or at least diversified by the different matter of the sign. And so some Laws of God consist in his Revelations by the mere Works of Nature, within us, and without us, in which we may read much of God's mind; the invisible things of God being seen in the things that are made, so far as to leave men without excuse. This is now commonly called the Law of Nature: Other Laws God hath revealed by Works indeed, but it is supernatural Works: And so Christ's Life, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, giving the Spirit, were a real Law to the World that could know them: For they were signs of God's Will de Debito Credendi, &c. Other Laws God hath revealed by word of mouth, others by Inspiration, others by Writing; which are now his principal standing Laws, adjoining to that of Nature (and containing its matter.)
5. God's Laws are divers, according to the divers states of the subject. And so God's first Law was to innocent Man in his Friendship, and in some felicity. God's remedying Law of Grace (yea, and his remnant of the pure Morals) is made to man fallen: But with this difference; The Morals as such, remain to oblige man qui peccator, not only quà peccator. But the Law of Grace is to oblige, and to recover a sinner quà peccator Redemptus & Restaurandus est. And as Laws of men are distinguished, some being for defending the just some for punishing the unjust; some for loyal Subjects, some for those that have been disloyal, &c. so may we say of God's Laws. But the differing ends here included are more considerable.
6. So from the number of Parts, or the several Rights constituted, are God's Laws distinguished. Some constitute only the dueness of Duty or Penalty: (as the remnant of the Law of Nature, or pure Morals, which lost the adjoined Promise, and so stood alone to Adam before the Promise was made: I say alone, though not without mercy and possibility of remedy, yet without any Promise of a remedy revealed.) Other Laws of God have Precept, Promise and Threatning, as is aforesaid.
7. Some Laws are of God's own immediate enacting, though he may use a Scribe to cause the sign, or a Herald to promulgate them, yet no ones Will enterposeth to give them a Being: Such are the Laws of Nature and Scripture. Other Laws of God are so his, as that immediately they are the Laws of men: Such are all Laws of Common-wealths and Churches, which are not against God's special Laws, but according to their general Determinations and Directions: Which are all only as Under-Laws, to be made and altered pro re nata; which it was not fit should be determined a-like to all Ages and Nations by one universal, standing Law; nor yet did God think fit to be called down to every alteration, so as to be the visible Governor of each Church and Commonwealth: And therefore he hath entrusted a certain Legislative power for such under-Laws in the hand of his Officers; and what they do, according to his Commission, he owneth and maketh it his own Laws; and so commandeth us in the Fifth Commandment to obey them.
8. Lastly, God's Laws are much differenced from the manner of the Sanction. And so the Threatning of his first Law, though it shown no remedy, yet it excluded not all possibility of remedy nor was a peremptory undissolvable Obligation: Much less is the remaining part of it so now, when the Covenant of Grace is made. But the Threatning of the Law of Grace, to the final non-performers of the Conditions of that Covenant, is a peremptory Threatning, and its Obligation is remediless and undissolvable. This is because God hath adjoined to it a Prediction, that there shall be no more Sacrifice for sin, nor remedy, nor escape. Thus much of the several Specifications or Distributions of God's Laws.
Here note these two things:
1. That I have not instanced all this while, in the Law of the Jews Church or Common-wealth as such, because the Explication of it hath such difficulties, that cannot thus obiter and cursorily be opened.
2. From what is said it may appear, that the first and most eminent distribution of God's Laws, as standing at the greatest difference, is between that made to Adam in Innocency, and that made by the Redeemer for our Recovery. For in almost all the forementioned respects are they differenced, as I have shown already. And the second most eminent distribution of God's universal Laws, is into the remnant of the Law of Nature, Creation, or pure Morals, as now put into the hand of the Redeemer, and the proper Law of the Redeemer being Lex remedians, a Law of Grace.
Note also, That because the Covenant or Promisory part is the principal part of this Law, it being purposely a remedying Law, an Act of Oblivion, therefore it is more commonly called the Covenant than the Law, and more commonly and properly called the Promise than the Covenant; and frequently also (or sometime) a Testament though some deny it;) and oft a Constitution, Disposition, Ordination, which is a Law, and oft and properly also called a Law. But the Law of Works with Adam, was principally contained in the Precept and Comimination; insomuch, as it seemeth a very hard Controversy with some, Whether there were any Covenant or Promise at all or no. There is none found written, unless implied in the Threat; and that is hard to be concluded, seeing every threat of death implieth not a promise of everlasting life: And whether it were contained in nature or no, is hard to say.
Pareus in Proem. ad Comment. in Rom. denieth that there is any Covenant of Nature, but only of Grace; and saith, God cannot naturally be obliged to the Creature. Others think, that though in point of Commutative Justice he could not, yet as Rector ob sines Regiminis secundum Justitiam distributivam, he was quasi obligatus, to reward man perfectly obeying, though how far they dare not say. These things are left very dark, or at least, we see little of them. But (though it be probable by some passages in the Gospel, and somewhat in Reason, that Adam had a Promise not only of continuing in that felicity, but of a greater; yet) I never read, to my remembrance, the name of Covenant or Promise used of that Law to Adam.
The third most observable distribution of God's Laws, is between the Law given by Moses to the Church and Common-wealth of the Jews, and the Promise or Law of Grace by Jesus Christ. The differences I will not now adventure on; only I shall say these three things: 1. That one was but particular to one people, the other universal: 2. That among the Jews, this was by an excellency called the Law, so that they in a manner appropriated hat term to it, as if they knew no other Law. 3. That therefore in Paul 's Epistles it is this Judicial Law that is commonly called [The Law,] and which he disputeth against directly and expressly in the Doctrine of Justification, and whose Abrogation he so contends for, and which he sets against the Law of Faith, and the Grace and Truth that came by Jesus Christ. If this be not observed, the Scripture, especially Paul 's Epistles, will not be understood.
