The Covenant Sealed

SECT. V. The five supposititious Sacraments of Rome Examined.

IN the next place we are to make it appear that there are in New-Testament-times, only two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. In this we may be more clear, seeing none is set up in competition with any fair color. And here the five suppositious Sacraments of the Church of Rome offer themselves; which are either such which (according to them) belong to all in general, or those that are restrained to some in peculiar. Of the former sort there are three, Confirmation, Penance, and Extreame Unction. Of the latter two, Orders, and Marriage.

SECT. VI. Confirmation no Sacrament.

THe first of these is Confirmation. For discovery of which we must leave the fountain of Scriptures, to rake in the dunghill of Popish Writers. In case therefore we should dwell too long in it, the Reader would be in danger to nauseate it; yet perhaps it may not be ungrateful to look into it, to see the mercy of our deliverance from it. Though they put it after Baptism in order, yet with them it goes before it in honor. In Baptism we are made the servants of Christ: in Confirmation they become his Champions or Soldiers; Confirmation therefore perfects what Baptism begins: and before confirmation, baptized ones are only one half Christians; The lowest Priest may therefore ordinarily baptize, and any other upon emergent necessity: but the Bishop only may confirm. Concerning this the Council of Trent hath determined: If any shall say, that confirmation of baptized ones, is an idle Ceremony, and not rather a true and proper Sacrament, or that heretofore it was nothing but a certain Catechism in which young persons of growth, gave a reason of their faith before the Church, let him be accursed. And now it is time for all that have sworn to that Council to see that they defend it. I shall briefly out of Bellarmine lay down the whole of it. The matter of it he lays down in four propositions. 1. Chrism or Unction is the matter of Confirmation. 2. The matter of Confirmation is not simple oil, but oil mixed with balsam. 3. Chrism which is the matter of confirmation is first to be consecrated and blest. 4. The ointment of Chrism ought to be made in the form of a cross in the forehead of the baptized person, that it may be the true and immediate matter of this Sacrament. The form of this Sacrament is this, I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation in the Name of, &c. The fruit of it is, 1. To confer grace, to strengthen the soul against Satan's assaults. 2. To confer an indelible character whereby men are received into the Army of Christ, as in Baptism they are received into his family; so that it may not be reiterated anymore then Baptism. The Minister of this Sacrament is only the Bishop, and no other; He that administers other Sacraments, hath nothing to do with this Sacrament. The Ceremonies are twofold. 1. At consecration. 2. At administration. At consecration there are four Ceremonies. The Oil and Balsam are blessed with prayer, with the sign of the Cross. The Bishop breaths certain times on the ointment, he salutes it with these words. All hail holy Chrism. At the administration there are eight Ceremonies. There must be a Godfather present, prayers must be used over them, the Bishop gives a pax to the party now confirmed, he gives him a blow upon the face, the forehead must be bound with a fillet, some say seven days, others only three. The head must not be washed, nor the forehead for seven days space. It must be administered at the feast of Pentecost. Lastly, it must be done with fasting. When all this is considered we may well think that Austin was much deceived, when he said that the Sacraments of the New Testament are few and easy. Bellarmine in order to prove this to be a Sacrament, lays down three requisites in a Sacrament. 1. A promise of grace. 2. An outward sensible sign as an organ or instrument to convey the promise. 3. A command of God for administration. But all of these we say are wanting in this Supposed Sacrament, and therefore according to himself it is no Sacrament. The promise of grace he thinks he finds in the fourteenth, fiftenth, and sixteenth Chapters of S ^t . John 's Gospel: where the Holy Ghost is promised to the Apostles, to make them valiant and undaunted in the profession of the faith. And, Luk. 24. where they are commanded to tarry at Jerusalem until they be endued with power from on high. And, Act. 1. where they are promised to receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon them. Here if our Author may be heard, is enough. A divine promise, and that in Scripture, made to men baptized, for a larger measure of grace, for strength, for confession of faith. But our acute disputant should show us where this promise is made to his Chrism made up of oil and Balsam. and thus crossed and blessed. 2. He should remember that he himself tells us, that the Apostles had this promise made good unto them without this or any sign at all. 3. He might have found many of these promises in Old-Testament times, which yet made up no such Sacrament in those days. The outward sensible sign he finds, Act. 8. where it is said, They put their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. But, 1. Papists use no imposition of hands in this supposed Sacrament. 2. In other Sacraments, both we and they make the outward sign and matter, to be one and the same; why is it then that imposition of hands is the sign, and other things the matter? 3. The gifts there mentioned are not saving, but miraculous, proper to those times, and not found in ours. 4. Those were conferred before Baptism as well as after, Act. 10.44. Who can forbid water that these should be baptized, seeing they have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? The command from God Bellarmine will prove from the Apostles use of this sign; If God had not enjoined imposition of hands, they would not so ordinarily (saith he) have laid on their hands in conferring of gifts. Answ. 1. we look for a command for that which our adversaries do use, viz. their Chrism, Balsam, Cross, and not for imposition of hands, which they use not. 2. John did baptize, yet our Author will not allow that for a proof that he had a command to baptize. 3. The pen-men of the Holy Ghost wrote Scripture, yet that is no proof with him, that they had a command to write 4. Alex. Hal. part. 4 quaest. 9. affirms that Christ the Lord did neither institute nor dispense this Sacrament as it is a Sacrament. 5. Thomas Aquinas is more modest likewise, as we heard before when we spake to the Author of Sacraments, confessing that their Chrism is not found in Scriptures, and he excuses it as not belonging to the being but solemnity of Sacraments, therein confessing that all that belongs to the being of Sacraments ought to be written in Scriptures. But though his answer is more modest, yet it is less advised; that which all his fellows make the matter of this Sacrament, he denies to belong to the being of it.