The fourth most observable difference between God's Laws is between the Law of Grace, or the Pr • mise as before Christ and the same as after Christ. This difference, though very great, yet is mostly but accidental in the Promulgation. At first it was revealed more obscurely, and after more clearly: At first eminently to one Nation, and after universally to the Catholic Church (and for the gathering of it first:) So that the term [Gospel] is appropriate to that Publication, which was after Christ; and the former called only the Promise. Yet some difference more than accidental here is between these two: For 1. They before Christ, were bound to believe only in a Messiah in general; we are bound to believe that Jesus Christ is he, or we shall die in our sins: They were to believe in him as to come; we, as come already: A more general dark Belief would save them it was not so necessary to Salvation to know his Death, and Resurrection, and Ascension, and coming again to Judgment; (for sure the Disciples were in a state of Salvation, when they knew not these: But now all these are necessary to Salvation to be known. 2. The matter of their Obedience to the Redeemer, was not then the same as now: Then they must show sincere Obedience partly in observing the Jewish Law; but now not so: Nay, we have Sacraments newly instituted, and Churches otherwise ordered, &c. 3. More of the Spirit and Grace was poured out after Christ than before; insomuch, as that eminent degree hath the name of [the Spirit] oft appropriated to it: And so it is said, the Disciples had not yet received the Spirit, because Christ was not yet glorified: And it is called the Spirit of Promise, that is the promised Spirit. So much for the Distribution of God's Laws.
Prop. 12. The nature or use of a Law, is to be the rule of our actions, and of God's Judgment: Regula actionum Moralium, & norma judicii, because it constituteth what is due both from us, and to us.
Prop. 13. Whatever Law therefore is in force for us to line by, we must necessarily be judged by it: And whatever Law we are judged by, we must either be justified or condemned by: For judging is the genus, which existeth not but in these species of Abs • lution and Condemnation.
Prop. 14. To justify or condemn a man according to the Law, as the rule of Judgment is to judge that the reward is due, or not due; or the punishment due, or not due to him, according to the tenor of that Law; that is, that he is guilty, or not guilty, when he is charged with a fault, and to have no right to the reward, or to be liable to the penalty, because of his fault.
Prop. 15. To be guiltless, is to be just in sensu forensi against these Accusations: To be one, 1. That is saultless; 2. Or to whom the benefit or reward is due, or to whom the penalty is not due according to that Law, this is to be just.
Prop. 16. He that is thus just, is therefore justified, because he is just: For the justitia Causae, & ita personae quoad hanc causam, is it which is to be inquired after as the business of the day: And it is the Office of the just Judge, to justify the just qua talis, because they are just; and condemn the unjust, because they are unjust. For to justify, is but to sentence him just; that is, just, because he is just. It is therefore impossible for any man to have justitiam causae, a just Cause, or Righteousness of his Cause at God's Bar, and yet not to be justified by it.
Prop. 17. Yet that which is the cause of Justification in sensu forensi, is not always a proper cause in a Physical sense; but sometime only an Antecedent, or Dispositio materiae, or Causa sine qua non: The Cause that is to be tried.
Prop. 18. Though mediately (quod ad reatum culpae) it be the Precept that will be the rule to judge men just or unjust by, yet ultimately it is the penal or premiant act of the Law, the Promise or the Threatning, which is it that concludeth men just or unjust, and is the immediate rule of justifying or condemning them, and not the Precept or Prohibition. These do but determine de Debito Officii, or what was or shall be due from us to God; but the final business of the Judgment, is to determine what is due fr • m God to us: And this is constituted in the Promise and the Threatning only.
Prop. 19. It is therefore the Condition of that Promise or Threatning, that will be the very thing by which we must be tried: (For the Condition is part of the Promise which is conditional.) And the Question of the day will be, Whether we did perf • rm that Condition of the Promise or not? and so▪ Whether the Condition of the Threatning be found upon us or not.
Prop. 20. That which is our performance of the Condition of the Promise, and not committing the Condition of the Threat, is therefore our Material Righteousness, by which we are justified in that Judgment against the Accusation of non-performance.
Prop. 21. As there was a Two-fold Law entire, consisting of Precepts, Threatning, and Promise, (or at least the two first, by the consent of all, were in the First Law) made upon a double ground of Legislation, to a different End, a different Subject, &c. so is there a Two-fold Judgment, and so a Two-fold Justification and Condemnation: One by God as Rector, according to the pure Law of Works, as Creator: The other by God in Christ as Redeemer and Rector of the Redeemed World, upon the terms, and by the Law of Grace. The Judgment of God-Creator, according to the Law of Works, hath two parts and seasons, according as that Law doth much differ as it stood entirely in Innocency, and without Remedy, till the promise of Grace; and as it stands in part, and with that Redeeming Promise since.
1. The first Judgment that God held, was after the Fall of Adam, when as Creator according to that first Law, he sat upon the Offendors, and passed the Sentence of Condemnation on all Mankind: but before the Execution, yea even in the Judgment, the Mediator as it were interposing; that is, God in mercy resolving upon, and promising a way for the rescuing of the Offendor by the Satisfaction of his Justice; he looked upon that Satisfaction and Sacrifice as in esse morali; and upon consideration of it as future, he past a Sentence of Conditional Absolution and Pardon, in a Promise of the Messias to bruise the Serpent. But this was but somewhat obscurely done: Hereupon he prescribed typifying Bloody Sacrifices as the Conditions in part, and as ••• there teaching intimations of the promised Sacrifice. He accepted the Bloody Sacrifice of Abel sincerely offered in Faith; and he rejected the Unbloody Sacrifice of Cain offered without Faith and sincerity; and told him, [If thou do well, (that is, according to the New-Law also) shalt thou not be accepted? (viz. through the promised Seed and Sacrifice • ; but if thou do ill, sin lieth at the door]: expounding the Covenant of Grace more fully, as being Conditional, and Faith and sincere Obedience being the Conditions: which it is most likely God fullier expounded then to the Patriarchs, than is left written. This Covenant God yet made plainer to N • ah, and yet much plainer to Abraham, and to the Israelites in Types; and yet much plainer by th • Prophets, especially David and Isaiah. Thus G •• did first, by his own actual Sentence or Promise, and then by the same revealed fullier by Prophets and Laws, conditionally justify the fallen World, and absolve them from their guilt.