The ancient use of that which afterwards did degenerate into this soppery, Bellarmine out of Chemnitz lays down in six Propositions. 1. When a child baptized in infancy comes to discretion, he is to be instructed in the principles of Religion, and then to be brought before the Church, and put in mind of his Baptism, how and why he was baptized. 2. He is to utter a profession of his own faith according as he hath learned. 3. He is to be examined in the principal heads of Christian Religion. 4. He is to be admonished that hereby he now differs from Heathens, Heretics, and all of profane opinions. 5. There is to be added an exhortation concerning the vow of Baptism, and the necessity of perseverance in the doctrine. 6. This is to be concluded with prayer. And if laying on of hands be used, it may be well done, saith Chemnitz, without any superstition. But when care in Catechizing, and examination is wanting, it is no better (saith he) then an idle Ceremony, and with addition of the forementioned Ceremonies a mere foppery.

SECT. VII. Penance no Sacrament.

THe next that they would obtrude upon us as a Sacrament is Penance; Satan not enduring the grace of Repentance, hath made it his business to rob us of the Word, and to bring in that of Penance in the stead of it, leaving little that is of God in it, and making it up with the device of man. It is not my work in this place to speak to Repentance, as it is held forth in the Gospel to us, and to be practiced of Christians, whether as it is inward, the change of the mind and will from evil to good, from Satan to God; or outward, in answerable works of obedience. We confess a necessity of it in this sense, in the highest degree, a necessity as well medii, as praecepti, being not only enjoined by command from God, but of that necessity that salvation cannot be obtained without it, Luk. 13.3. Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish; but the Sacramentality of it, which they assert, we wholly deny. Our souls having all made shipwreck in our first parents, and upon that account made liable to wrath, the first plank for safety they say is Baptism; in which all sin, Original, or Actual, before contracted is actually pardoned; and that Sacrament is (as they say) of no further use, for the pardon of any sins following after it. The second plank for safety after shipwreck with them is Penance, which is a following Sacrament for remission of sins, not so easy as the former; but attended with more trouble, consisting of three parts, Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction. The first of these aright understood, we willingly acknowledge to be a Christian duty, and a necessary requisite to the grace of Repentance, 2 Cor. 7.10. Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to Salvation not to be repented of. Upon sense of sin, we are brought to turn from sin. Confession we likewise acknowledge, knowing with Job, that it is an evil to hide our sins as Adam, Job 31.33. and that the Apostle tells us, If we confess our sins, God is just and faithful to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, 1 Joh. 1.10. But that which they would bring in, which is a whisper of all in a Priests ear, in order to take from him some bodily Penance, and accordingly receive his absolution, we deny, and well know that it were a vain labor to search into the Scriptures, or antiquity for it. Satisfaction we so far receive, that offenders to public scandal, must make that public acknowledgement, that the Church may with freedom receive them into communion. But for satisfaction to God, we must let it alone forever, unless we will shoulder Christ out of that function, and take it upon our own persons; he will never suffer that we should be sharers with him in it, and so we should be forever on the work (as the damned in hell are) and never able to go through with it. This is, as though a man were fined of his Prince, as much as the servant in the Parable was indebted to his Lord, ten thousand talents, and should attempt to pay it with a few pence of a counterfeit coin of his own stamp, making good a lesser crime with high treason. And whilst these add all this of their own, they leave out the very whole of that, which according to Scripture is essential to repentance, which is a thorough change, and amendment of our ways. And how they got it into their heads to thrust it among Sacraments, a man might think of it, even to amazement. And they themselves are so confounded about it, that they know not how to find anything of a Sacrament in it. Bellarmine says, that they affirm with great consent; that Penance is a Sacrament but confesses, that there is difference among them, to assign what in Penance is the Sacrament; here then sure is a glorious agreement. And it were easy to multiply arguments against it. 1. There is no outward visible sign appointed of God in this Penance of theirs, with any promise annexed, which even adversaries confess is of necessity to the being of Sacraments. Bellarmine (who makes everything to be visible that is any way sensible) says, That both confession, and absolution, is a visible sign in Penance; so that the words of the Penance-taker, and Penance-doer concur together to make a visible sign, and this sign in that way visible, as he can make it, he only affirms, but never proves to have any Divine institution. And his brethren, Scotus, Major, Gabriel, Dionys. Cistersiensis, deny that confession is any part of Penance, as Ames observes; and Soto denies, that absolution is any part of it. 2. Repentance was in use in the Church, and of equal efficacy as now, when yet by their own confession it was no Sacrament, viz. in the time of the Law, in the time of John the Baptist, and of our Savior Christ; and therefore now it is no more a Sacrament then it was then. 3. Baptism is of the same use, and serves for the same purpose, as that which they imagine to find in their Penance, and engages to Gospel-Repentance for remission of sins. And this is an undoubted confessed Sacrament, and there needs not therefore any fiction of a second. And the Reader may find this so at large disputed in Chamier, Vorstius, Ames, that I shall cease to add anymore concerning it.

SECT. VIII. Extream unction no Sacrament

THe third which they obtrude, is Extream Unction: A rite which they administer upon men's departure out of this life, as a viaticum to carry them hence. And Bellarmine undertaking to make it good by reason, saith, It is meet that men should have support by divine providence in their departure out of the Church, as they have in their entrance into it. As they are saluted with a Sacrament, so he would have one for their farewell likewise. It is then wonder that the Jews had not one to answer Circumcision, as they have now found out one to answer Baptism. Providence it seems was then wanting in that which the Jesuit thinks meet should then have been provided. The matter of this Sacrament is, oil olive blest by the Bishop. The form is in these words, By this holy ointment and his most tender mercy God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast offended by sight, &c. The effect of it is, first, the healing of the body if it be found good for the soul; though they never apply it, till this be desperate. Secondly, the taking away of the remainders of sin; but what sin, they cannot determine. The Minister of it is a Priest, consequently a Bishop, if he please. For the subject capable of it, six qualifications are required: 1. He must be a Christian. 2. A weak one. 3. One dangerously sick and weak. 4. One of years, with the use of reason. 5. One not excommunicated. 6. One that hath taken confession and absolution, if he be found guilty of sin. Ceremonies used in this Sacrament are two: 1. The Litany and certain other prayers must be repeated. 2. Seven parts of his body must be anointed, viz. eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, by reason of the five senses, and the reins where is the seat of concupiscence, and the feet upon account of the loco-motive faculty. But whether all of this be essential, they are loath to determine. They have two only Texts which they offer to produce to establish this Sacrament. The first is, Mark 6.13. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. This Bellarmine denies to hold out any Sacrament, and see also Jansen upon the words, likewise Ruardus, Soto, as Bellarmine tells us. Bellarmine is induced to this opinion, as he says, because Luther, Calvin, and Chemnitz hold, that the ointment, Jam. 5. & Mark 6. are both the same. And he will make an hard adventure towards the loss of a Sacrament, rather then he will join so far with such heretics in opinion. And this Text also together with that of James 5.13. is rejected by Cajetan, as he is quoted by Chamier and Ames. It doth not appear (saith he) either from the words, or from the effect that these words speak of the Sacramental anointing of extreme unction, but rather of that ointment which the Lord Jesus instituted in the Gospel to be applied by his disciples to the sick; For the Text doth not say, Is any sick to death? but absolutely is any sick? And the effect is the raising up of the sick: And it speaks of forgiveness of sins no otherwise then conditionally, when extreme unction is not given but even at the point of death. And as the form of it speaks, it tends directly to the pardon of sin. Besides, James commands that many Elders be sent for to one sick person, and many for prayer, which is not done in extreme Unction. So that when there are but two texts pretended for this Sacrament, one Cardinal hath robbed them of one, and another of both. Against the Sacramentality of this oil we have these arguments. 1. Sacraments are for all the covenant-people of God in general, without respect had to this or that condition, and this is for the sick only. 2. Sacraments are signs and seals of spiritual grace, this is a sign only of recovery from sickness, being appointed for the sick to raise them up. And whereas it is objected that pardon of sin is here mentioned; it is plain that it is only mentioned in order to the cure of the bodily infirmity, and to be obtained by prayer, not wrought by the oil. The pardon of such sin that may have brought upon the patient any such sickness, as, 2 Chron. 7.14. When the Land is under famine or pestilence, there the Lord says, If my people that are called by my Name, do humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear in heaven, and pardon their sin, and heal the land. The pardon of the Lands sin is there in order to the removal of the Lands judgment. The pardon of the sin of the sick patient, is here for his healing likewise. Much more might be spoke against our adversaries use of it. They limit it to Oil olive, when Scripture speaks of Oil in general. They must have the Bishops blessing upon it, when Scripture hath no such thing; And in Scripture he that administers a Sacrament, is sufficient for the blessing of it. No one word of their form is found in the Scripture. They never intend recovery when that yet is the whole of Scripture-intention. For a right understanding of this text in James, about which most of the controversy lies, it is not so easy to determine. It stands much upon matter of fact, and we are at too great a distance, for any clear discovery. It is ordinarily understood of a Miraculous power, as that other text, Mark 6.13. must be understood. And the miraculous gift ceasing, the rite (say Divines) would soon appear ridiculous; and that it doth cease, we need no more for proof then our own experience; and in case it had constantly held, it would have been looked upon as ordinary, and not miraculous. But I ingenuously confess, I see more difficulties attending this interpretation, then I know well how to salve. 1. I see not in any age of the Church, any rule given to all that were sick, to look after a miraculous way of healing; but that they made use of it as providence extraordinarily did offer the opportunity. 2. Had they had direction from God to seek for a miraculous cure, it should still have answered their expectation, when yet that is denied on all hands. And whereas it is said, that they that had this power, had also with it a spirit of discerning to whom to apply it; why should then the command be given to all promiscuously to inquire after it? 3. Miraculous gifts were for healing of deaf, dumb, blind, as well as sick persons; (as Bellarmine not impertinently observes) why then are only the sick here mentioned? 4. It seems to imply that all Elders of the Church had this gift of healing, which is contrary to that text, 1 Cor. 12.29, 30. Others understand it of a medicinal power in the oil, but all Elders were not Physicians, and one oil would not cure all diseases. Some speak of it as an hieroglyphick or outward Symbol which was in use amongst the Jews, to hold out anything that is spiritual; but it is very doubtful, whether the Apostle would permit, much less can I think that he would prescribe the use of these to Christians. I most readily therefore subscribe to that of Ames, which I confess gave me great content when I found it in him, that so I might not be said to be alone in the opinion This oil (saith he) may be taken Synecdochically for any healing medicine whatsoever; And answering Bellarmine's objection, why direction is here given only to the sick, and not to the blind, &c. he says, that it is given only to them, because the Apostle speaks not of the miraculous use of oil only, but the way to deal with sick persons. So that miracles where the gift was, are not excluded, but all means, whether ordinary or extraordinary, according to the Apostles prescript, are to be applied. The Elders are to be sent for (saith he) especially for prayer and consolation; but so that the use of means upon that pretence be not neglected, so that it is little other, than that which Christ gave in charge concerning the damsel that he had raised to life, that something should be given her to eat, Mark. 5.43. Some, as is said, have made an essay to revive this custom in these times, and in their visit of the sick, will follow the Apostle in the letter, they will pray, and praying will anoint with oil likewise. I would that these would give some distinct account of their proceedings. 1. Whereas there are in the world so many sorts of oil, even beyond number, whether any that is called oil will serve the turn? Trayn-oil (which yet in most places is readiest) would sure be thought too gross to be employed in it. 2. To what part of the Patient they do apply it; and in what quantity? In our colder clinates, and especially in colder seasons, instead of helping perhaps this liquid stuff may soon wrong weak persons. 3. What effect they expect from it; whether corporeal, or spiritual, or a mixture of both? 4. Whether they use it as an instrument, to work that which they expect upon application of it, or only a symbol for assurance that God will work? If they make use of it as an instrument, it must either be for conferring of spiritual grace which (as we have heard) is denied to Sacramental signs, or else for the obtaining of bodily health; then they must see that it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , otherwise they are in danger not only to use it in vain, but for harm. If they make use of it as a symbol or sign to assure that God will work, then let them first produce a promise: there the effect is attributed not to the oil, but to the prayer of faith; and secondly, let them acquaint us how to discern those unto whom we may with success apply it, otherwise we shall not only lose our oil and our labor, but expose it unto scorn likewise. And it cannot be expected that all should be thus healed.