But because the Sacrifice offered, and Satisfaction performed, wa • more than the same as merely promised and undertaken; therefore God reserved the f • ller Declaration of that Absolution, which is the 〈…〉 it, till the M • ssiah should come. And then God did again more fully pronounce the Sentence of Conditional Absolution, twice, or two ways: First, He did by a Voice from Heaven pronounce, [This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased, bear ye him]; q. d. [According to his undertaking he is Incarnate, and is now satisfying my Jastice, and doth all that I require at his hands for Man's Redemption. This is he in whom my Wrath is appeased to the World, (not absolutely to acquit them, but) so far that if they will Hear him, they shall live]. Next this, The Lord Jesus himself having taken fuller possession of his Dominion and Empire, doth most clearly publish the New-Law of Grace: That, [Whoever doth Repent and Believe, shall be pardoned and saved, &c.] This Law is an Act of Pardon: And being so oft spoken by God himself, and now by Christ in the flesh, it is equivalent to a General Sentence of Judgment. Not as Absolutely and Actually pardoning particular Sinners: for so it is but a Law of Grace, or a Promise of it on Condition: But as it is the solemn Pronunciation of a General and Conditional Absolution to all Mankind, so it is a kind of Sentence, or equivalent thereto. And thus God the Father as Rector, according to the Law of Works, hath himself, by an Act of Grace, Justified Conditionally the fore-condemned World. And this Conditional Justification is not to be slighted, because but Conditional, and because that many afterwards perish: For it is a pure free Gift; and the Condition is but the accepting of the Gift according to its Nature, viz▪ Christ and Life: And Acceptance is so naturally supposed necessary in all Gifts, that it is not used to be expressed as a Civil Condition, but implied among rational Men and the Gift called Absolute, (though indeed so far Conditional); And Refusal and Ingratitude useth to deprive Men of those Gifts which the Laws of Men call Absolute.
Besides, it belongeth not to God as Legislator, to give Men Hearts to accept his Gift (but in another Relation): And he gives Christ, and Pardon, and Right to Life, as Legislator and Rector secundum Leges, and as Benefactor together. And therefore God doth quantum in se as Legislator, justify all Men.
In the first Justification of the Father, or God-Creator, (I mean by him as Judge), the sole Condition, and so the sole Righteousness of the Justified World, is the Sacrifice and Merit of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is therefore called the Lord our Righteousness. No Act or Habit of Man's, either Faith or Works, is any Condition of this first Justification. Thus was God in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing to them their transgressions. Thus have we Redemption in • is Blood, even the Remission of sins: Thus having purged (or made purgation of) our sins by himself, he ascended and sa • at the Right Hand of God, Heb. 1. 3. Here Christ the Redeemer was not the Judge, but was judged, and loco delinquentis & rei: God the Father here was Judge, who first condemned his Son, as it were; and after Satisfaction given, justified first him as Sponsor, and then the World for his sake. Thus God forgave those all the Debt, who yet perish by taking their fellow-Servant by the Throat. Remember that we disclaim all Man's Works or Faith, as not being the least part of, or Ingredient in, This General Conditional Justification of fallen Mankind, by an Act of Pardon equivalent to a Sentence.
But seeing it was never in the thoughts of the Father or Mediator to make us God's, and exempt us from his Government; therefore a Lord we must still have, and therefore a Law: and he was pleased by a Law to make the foresaid Justification, and convey to us our Right in Christ and his Benefits. And this Law imposeth on us Duty to the Lord-Redeemer, and constituteth the Conditions on which we shall live by him, and so is of use for the Application of his Benefits; and according to this New-Law the Redeemer that hath bought us, doth here govern us; therefore according to this Law will he judge us. So that the Great Judgment at the Last Day, will be by Christ as Redeemer, (and God the Father in and by him) and so by the Redeemer's Law.
I will not dare to determine that there will then be no use of the Law of Works as a Rule of Judgment, (but none as the Only Rule to any); or that there will be no justifying Men from the Guilt of Death as due, according to the Sentence of that first Law.
But these things I may say, 1. That if there be any Accusation of Men merely as sinners, and as guilty of Death by the first Law, then must there be at Judgment a double Justification requisite against a double Accusation. One is against the true Accusation, that is, we sinned against the Law of Works, and thereby deserved the Penalty. Against this (confessing our sins) we plead, The Blood of Christ procuring us pardon, and that Pardon as given us conditionally in the New-Covenant. Then comes the second Justification to be necessary, in that here we are devolved over to the New Covenant, and to be tried by the Redeemer and his Law: and then the Question is only, Whether we have performed the Condition of the New-Covenant or not? Against the false Accusations [that we have not] we must be justified by our Actual Performance, as the Matter of our Righteousness. This Justification is subordinate to the former; and by this the former is brought to perfection, and so we are absolutely justified.
2. Note also; That the Scripture doth so much suppose our Antecedent Conditional Justification by God-Creator in the Blood of Christ, that it seemeth to describe the general Judgment, as if that former were done already, and the latter only or mainly were apt to do, as the Work of that Day, as the means of making the first absolute. For Christ as Redeemer shall be the Judge; and for loving or not loving himself in his Members, shall the Sentence pass: not upon the mere terms of the Law of Works, but for improving or not -improving their Talents of Grace, I mean of Mercy received from the Redeemer. Here is therefore a Particular Justification from the false Charge of non-performance of the Gospel-Conditions, necessary; and also a General Justification from the guilt of all sin indeed committed, necessary, as the conjunct Grounds of the total and final Universal Absolution. Which we may, according to the tenor of the Law, conceive of as in this order, (and so produceth also the Justification in our Consciences, according to the Rule of the same Law).
First, The great Question is, Whether the Sinner is to be sent to Heaven or to Hell? Saved or Damned? The Accuser saith, He is to be damned. (Here's the Accusation de fine).
His first Accusation, as the Reason is, [Lord, he hath broke thy Law, which saith, The Soul that liveth shall die]. The Justifier saith, [I pardoued all Men for the sake of the Blood of the Redeemer, on Condition of Faith and Repentance]. (This part of the Judgment, that in the Gospel-Description seemeth to suppose as done).
The next Charge or Accusation is, [Lord, he did not truly believe and repent, and therefore hath no benefit by the Law of Grace: (or else) He added not sincere Obedience, or did not persevere, and therefore hath lost his Right to thy Pardon]. Against this we are justified by pleading Not-guilty; that is, That we did Believe. Repent, Obey sincerely, and Persevere. Upon which our Judge will determine, That according to the Law of Grace we are Not-Guilty in the Point we are Accused, and consequently that universally we are not liable to Condemnation.