SECT. IX. Orders are no Sacrament.

THe fourth which they would obtrude upon as is Orders, or the solemn way of the call of Ministers to their functions. This, or rather these; they will have to be a Sacrament properly so called. And these Orders are divided into seven, and one of the seven is subdivided inco two so that this one Sacrament if it hit right, hath gained seven more, and so they have fourteen Sacraments. The first of these is, the office of Priesthood, which they subdivide into two; Bishops, and Presbyters, which as they say, differ in order, and not in degree only, as a Bishop, and an Arch-Bishop; and therefore must have distinct Ordinations. The next is of Deacons, to assist the Priest in all things which are done in the Sacrament. The third is, Sub-Deacons, to bring the Chalice and Patin, the Cruse with water, and Towell, to the Altar. The fourth is Door-keepers, to receive the Keys. The fifth Readers, to read Scriptures in unknown languages. The fixth Exorcists, to cast out unclean spirits. The last Acolythes, to carry Torches or Tapers when the Gospel is read, or the sacrifice to be offered. Bellarmine tells us that the Ordination of Presbyters is a Sacrament by the consent of all, and he himself determines, that the Ordination of Bishops is a Sacrament, and according to him there is no other Scripture-Ordination, seeing all the Scriptures that speak of it, speak (as he says) of the Ordination of Bishops; though he multiplies Authors denying their Ordination to be any Sacrament. Ordination of Deacons, he says, is very probable, and to be believed that it is a Sacrament, though it be no Article of faith to believe it; which he proves, because it cannot be evidently deduced out of the Written Word, or tradition: Neither is there (saith he) any determination of the Church for it. For Sub-Deacons, he says there is not that certainty as of Deacons, yet (he says) it is very probable that it is a Sacrament, though he hath such an argument against it, as that none but himself will be ever able to answer. Imposition of hands, he says, (and proves out of the fourth Council of Cartharge, Canon 5.) is not used in it, and yet his whole ninth Chapter is spent to prove, that imposition of hands is essential in this Sacrament. It is a Sacrament, save only that it wants the essentials of a Sacrament, as do indeed all their five supposititious ones. The four last which with them are the lesser Orders, have not, (as he says) that probability that they are Sacraments, as that of subdeaconship: yet the opinion that affirms their Sacramentality, is far more probable then that which denies it. Their learned Council are not yet agreed, what is the matter of this, or these Sacraments, whether it be the imposition of hands, or the holding out of such an instrument, as belongs to their function, as a Chalice to the Priest, &c. The words uttered to each respectively, when such an instrument is delivered, are the form. The effect of these is, 1. A Spiritual and perpetual power for discharge of their function, of which the indelible character is a token. 2. Saving grace for a right discharge of their function. The Minister of these is a Bishop, and the Ceremonies, Anointing, and Shaving. That the Ordination of Ministers for their function is Gospel Ordinance, we willingly grant, and that no man should take upon him this honor, to deal for men in things appertaining to God unless he be called, as Aaron; Tymothy was this way called to the work, 1 Tim. 4.14. and he hath a directory given him for the call of others, 1 Tim. 5.22. Titus is left in Crete for this purpose, Tit. 1.5. and Paul and Barnabas, in every City where they come, act in it. Yet it is far short of the honor of a Sacrament properly so called. The outward rite of imposition of hands was used, not so much for significancy, as decency, being an usage in religious acts, of solemnity before the Law, under the Law, and continued in Gospel-times, as standing with the simplicity of it; yet we dare not with Bellarmine, make it essential to Ordination, finding no institution of it for a sign, much less any saving grace annexed to it by way of promise; so that here, both an outward instituted sign, and inward grace are wanting. •• ither is it such in which all the people of God are interested. One peculiar order only can claim to it. In the time of the law, this was in use, and yet by their own confession, it was then no Sacrament. And it is very strange, that not only power given for administration of Sacraments, should be a Sacrament, but authority to open the door for these that come for the Sacrament; as for other Ordinances, should be a Sacrament likewise. The greatest thing that adversaries talk of is, that Calvin in Instit. lib. 4. cap. 14. sect. 20. saith, that he can willingly suffer Ordination to be called a Sacrament; but they are unwilling to take notice that he denies to number, or reckon it among Ordinary Sacraments, and therefore it is plain, that he takes the word in a more large acceptation then ordinary: which is further clear in that in his Comment on Jam. 5.14. he makes the oil which Christ's Disciples used, Mark 6.13. for the time that the use of it continued to be a Sacrament, when yet he restrains the whole effect or fruit of it to the health of the body only, which falls far short of his famously known definition of a Sacrament; so that Ordination neither according to Scripture nor Calvin is to be accounted a Sacrament.

SECT. X. Marriage no Sacrament.

THe last Sacrament which they would obtrude upon us is Marriage, which they have determined to be a Sacrament, as well as the rest that serve to make up the number, whilst the solemnizing of it holds; and the parties are upon the work. The words, or signs expressing consent (according to Bellarmine ) is both matter and form of this Sacrament: But when the work is over, then the married couple, in their persons are the matter; and the words or signs are the form. The married persons expressing their consent in any manner whatsoever, are themselves the Minister of this Sacrament. Cano seeing how great a dishonor it is to Sacraments, to make that which is acted in the most profane and clandestine manner, a Sacrament, resolves that the words of the persons, thus expressing consent, are the form of the contract of Marriage, and that upon that account marriage is valid; but it is no Sacrament, according to him, unless it be done by a lawful Minister; but this Bellarmine opposeth as a singular and new opinion. A Sacrament then, according to him, is, wheresoever a marriage is, and marriage is, where consent of Parties is expressed; though in the lewdest way, by persons under Parents power, and not at their own dispose, by divine appointment. We willingly yield it to be an Ordinance, established by God, but very short of the nature or honor of a Sacrament, for divers reasons: 1. It was the same, as it [Reas. 1] is now, from the beginning; and yet all that space of time from Adam to Christ's coming in the flesh it was no Sacrament, by our adversaries confession. 2. It is an Ordinance [Reas. 2] in common for mankind, and no Ordinance peculiar to the Church; The whole world of mankind have their interest in it; and Sacraments are known to be only Church-privileges. 3. All the people of God are not tied to it: some [Reas. 3] have their liberty to abstain from it; and all Sacraments are under a precept; yea, according to our adversaries, it is a degree of perfection unto merit in all to keep out of it, and unto men of some orders a defilement. Lastly, as Durand [Reas. 4] doth observe, The whole that is done in it speaks its own use and signification, and the use and signification of Sacraments wholly depends upon divine institution. They have nothing that bears any color to say for the Sacramentality of it, save that Text of the Apostle, Ephes. 5.32. where the Apostle having illustrated that love, which is due from the husband to the wife, by that similitude of the love of Christ to the Church, concludes, This is a great Mystery: and having spoke, both of the union betwixt Christ and the Church, and between man and his wife; to prevent all mistakes, he adds, but I speak of Christ and his Church; so that first we have not the word Sacrament there, but the word Mystery, which by Bellarmine's own confession is not elsewhere in Scripture to be understood of any Sacrament: and Cajetan on the words (as Ames observes) warns the prudent Reader to observe, that we have not from Paul in this place, that Marriage is any Sacrament. So that neither word nor thing is found in Scripture, that Marriage is a Sacrament. Everyone of these might have born a large discourse, as is well known to all that are verst in these controversies. But so many having spoken so fully to them, though I was unwilling (intending a Treatise of the Sacraments,) wholly to omit them, yet was resolved, that the Reader might not be overburthened, to be as brief as possible in them.

THE INTRODUCTION.