By all this it appeareth that Justification being considered, 1. As opposite to Accusation; 2. As opposite to Condemnation; That there is a Two-fold Accusation, and consequently a Two-fold Justification opposite thereto, and that there is a Two-fold Condemnation of the wicked virtually in Law: Also that there is one final Peremptory Sentence of Condemnation in Judgment, which shall pass upon them upon this double Ground. And there is one final Sentence of Life for the Justification of Believers in Judgment; which passeth also on the double ground of the foresaid double Justification, as opposite to Accusation: of which the first only is Justification a Reatu, the second, Contra Reatum falsum impactum; vel quod rei non sumus: These are done in Law at our first Believing, from which time forward there is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ; but before they were in Christ by Faith, there was a Condemnation. Also that though there be two Laws that Condemn, yet there is but one that Justifieth; though that one hath a double justifying force, from the foresaid double Accusation; wherefore one is à Condemnatione Legis veteris; the other is ne Condemnemur Lege novâ, vel in Judicio per Legem novam. Which I make all plain thus.
- 1. The Law of Works condemneth Men as sinners, (still pardoned).
- 2. The Law of Grace condemneth them further as such and such sinners in specie, viz. as final Rejecters of Christ.
The first of these the Law of Grace remitteth conditionally before Faith (to all) actually, upon Believing. The last is never remitted, nor any justified from it.
I shown before how there may be a double Accusation in Judgment: one true, that we were to be condemned as Sinners: the other false, That we were to be condemned as Unbelievers, Rebels against Christ, or Apostates. We are justified from one by pleading Remission, and from the other by pleading Not-Guilty; that is, our personal Righteousness, in tantum, so far as that Charge extendeth. This is Justification by Plea or Apology, whether by others or Christ as our Advocate: Upon which as the Ground, or Justitia Causae, follows the final absolute sentential Justification from the main charge (of being liable to Damnation, and having no right to Salvation) by Christ as Judge. Though it may be said also, That he justifieth in the foresaid subordinate sense, from the particular Accusations, (of being condemnable as Sinners, and being Unbelievers, and being Condemnable as Unbelievers) as Judge, both as he concludeth of the distinct parts of the Sentence before the sum or whole, and as he concludeth those Parts and Premises in the whole: First, Judging, [He is not condemnable for sin simply as against the Law of Works]. Next, [He is not guilty of final nonperformance of the Conditions of the Law of Grace; therefore not condemnable for that, or by that Law]: And then, [Therefore he is not condemnable at all, but hath Right to Life]. That I doubt not but God will make Man capable of a shorter dispatch at that final Judgment, than we use to have at Human Barrs, and therefore our Pleadings will not be so particular and express. But yet as they will proceed on these Grounds, so this Order and these Reasons of the Sentence will be made manifest to the World, how short soever it be, and we shall be enabled to see the implied Reason and Order, without particular dilatory Expressions.
By this it appeareth that it is impossible that a Creature can be under any Law, whose Office it is to be the Rule of Actions and Judgment; but he must be judged, and so either Justified or Condemned by that Law: which is expressed also in Scripture by our being judged according to our Works; that is, his performing or not-performing the Conditions of the premiant or penal Act of that Law. And to be judged according to our Works, is to be justified or condemned according to our Works: which Works must needs be part of the Cause to be then tried; and every Cause is Just or Unjust: and the justice of the Cause, is the justice of the Person as to that Cause: and a Man is therefore justified by the Judge, because he is just, his Cause being just. And so is it no hard matter for a willing unprejudiced Mind, to see how Works do or do not justify, though perhaps they may differ about the fitness of each others Notions and Expressions hereabouts.
I c 〈…〉 ss I think that those plain vulgar Christians, 〈…〉 troubled their heads with the Notions of Divi 〈…〉 about which are most of our Controversies, 〈…〉 as right, if not much righter apprehens • o •• of the Substance of this Doctrine of Justification than most others. And that very Speech, which the Marrow of Modern Divinity so blameth, as joining our own Righteousness with Christ's, to make up one entire Righteousness, is yet in itself no unfit Expression, but apt to set forth the very scope of the Gospel; and in the Mouth of a sound Christian it is sound Divinity: I mean these vulgar words, [We must do our best, and God will help us by his Grace, and forgive us wherein we fail]: or, [Christ by his Spirit causeth all the Regenerate to Believe, Repent, and sincerely obey him to the death, and forgiveth all their sins]. This is plain Doctrine, which any honest Country-man may understand, though never so illiterate; and which is not only enough for Salvation, as to this Point, if soundly believed, but for ought I know, may be more than most Disputers will suffer themselves and others to know quietly, without contradicting it again by their Novelties. And I doubt not, if the word Justification be not known, or eve • heard, (which yet I am far from desiring) yet while the Doctrine of Remission of Sin, and Right to Life, is known and believed, then is the same thing known in other words. And it's not inobservable, that the Apostle's Creed rather useth the term [Forgiveness of sin], which poor People better understand, and not the term [Justification], about which the Learned have filled the World with needless Quarrels.
Forgiveness of Sin is not the whole Righteousness. God never forgiveth his sin, that hath nothing but sin: He never made a grant of the forgiveness of all sins, without Exceptions, but only of the forgiveness of all upon condition of our performing the Gospel-Conditions: And the Condition is a plain Exception of the non-performance of itself, out of the Matter of the Pardon. Inherent Personal Righteousness is confessed by all Protestants and Christians. A Righteousness which makes not Righteous, so far, is a palpable Contradiction. To make Righteous, is to justify Constitutive. So far as any Man is Constituted Just, God will, 1. Esteem him, and Accept him as Just; 2. Sentence him Just; 3. And use him as Just in Execution. And Christ the Advocate will maintain him Just, if there be need or cause.
When the word [Justification] is taken only for Remission of Sin, and Right to Life, (or judging us such as have this) then it is a needless question to ask, Whether it consist materially in any Works or Actions of our own: Faith and Repentance can be but preparatory Conditions of it, and none of the Matter, only Christ's Righteousness meriteth i • . If Justification be taken for Making, Esteeming, or Sentencing us Performers of the Gospel-Conditions, then the matter of it is only in our own Hearts and Lives. If Justification be taken universally, it comprehendeth both the former. If taken for the final Sentence pronouncing us non damnandos sed glorificandos, then it is grounded on the two former, (whereof one is subordinate to the other) as being Causae duplicis duplex Justitia.
The Fifth Controversy between us, is; Whether the New-Law or Covenant have any Penalty constituted by itself, or whether only the Law of Works do constitute penalty?
To this I need to say no more than I have done already, because his Opinion is grounded on the former, That there is but one Law; which overthrown, this falls with it.
Mr. C 's Error lieth in his confounding Legem in genere, Cum hac Lege Operum in specie. A Law in general is a Determination or Constitution Authoritative de jure, and obligeth ad Obedientiam aut ad Poenam. But Laws are several ways specified, as is afore declared, and I will not repeat.
The Penalty proper to the New-Law, consisteth in these Particulars following.
1. To have no part in Christ, to be no Member of him, not united or espoused to him, is one part of the Penalty, as it is poena damni: Who will say that the Law of Works did threaten this? It would have been to Adam but a Negation, and no Privation, and so no Penalty.
2. The like may be said of the missing of Justification and Pardon of all sin; which is a part of the poena damni, which the Law of Works knew not. Before the Law of Grace was enacted, and by Christ's Blood and the Promise, Remission was made possible; yea, conditionally given, it would have been no Penalty, though a misery, not to be forgiven.
3. The like may be said of the denial of Sanctifying Grace, and the help of the Spirit to them that quench it.
4. And the hopelesness of their Condition that sin against the Holy Ghost.
5. And the non-liberation from eternal Torments.
6. But especially the Peremptory Sentence of Judgment, and Execution according. The Law of Works being violated, the Communication was dispensable on valuable Considerations, and the Obligation to Punishment dissolvable, and the Punishment itself removable: But the New-Law hath affixed a prediction to the Commination, making the said Commination indispensable, the Obligation undissolvable, and the Punishment certainly everlasting and remediless; not only (as the first Law) providing no Remedy, but decreeing that none shall be provided at all.
But I have mentioned these before, about the diversification of God's Laws, and there also mentioned a real difference in the Pain of Sense, between that which is threatened in the Law of Works, and of Grace. But if Mr. C. be resolved to confound these Sinners, and say God hath but one Law, looking only at the general nature of a Law, when he should look at the distinct species, then there's no Remedy.
6. Our Sixth Controversy is; Whether the same thing which is the Condition of our Salvation (as Mr. C. confesseth Obedience is) be not also a Condition of our final sentential Justification, and of our Right to Salvation (though not of our first Right)? I affirm and he denies.
Our first Right to Salvation is given with our Justification or Pardon, upon our first believing: but our Obedience upon Opportunity is a Condition non-amittendi, or without which it shall not continue, nor shall we have ever Jus in re. This I proved I think sufficiently in the Postscript of my Papers to Mr. C. but he easily put by all, with the distinction of [Right to Salvation] and [Salvation itself].
Before I consider his Exceptions, I will add this Answer to his Distinction. 1. He yieldeth the whole Cause in acknowledging, 1. That Justification and Right to Salvation have the same Conditions, (which he could not deny). 2. That Obedience is a Condition of Salvation. 3. For his Distinction is sine differentiâ; there is no such thing in the World, no nor possible, as a proper Condition of Salvation, distinct from a Condition of Right to it. First, I hope, with any fair Dealer, I may take it for granted that he doth not equivocate in the word Condition, taking it for a mere Physical Qualification, called a Condition or Preparation, in another sense than ours; but that we are still speaking of a Condition in sensu Civili, Legali, vel Morali: Not as the Dryness of the Wood, or the Application of it to the Fire, is called a Condition of its Burning; nor as the valiant Mind of Soldiers is a Condition of their valiant Fighting and Conquering, not imposed by the General, but naturally necessary by way of Qualification or Enablement: but it is a Condition constituted by a Promise, Law, Covenant, or Testament that we are speaking of. 1. I so explained my Mind fully. 2. The subject-Matter of our Dispute will be on no other sensed Condition; so that I may well take it for granted, that we are agreed in this, and that Mr. C. will not seek any Evasion by an Equivocation in this word.
And then the Case is past question; for every Condition is a Condition of Right, which I prove thus.
It is a Condition of that which the Promise giveth: But it is Right (to Salvation) which the Promise giveth; Therefore it is a Condition of Right (to Salvation). The Major is past dispute; it being the Condition of a Promise, and a part of that Promise, and its Office, to suspend the efficacy of the Promise or Donative Act. The Minor is as far past dispute with all that know, that the proper product of Laws, Covenants, Promises, &c. is Right or Dueness. The Promise gives nothing else immediately and naturally but Right. As Sanctification, Glorification, Health, Riches, or any benefit not relative; the Promise gives but Right to them, (though it be called a giving the thing itself morally, because God doth infallibly fulfil his Promise): But it is by actual natural Causation tha • the thing itself must be after given or conveyed. Therefore seeing we speak not of a Condition in a Physical sense, (as Eating is a Condition of Living) but in a moral, or civil, or judiciary sense; it is past doubt that it's essential to a Condition to have a respect to Right, and to be Conditio juris, vel obtinendi, vel retinendi.
And if the Assertors of the contrary be called to prove their distinction from the Scripture, you should see on what arbitrary Affirmations and Inventions of their own, such Doctrines are built. For instance, when it is promised, Mark 16. 16. That, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. And Rom. 10. Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved]. And Heb. 5. 9. He became the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him]. Prove now by such evidence as should move an impartial Man, that Believing only in the first Promise, and such other is Conditio juris; and that, [Calling on the Name of the Lord, and obeying] are not Conditiones juris, vel obtinendi, vel retinendi: That Faith only is a Condition in a judiciary sense, and Repentance, Love to God and Obedience are only Physically Conditions, or are Conditions of Salvation, but not of Right to Salvation: Prove that in the same Text, Joh. 16. 27. Faith is made • Condition of Right to God's Love, and Love to Christ is made a Condition of his Love, but not of Right to it; [For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God]. Is here either reason or room for your distinction? [Because] is equally added to both, whatever kind of Condition they are. The Text saith expressly, [Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through th • Gates into the City]. And can you pro • e that by Right here is not meant Right?