REverend, Beloved, and much Honoured, I have received your Apology, according to your appointment, from your Stationer, for which I return you hearty thanks, as for the gift itself, so for the pains that you have taken to rectify me, where, in your judgment, I have publicly stepped aside. An error in Divine things, if it stand alone, without addition of further aggravations, is not light. Truth being of such divine excellency, that no pensil can draw out; all deviation from it into opposite error must needs answer, in black deformity, and darkness: But when it is not simple error, but joined with endeavor to engage others, it is far above itself in fowlness. To reduce a brother therefore, not only erring, but thus erring, must needs be an high, acceptable office of love. But in this, I need to do no more, than to say over to you, what you have said to me, in your first and second page, which you style your Prologue. In this (if we both speak our hearts & thoughts) we are one. And I wish that in all other things, there were a like unity in judgment, and the time I hope (with some confidence) is near at hand, that all mists and clouds will be so dispelled, that we shall arrive at perfect union. And as for infinite other reasons, so for this, glory is infinitely desirable. In order to a right understanding between us, I must acquaint you, that your first words, after your Christian salute, have their mistake, though not much material; whether upon mistake of my words, when I last saw you in Shrewsbury; or failing in memory, I cannot determine. I told you not, that I had then sent to the Press a treatise of the Covenant • , but wished you, indeed, not to be offended, in case I should in such a treatise, publish somewhat in the way that you mention. In which I do not barely oppose my memory to yours; but also the witness of the Reverend Brother, whom you know was then present: together with the computation of time, which speaks it to me to be above contradiction. It was May 3. that we spake together; as I well know by the errand, that I had at that time into those parts: and my book saw not the light, till towards the end of November following; and yet made speedy haste, after it went out of my hands. I was glad of the opportunity, as of a brief discourse of some things, (as the little scantling of time would bear,) so also to understand your mind, in the thing already mentioned, before any further proceeding, that there might be no unbrotherly difference, which at that time you expressed with all possible candor, for my encouragement in that way. Yet, you now complain, that I have given the first onset, and so put you upon a necessity of this way of dealing against me; which you mention in your Preface Apologetical, and in this Prologue, and more at large in the Preface of your Confession: preferring in your judgment a more private Collation, and enquiry into things, before this public way of appearing in the Press. And indeed, I had it in my thoughts to have written to you, before I had any settled resolution at all, anymore to have appeared in public; & had done some little that way, as soon as your Aphorisms came to light, (which was more than three years and an half, before my treatise of the Covenant was published, as may be seen, comparing the dates of either) but after-thoughts took me off: And indeed I see no cause of Repentance; considering the issue of things between you and others. After so much pains of writing on both sides, I do not hear that any of those eminently learned men, which you say from most parts of the land have taken this way, to impart their animadversions, have at all prevailed to change your mind. Neither do I hear, that any of your replies have wrought any change in them for satisfaction. And in the mean space, those elaborate writings on both sides, are buried in your Study and theirs; and no other, but yourselves, have any benefit at all; Only we have their complaints (such is human frailty) that their names suffer in your public writings. As to the Charge against me for making the first onset, I had not appeared at all, had I not upon other occasions (which may be seen in my Preface) been put upon it, to come out in open view. And how far I stand guilty of that in which I stand charged, I desire the indifferent Reader impartially to consider. In that of Sacramental Seals, you had given me at least some occasion. When I had delivered myself in private to you, and also made my judgment public, that they seal conditionally; you are pleased peremptorily to determine the contrary. Herein being not alone unhandsomely censured by your Quaerist, (with whom you there deal) but terminis terminantibus by you also gainsaid. I indeed make mention of your name, yet so, as almost wholly agreeing with you in the thing in question, and differing in some notions and expressions only. In which, I made it my work to beat out the right meaning, for a true understanding; and in language, I hope, altogether without offense; And therefore that piece was scarce worthy the name of a difference. In one or two more problematicall things, I likewise mention your name, taking notice of your opinion; perhaps with some dissent, as we are constrained to deal with all, since the pen-men of the Holy Ghost completed that Canon. But for the points that are worthy the name of controversial, (whether already inserted into the forgoing treatise, or following in this Post-script) the Reader may see, that your name is not so much as once mentioned, unless it be with approbation. I was loath indeed to appear your professed adversary, and more loath, to honor those Tenants of which I had no other esteem, with the mention of your name. Had you held like course with me, how inobservant would the differences have been that are between us? Not many that read your Aphorisms, read my treatise, and so on the contrary: and all Readers would not have observed the author of arguments, when the Man industriously is concealed. The offense of Br. against Bl. and Bl. against Br. would, howsoever have been avoided. I had indeed many debates with myself, whether or no I should not have totally waved all, that in opposition to that which I intended to publish, you had delivered. My inclination to peace, and that great respect I had to you, led me strongly that way. On the other hand, being resolved upon a tract, in that method, and way, that found you in full oppposition; Conscience of duty (to appear against all, where I was convinced that truth was opposed) put me upon it to deal with your arguments, yet with resolution to let alone your name. So, that I think, the indifferent Reader will judge you, rather than I, (respective to these bickerings in this Apology of yours, where, in this public way, you deal with me) to be the beginner. You are pleased to tell the Reader in the Preface to your Confession, that you have used more care to avoid offensive words to me, than any other; which cannot but much engage me. But truly Sir, to speak of things, as they are, I am apprehensive of not a little gall, in the ink that thou spent upon me, and take myself to be much more bedabled through your writings, than the cause required. And indeed it is seldom the cause that I defend, that hears so much (which yet must fall before arguments, & not words,) as my weakness, as you endeavor to hold it forth to your Reader. Were it alone my thoughts, exceptions might soon be put in; but being all Readers thoughts, (as I think) as well as mine, there is no likely-hood that I am much deceived. I may over-value myself, but others will not be so hasty to put that over-high esteem upon me. Let your Index speak, which appears in the vann; Many eyes will fasten there, that perhaps will look no further; And what honorable language Mr. Bl. upon all occasion hears, will soon be discerned. But I hope I have learned better than to make returns; If I can, I fain would avoid it. But to leave the Porch, and to get more near into the House. You see my thoughts in three particulars already laid down, in the preceding treatise. I was there resolved to wave nothing that fairly came into my way; nor to take in anything that was impertinent to the work in hand. The first, I must confess, is most in my thoughts, viz. The interest that faith, which is short of justifying, gives to Baptism. In which you are pleased to charge me with a doctrine of a very dangerous nature; Though in all that you have said, I hear not a word of any dangerous consectary that follows upon it. And truly, Sir, if I should have a thought of changing my opinion, I know not how to look to the end of the danger that will follow. I must first necessarily engage myself, in an everlasting Schism; being not able to find out a Church in the world of any interest, in which I shall dare in this account to hold Communion. I shall see in many members (unless I offer violence to my judgment) too clear symptoms of non-regeneration; and unbelief, as to that faith which justifies: And though this will not bear a separation (as is clear in all the examples that we find to the contrary in the Scriptures, and the Epistles wrote from heaven to the Churches in Asia ) yet this consideration of their non-baptism, will necessarily enforce it. Church-communiō is not to be held with any that are no Church-members; But all in non-regneration (according to this tenent) are no Church-members, upon account of their non-baptism, or their null-baptism. And if I meet with men that are able to give a good account, (and as to men satisfying) of their regeneration; yet if there ever were a time, since their baptism, that they were unregenerate, that concludes the nullity of their former baptism. And being Baptized upon the account of their Fathers faith, That failing and falling short of that which justifies (as often it doth) Their baptism fails; and I must upon my new taken up principle, renounce Communion, till they have made all good by a new baptism. And if I shall betake myself to the Antipaedobaptists (for so many of them as I do know, where I now live, or have lived, or hear of by report) I must upon all occasions among them plead for Anabaptism; So slender signs of regeneration, but all on the contrary, being too evidently manifested for the most part by them. The great reason that ever I could gather from the principles of Antipaedobaptism, why God should so blast that way, wheresoever it appears (as you, after Bullinger, Bucer and many others, have abundantly shewn) is, the Schism in which they unavoidably engage themselves. The whole face of Christianity through the world, had their baptism in infancy; and this proving no more than the sprinkling of a little common water, and mere mock-baptism, they are eo nomine, put upon a separation, and necessitated to disband themselves, and deny society to the whole Church on earth. The like will (as appears to me) here follow upon this principle, That only the faith that justifies, gives title in a man of years, either to his own (if unbaptized) or to his Childs baptism, upon the grounds before mentioned. And If I be here holpen out (as indeed I utterly despair) by any distinction of Forum Dei, or Forum Ecclesiae, Univocall, or Aequivocall; what thoughts then shall I entertain of the Holy Scriptures? As you say of an opinion that you oppose, Confess. pag. 5. when you do but open the Bible, you can seldom meet with a leaf that is not against them; And I think your Hyperbole is very tolerable; The same, I think, I may assert of this opinion which here I oppose, if you except the book of Genesis, and that needs not wholly to be excepted, as Gen. 6.1. doth witness. After the Church was gathered into a visible body in Abraham, the leaves are very rare, through the Old and New Testament, in which a man may not find, testimonies, or instances, of a people in Covenant-relation to God, and received by Circumcision, or Baptism, into a Church-state, in an unregenerate condition. Let Mr Ball be consulted in his Friendly trial, pag. 192. What high titles, implying a Covenant-relation, are given to men of most vile qualifications? To which many more might be added. They are called (saith he) by God himself, His People, His Children, A chosen People, An holy Nation, The peculiar People of God, The Daughter of Zion, The Daughter of his People, His pleasant Plant, A right Noble Vine. To which may be added, Children of the Kingdom, Children of the Covenant, Heirs of the promise, Saints, Believers, Disciples, Together with many compe • l • tions, I am God, even thy God, &c. And all of this (as this Reverend Author shows) of a People that were a stiffnecked People, Foolish and Unwise; That did rebel against the Lord, That did not understand, were a most Sinful Nation, As Sodom and Gomorrah, passing Sodom and Gomorrah in iniquity. Here is enough to speak a Covenant, and upon that account, interest in Circumcision and Baptism. Yea these were called, The People of the Lord, and the People of his holiness. And to come off with such distinctions, that they were aequi • ocally, not univocally, nomically & not really such; That they had these names, as a Corps, or Picture hath the name of a man, is that boldness with Scripture on which I dare not adventure; Especially finding those great advantages and privileges in Scripture annexed unto them. May not the worst of Antinomians, whom you follow with just indignation, give like answers, and find like starting holds? when they deny any necessity of good works, and we bring Scripture Texts in the fullest and plainest way against them, May not they reply, that all this is respective to our carriage towards men, and not, as to any notice that God takes of them, either as to displeasure or acceptance? That they are not necessary in foro Dei, but in foro humano only. As Trask in a journey that he made into Stafford-shire, there delivered, That a Christian was to live amongst men, as though he were under the obligation of the Law of God, (or words to that purpose) but must not account himself obliged. And I once heard one that had got into a Pulpit, pretending to advance Christ, (but in such a way, as I hope I shall hear no more) mentioning Sanctification, he said, There was such a thing indeed respective to man, but God regards it not; And objecting the Apostle's words 2 Cor. 8.12. If there be a willing mind, it is accepted, according to that which a man hath, and not according to that which a man hath not, This he said was not any acceptation of God, but of the Saints. I must confess the gloss with me, is alike in the one, as in the other; and either of both, such, as the Text will not bear. Not that I charge all that hold that tenent, as so highly guilty. They see not (as is plain, in that they deny) the connection between them, as the Ubiquitaries deny that anything that they hold is destructive to the human nature of Christ; but with me, the consequences before mentioned, are palpable. And if on the other hand, when God says Hear O my people, and I will testify against thee, I am God even thy God, Psal. 50.7. I entered covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine, Ezek. 16.8. I shall believe that God speaks as he thinks; and that this covenant-relation is real, and not barely equivocal, or nominal; I cannot see any danger that follows upon it. To leave this to your further thoughts, and the Readers more serious judgment, I come to that which is behind, which I think I may reduce to these three heads.

1. Those things, wherein you and I really differ in judgment.

2. Those things, in which there is an agreement between us.

3. Those things, which we on either side problematically dispute, and inquire into.

In the first, I believe your business is to beat down error, and find out truth; In the second, your end might be judged to be only to discover my weakness, (being satisfied with my Tenent, but unsatisfied it seems with my reasons) but you profess other, and better intentions; In the third, I believe that amidst what seems doubtful, you would fain find out that on which you might fix as certain. In all of these I would willingly be brief upon a several account. 1. There is none of them in which this Treatise doth directly engage me, and that, at this time is my work; And I think I had never appeared at all in any of these, had not this work led me to it. 2. I would not be thought to have a mind to differences, when indeed my endeavor is to take my mind off them. 3. I doubt I shall put the Reader to too much cost and pains. The Book itself is of that bulk (though I hope of a necessary subject) that he may be tired, before he comes at the Postscript.

SECT. I. Faith in Christ, quà Lord, is not the Justifying Act.

THe first of those points which you have made choice of, is, That the acceptation of Christ, as a Lord, and not only as a Priest, doth justify, In opposition to some passages of mine Chap. 12. pag. 79. of my Treatise of the Covenant. In all of which, as I do not name you, so I think there is never a sentence that is positively yours; so that, had not you thus owned it, few would have observed it. I there say what you repeat, [That, it is true, that faith accepts Christ as a Lord, as well as a Savior; but it is the acceptation of him, as a Savior, not as a Lord, that justifies: Christ rules his people as a King, teacheth them as a Prophet, but makes atonement for them only as a Priest, by giving himself in sacrifice, his blood for remission of sins: These must be distinguished, but not divided: Faith hath an eye at all, The blood of Christ, The command, The doctrine of Christ; But as it fastens on his blood, so it justifies. He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.24. not through faith in his command. It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin; and not the Soverainty of Christ. These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship, and the special offices of faith, may not be suffered. Scripture assigns each it's particular place and work; Sovereignty doth not cleanse us, nor doth blood command us: Faith in his blood, not faith yielding to his sovereignty, doth justify us. ]

In your reply to this passage of mine, you

1. Acquit me of any further error, then what is found in my method, affirming, that I agree with you in substantiâ rei.

2. You lay down six several distinctions.

3. You lay down nine propositions. All of which, both distinctions and propositions, I believe you intended for illustration of the point in debate, but your Readers (and those neither of the younger nor duller sort) complain of your obscuring of it.