And again observe that Right to Salvation, and Right to Justification at Judgment, are not, yea, cannot be denied to have the same Conditions: For that which justifieth our Cause, will justify us: But that which proveth our Right to Salvation, justifieth our Cause: For our Right to Salvation, is our Cause itself to be then judged.
The Seventh Controversy is, Whether the words of the Gospel-Promise or Grant, forgiving sin, be properly a Sentence of Absolution by God as Judge? Or rather an Act of Oblivion or Donation of Pardon and Life by God, partly as Benefactor, and partly as Rector, by Law and Guilt? Whether it be a Judicial Sentence only Virtually or Actually? Mr. C. holdeth, that the words of the Gospel, [He that believeth shall be justified and saved]; are an actual sentence of God as Judge: I hold that it is but an Act of Oblivion or Condonation, and a Gift of Life by God as Legislator and Benefactor, and so but a Virtual Sentence.
But first let it be noted, That all this is but a Controversy de nomine, and not de re. As long as we are agreed what this Act of Oblivion is, and what it doth, I take it to be a matter of no great noment, whether it be de nomine, to be called a Sentence of Judgment, properly or improperly. But my Reasons are these.
1. This Gospel-Act is called by the name of a Law, both in Prophesies, and in the words of the Gospel itself, Isa. 2. 3. and 8. 16, 20. & 42. 4. & 51. 4. Mich. 4. 2. Rom. 3. 27. Gal. 6. 2. Heb. 7. 12. Jam. 11. 25. & 2. 8, 12. 1 John 3. 4. Heb. 8. 10, 16.
2. It is NOrma actionum moralium & norma judicis: Ergo, it is a Law, 1 John 2. 5. Heb. 4. 2, 3. Jam. 1. 22. John 12. 47, 48. & 14. 23. & 15. 7. John 5. 22, 23. Jam. 2. 12. Rev. 20. 12, 13. Matth. 25. Joh. 3. 16, 18, 19.
3. A Day of Judgment is foretold and described in the Gospel, in which a final Sentence will pass on Men according to this Law. Ergo, &c. The Law and Sentence are not to be confounded: For they are not all one: The Norma judicis, according to which Men must be judged, is not the Judgment itself.
4. A Law is an universal Rule, and the sanction Conditional, and it neither justifieth nor condemneth any antecedently, but only after they have kept or broken it; And then it doth it ut Lex, and not ut sententia judicis: But a judicial Sentence is about particular or individual Persons and Cases; and supposeth a Law kept or broken, and supposeth Accusation, (virtual or actual): and also the particular Cause to be judicially decided, is, Whether the Law condemn or absolve the Person (virtually): Therefore the Law and Sentence are no more to be confounded, than a Law giver and a Judge.
5. If it be a Sentence of Judgment, it is a Sentence secundum norm • m alicujus Legis; some Law is the Rule of it: But no Law is the Rule of it; Ergo▪ it is no Sentence of Judgment, properly so called. If any Law be the Rule of it, it is either an Universal Law made to Mankind, or a particu ••• Law (as that made to Noah, to Abraham, to the Jews by Moses, &c.) Not the latter: If the former, it must be that called the Law of Nature, and Covenant of Works made to Adam, or the Law or Covenant of Grace made in Christ: Not the first: For to say, [He that believeth shall be saved], is not to Sentence as Judge according to the Law, [In the day that thou sinnest thou shalt die]. Not the latter; for then the Law and the Judgment were all one; and to say, [He that believeth shall be saved], would be all one as to say, [John or Peter hath right to Salvation according to the Promise, because they are true Believers]. He that is not satisfied with thus much, let him think as he list, for I shall trouble the Reader with no more.
The Eighth Controversy is, Whether the judgment of Christ upon Believers after this Life, be not properly a justifying Sentence? I affirm it, and Mr. G. denieth it, and taketh it to be only a Declaration of our Justification which we had in this Life.
Every judicial Sentence, is a Declaration; but every Declaration is not a judicial Sentence. This Question therefore is not, Whether it be a Declaration, but whether it be not such a Declaration as is a Sentence of the Judge in Judgment? And if so, Whether it be not a proper Justification, (though here also I know, according to his meaning, the Question is but de nomine).
1. That is a proper Sentence of Judgment, which is the public Declaration and Decision of the Judge, to put our Right to Salvation out of Controversy, against all Accusers, and to give us our Jus Judicatum, by determining of our Jus Constituturi; and this as an orderly means to our full possession. But such will be Christ's Sentence at the Last Judgment; Ergo, it will be properly a Judicial Sentence.
2. The Scripture doth most exactly describe it as a proper Judgment; It calleth it the Act of Christ as Judge; It calleth it a Judgment: It describeth the Cause, the Persons, the Plea, the Evidence, and the Sentence, 1 Pet. 4. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 1. Acts 17. 31. John 5. 22, 24, 26, 27. Rev. 20. 12, 13. 1 Cor. 4. 4. 1 Pet. 1. 17. Luk. 10. 14. Heb. 6. 2. & 9. 27. Eccles. 12. 14. & 11. 9. Rom. 14. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Matth. 25. throughout.
2. It is an Article of our Creed, That Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead; and among Christians past dispute. And if he judge, he sentenceth as Judge. And if he sentence as Judge, it is either a Sentence of Justification, or of Condemnation: All Judgment which is the genus, is found in one of these special Acts; There is no middle. It is a Judgment of Condemnation or of Justification. If the Name be questioned, I appeal to all Lawyers, all Men that live in Civil Societies, and all Divines; especially Protestants, who maintain against the Papists, that the word Justify is most commonly taken in the New Testament in a judiciary Sense, for either the Sentence of a Judge, or the Plea of an Advocate at Judgment. I think this Controversy needeth no more words. And if I should here cite an hundred Divines that call this Last Judgment by the name of a Sentence of Justification or Condemnation, I should merit nothing of the Reader, but rebuke for troubling him with unnecessary words.
And now having reviewed all that I find remaining Controverted, between this Learned, Reverend and Pious Brother and myself, about the Matter which he thought meet to Animadvert on, (or at least all that is worth the Reader's notice). I am glad that our Differences are brought into so narrow a room; and that it is very doubtful whether everyone of them be not only de nomine: And I think it but a needless trouble to the Reader, to answer all his numerous Citations out of Ames, Piscator, Pareus, Zanchi, Calvin, Davenant, &c. and such late Divines, which make up the main Body of his Reply: Nor to make so tedious an enquiry, Whether he or I do best understand those Writers Sense: The Controversies themselves being cleared, I have done. And my design is but this:
1. To persuade Divines not to make God's Servants believe that they differ in great and weighty Matters, and so to render them unfit for each others Love and Communion, when they differ but in Words and Logical Notions.
2. To persuade Men to suffer their Brethren peaceably to rest in that Truth, and those Expressions of it, which are found in Scripture, and the Church Universal for above a thousand years rested in, and not make Human Notions seem necessary to our Salvation and Church-Communion: Nor in a siding Humour to set the Phrases of some late honored Divines, against Scripture and the Universal Church, and then to make them Engines of destruction, by making them seem needful Truths, which are but new incongruous Notions, which must at last be attacqued, to force them to confess that their meaning is the same with that which others long have taught.
POSTSCRIPT.
I Must entreat the Reader, when he judgeth of the Second Case, (about the Interest of Works with Faith, in our Title to Life) to remember, That the Question is not;
- 1. About Works of Innocency.
- 2. Nor Works of the Mosaical Law.
- 3. Nor Works meriting of God by their worth, in point of Commutative Justice, (or the foresaid governing Legal Justice.)
- 4. Nor of any Acts of Obedience to Christ as Christ as antecedent to Faith and Justification.
- 5. Nor of External good Works of Charity, as antecedent to Faith, or to our first Justification.
- 6. Nor any Works, to which is given the least part of that which is proper to God, to Christ, to the Spirit, to the Promise.
But I must entreat him to see the Case stated in the Preface to my Disputations of Justification, and to remember that those that I oppose do hold;
1. That Faith itself, as an Act of ours, is part of the Works to be denied as a Means or Condition of our Justification, and so a part of that Subordinate Righteousness, and that we are justified by it only as an Instrument.
2. They say, That he seeks the prohibited Justification by Works, who looketh to be justified by believing in Christ • s Teacher, King, or any Act of Faith besides the receiving his Righteousness.
3. Much more he that thinketh Repentance, Love to Christ, Desire of him, Prayer for Pardon, &c. or any other Act of Man, is a Means or Condition of our Justification or Pardon: To be justified by any such Act but as part of the Condition, is to be justified by Works.
4. Much more to make sincere Obedience the Condition of Continued or Final Justification in Judgment. See the rest of the Controversies in the aforecited Preface and Books. And also in my Pacification or Catholic Theology, where this Cause is handled positively and defensively: And he that blameth me for writing so many Books of the same thing, should be one that first considereth how many Books and daily Invectives and Censures of Men that never understood the Cause, have called me to it, and made it necessary. Four or five Divines rose in Holland, especially at Frankera, (notwithstanding the excellent Ames his better endeavors) who have owned ill Definitions of God's Covenants, and laid the Foundations of Antinomian Libertinism, (especially Maccovius, and Cluto, and Cocceius, and Cloppenburgius too much consented) making the Covenant in Constitution to be nothing but Election by Eternal Decree, and the Covenant in Execution, to be the fulfilling or execution of that Decree of Election in all our Mercies; and Justification to be but God's eternal Decree, and Man's Justification in Conscience, and before Men, with other such confounding Notions; when verily the better Description of God's Kingdom, Laws, and Covenants should be in our Children's Catechism; and should not be unknown to Learned Men; nor should they thus learnedly possess many honest godly (but not long and througly studying) Ministers, with such Notions which corrupt their Conceptions, their Charity, their Sermons, and their Converse as hindrances of Truth, Piety, Love, and Peace.
A POSTSCRIPT, ABOUT Mr. DANVERS 's Last BOOK.
WHen this Book was coming out of the Press, I received another Book of Mr. Danvers against Infants Baptism, in which he mentloneth Dr. Tullius proving what a Papist I am, in his Justif. Paul. (with Dr. Pierces former Charges) and lamenting that no more yet but one Dr. Tully hath come forth to Encounter me, Epist. and Pag. 224. The perusal of that Book (with Mr. Tombs short Reflections) directeth me to say but this instead of any further Confutation.
That it is (as the former) so full of false Allegations set off with the greatest Audacity (even a few • ines of my own about our meeting at Saint James 's left with the Clerk, grossly falsified) and former falsifications partly justified, and partly past over, and his most passionate Charges grounded upon Mistakes, and managed by Misreports, sometime of Words, sometime of the Sense, and sometime of Matters of Fact; in short, it is such a bundle of Mistake, Fierceness and Confidence, that I take it for too useless and unpleasant a Work to give the World a particular Detection of these Evils. If I had so little to do with my Time as to write it, I suppose that few would find leisure to read it: And I desire no more of the willing Reader, then seriously to peruse my Book (More Reasons for Infants Church-membership) with his, and to examine the Authors about whose Words or Sense we differ. Or if any would be Informed at a cheaper rate, he may read Mr. Barrets Fifty Queries in two sheets. And if Mr. Tombes revile me, for not transcribing or answering more of his Great Book, when I tell the Reader that I suppose him to have the Book before him, and am not bound to transcribe such a Volume already in Print, and that I answer as much as I think needs an Answer, leaving the rest as I found it to the Judgment of each Reader, he may himself take this for a Reply; but I must judge of it as it is.
I find but one thing in the Book that needeth any other Answer, than to peruse what is already Written: And that is about Baptizing Naked: My Book was written 1649. A little before, common uncontrolled Fame was, that not far from us in one place many of them were Baptized naked, reproving the Cloathing way as Antiscriptural: I never heard Man deny this Report: I conversed with divers of Mr. Tomber 's Church, who denied it not: As never any denied it to me, so I never read one that did deny it to my knowledge: He now tells me Mr. Fisher, Mr. Haggar, and Mr. Tombes did: Let any Man read Mr. Tombes Answer to me, yea and that Passage by him now cited, and see whether there be a word of denial: Mr. Fisher or Haggar I never saw: Their Books I had seen, but never read two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. Fishers, though I numbered it with those that were written on that Subject, as well I might: I knew his Education and his Friends, and I saw the Great Volume before he turned Quaker, but I thought it enough to read Mr. Tombes and others that wrote before him, but I read not him, nor all Mr. Haggars: If I had, I had not taken them for competent Judges of a fact far from them, and that three years after: Could they say, that no one ever did so? The truth is that three years after, mistaking my words, as if I had affirmed it to be their ordinary practice (as you may read in them) which I never did, nor thought, they vehemently deny this: (And such heedless reading occasioneth many of Mr. Danvers Accusations). I never said that no Man ever denied it; for I have not read all that ever was written, nor spoken with all the World: But no Man ever denied it to me, nor did I ever read any that denied it. And in a matter of Fact, if that Fame be not credible, which is of things Late and Near, and not Contradicted by any one of the most interested Persons themselves, no not by Mr. Tombes himself, we must surcease human Converse: Yet do I not thence undertake that the same was true, either of those Persons, or such as other Writers beyond Sea have said it off. I saw not any one Baptized by Mr. Tombes or any other in River or elsewhere by Dipping at Age: If you do no such thing, I am sorry that I believed it, and will recant it. Had I not seen a Quaker go naked through Worcester at the Assizes, and read the Ranters Letters full of Oaths, I could have proved neither of them. And yet I know not where so long after to find my Witnesses: I abhor Slanders, and receiving ill Reports unwarrantably: I well know that this is not their ordinary Practice: The Quakers do not those things now, which many did at the rising of the Sect; and if I could, I would believe they never did them.
2. This Book of Mr. Danvers, with the rest of the same kind, increase my hatred of the Disputing Contentious way of writing, and my trouble that the Cause of the Church and Truth hath so oft put on me a necessity to write in a Disputing way, against the Writings of so many Assailants.
3. It increaseth my Grief for the Case of Mankind, yea of well-meaning godly Christians, who are unable to judge of many Controversies agitated, otherwise than by some Glimpses of poor Probability, and the esteem which they have of the Persons which do manage them, and indeed take their Opinions upon trust from those whom they most reverence and value; and yet can so hardly know whom to follow, whilst the grossest Mistakes are set off with as great confidence and holy pretence, as the greatest Truths. O how much should Christians be pitied, that must go through so great Temptations!
4. It increaseth my Resolution, had I longer to live, to converse with Men that I would profit, or profit by, either as a Learner hearing what they have to say, without importunate Contradiction, or as a Teacher if they desire to Learn of me: A School way may do something to increase Knowledge; but drenching Men, and striving with them, doth but set them on a fiercer striving against the Truth: And when they that have need of seven and seven years Schooling more, under some clear well studied Teacher, are made Teachers themselves, and then turned loose into the World (as Samson's Foxes) to militate for and with their Ignorance, what must the Church suffer by such Contenders?
5. It increaseth my dislike of that Sectarian dividing hurtful Zeal, which is described James 3. and abateth my wonder at the rage of Persecutors: For I see that the same Spirit maketh the same kind of Men, even when they most cry out against Persecutors, and separate furthest from them.
6. It resolveth me more to inquire less after the Answers to Men's Books than I have done: And I shall hereafter think never the worse of a Mans writings, for hearing that they are answered: For I see it is not only easy for a Talking Man to talk on, and to say something for or against anything, but it is hard for them to do otherwise, even to hold their Tongues, or Pens, or Peace: And when I change this Mind, I must give the greatest belief to Women that will talk most, or to them that live longest, and so are like to have the last word, or to them that can train up militant Heirs and Successors to defend them when they are dead, and so propagate the Contention. If a sober Consideration of the first and second writing (yea of positive Principles) will not inform me, I shall have little hope to be much the wifer for all the rest.
7. I am fully satisfied that even good Men are here so far from Perfection, that they must bear with odious faults and injuries in one another, and be habituated to a ready and easy forbearing and forgiving one another. I will not so much as describe or denominate Mr. Danvers Citations of Dr. Pierce, to prove my Popery and Crimes, nor his passages about the Wars, and about my Changes, Self-contradictions, and Repentances, lest I do that which savoreth not of Forgiveness: O what need have we all of Divine Forgiveness!
8. I shall yet less believe what any Mans Opinion (yea or Practice) is by his Adversaries Sayings, Collections, Citations, or most vehement Asseverations, than ever I have done, though the Reporters pretend to never so much Truth, and pious Zeal.
9. I shall less trust a confounding ignorant Reader or Writer, that hath not an accurate defining and distinguishing Understanding, and hath not a mature, exercised, discerning Knowledge than ever I have done; and especially if he be engaged in a Sect (which alas, how few parts of the Christian World escape!) For I here (and in many others) see, that you have no way to seem Orthodox with such, but to run quite into the contrary Extream: And if I write against both Extreams, I am taken by such Men as this, but to be for both and against both, and to contradict myself. When I write against the Persecutors, I am one of the Sectaries, and when I write against the Sectaries, I am of the Persecutors side: If I belie not the Prelatists, I am a Conformist: If I belie not the Anabaptists, Independents, &c. I am one of them: If I belie not the Papists, I am a Papist; if I belie not the Arminians, I am an Arminian; if I belie not the Calvinists, I am with Pseudo-Tilenus and his Brother, purus putus Puritanus, and one Qui totum Puritanismum totus spirat (which Joseph Allen too kindly interpreteth): If I be for lawful Episcopacy, and lawful Liturgies and Circumstances of Worship, I am a temporizing Conformist: If I be for no more, I am an intolerable Non-Conformist (at this time forced to part with House, and Goods, and Library, and all save my Clothes, and to possess nothing, and yet my Death (by six months Imprisonment in the Common Goal) is sought after and continually expected. If I be as very a Fool, and as little understand myself, and as much contradict myself, as all these Confounders and Men of Violence would have the World believe, it is much to my cost, being hated by them all while I seek but for the common peace.
10. But I have also further learned hence to take up my content in God's Approbation, and (having done my duty, and pitying their own and the Peoples snares) to make but small account of all the Reproaches of all sorts of Sectaries; what they will say against me living or dead, I leave to themselves and God, and shall not to please a Censorious Sect, or any Men whatever, be false to my Conscience and the Truth: If the Cause I defend be not of God, I desire it may fall: If it be, I leave it to God how far He will prosper it, and what Men shall think or say of me: And I will pray for Peace to him that will not hate and revile me for so doing. Farewell.
September. 4. 1675.