4. You fall upon your charge of me, and here you charge, 1. My expressions, with confounding that, which was my business, as well as I could, to distinguish. 2. You charge my implications, or implied sense (which it seems you far better know then I) with triple injustice. 1. Against the truth and word of God. 2. Against the souls of men, 1. In such nice mincing & cutting the conditions of their salvation, to their great perplexity, if they receive my doctrine. That which all complain of, in your expressions, you are pleased to blame me withal in my implications. Upon the coming out of your Apology, I was wrote unto by an eminently-learned hand in these words. I wish that it may not divert you from better employment, and namely your Treatise about the Sacraments, to which if you adjoin as an appendix, something by way of reply to Mr. Br. not so as to trouble yourself and others, (as Mr. Br. doth too much) with Logical niceties, but to clear and confirm the main matter, I think it will be most convenient. 2. I am charged, as not affording one word of Scripture or reason; when yet in those few words recited, I think the reader may see as many as in all your distinctions and propositions. Lastly and leastly (as you term it) my charge is of evident injustice to my friend, (For it is, as is said, no hard matter to know who I mean) in charging him with confounding the distinct parts of Christ's mediatorship. I am expressly spoke to, and charged without injustice for confounding Christ's actions, with man's faith; How truly let the Reader judge; And am yet guilty of injustice, in charging my implied friend, in my implied sense, with such a crime.

5. You excuse yourself, for your not much troubling me with arguments; Giving your reason, that you have done it, over, and over, to others. Where I would have the Reader to observe, that you have other Adversaries, besides me, in this point, and those of the most learned, who (as else where you say) have vouchsafed that condescension as to give in animadversions. 2. That we hear none of these learned men's reasons. A few words of mine let fall by the by, are fallen upon, and elaborate learned Treatises of others lie dormant, industriously written on this subject.

6. You come in with your ten arguments; which it seems you take to be a number below trouble. It would trouble you, If I should say, your implied sense is, That they are such, to which I may without trouble give in an answer.

7. You amplify your tenth argument, with a large discourse, and all of this before you can reach my words. I should trouble the Reader in his purse and patience, if I should follow you in all these particulars, and indeed I was scarce ever brought so near to a non-plus. To speak to all, Time will not suffer; and to take to some, and leave others, will expose me to censure. Your distinctions should be looked into, and if they had been either proved or explained, you had done your Reader a Favor. Your first distinction is between Constitutive Justification, or remission by the Gospel-grant or Covenant; and Justification by the sentence of the Judge. I hope you do not make these two distinct Justifications, that so it should be a distribution of a Genus into its species, So I think few Readers will own it. But if you mean by the former, a Justification wrought, and in itself perfect and complete, as your word constitutive would seem to imply; And by Justification by the sentence of the Judge, Justification manifested and declared, then I freely yield. That is Justification in itself, perfect and full, that renders a man blessed; And this your constitutive Justification, which you call remission by the Gospel-grant doth, Psal. 32.1. Commented upon by the Apostle, Rom. 4.7, 8. Whether the Elect shall have any other justification, or this manifested, and more fully held out, let Christ himself determine. At the day when God by him shall judge the world, he will pronounce this sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, Matth. 25.34. This Justification then by the sentence of the Judge is a manifestation of this blessedness, which is in remission and non-imputation of sin. Your next distinction is between, Constitutive Justification as begun, and as continued or consummate. And here I doubt not but you may distinguish, provided that you donot divide and make one condition to be required for the first, (as you use to do) viz. Faith only, and another (which is works) the condition of the second; When David through faith was put into a justified state, and after fell into sin, there was a necessity of his return in the order established of God. You may say, if you please, that works must now acquit him from this second guilt: but this I shall hardly embrace. He sought in his fallen condition, to have sin by free grace remitted, and to be purged with that, which Hysopin Ceremonial purifications did typify, Psal. 51.7. A justified state is carried on in a way of obediential affiance; But faith in Christ's blood, first and last doth only justify. The Apostle speaks of the falls of the Children of God, when he says, If any man sin, 1 John 2.1. and tells us the way to be aquitted, not any new, but the old and first way: We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sin; And I know no other way of propitiation, then through faiths in his blood. I know what you say, Pref. to your Confes. pag. 8. if I number right, They are very different questions, How we are constituted just, or put into a justified state at our conversion; & How we are sentenced just, or justified at God's Judgment seat. You may if you please make them two questions, but were I to be Catechized by you, I should give you the same answer. And I believe Paul was of the same mind, when he desired to be found, (as I think, in judgment) not having his own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. I think he could find no other, which would be as a Screen, or cover, to hide sin, or keep off the wrath of God. He knew nothing by himself; He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent; Yet he was not thereby justified, 1 Cor. 4.4. Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience, they are all within the command of the Law; and I dare not rest there for Justification. And the Apostle acquaints us with no other way then faith for interest in this righteousness. You farther say in in the place quoted: They that will needs (to the great disgrace of their understandings) deny that there is any such thing as Justification at Judgment, mu • t either say that there is no Judgment, or that all are Condemned; or that judging doth not contain Justification and Condemnation, as its distinct species; but some men shall then be judged, who shall neither be Justified nor Condemned. All men have not their understandings elevated to one pitch, I know no Justification to be expected then, specifically distinct from that which did precede. I would for the bettering of my understanding learn, whether this Justification at the day of Judgment be not a Justification of men already justified, yea of men already in possession of their Crown, (except of those who then are found alive) though not complete, in regard of the absence of the body; I have fought a good fight, (says the Apostle) I have finished my course, henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteousness, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown. This must needs be, unless we will be of the Mortalists Judgment, to deny any separate existence of the Soul; Or of theirs that assert the Souls-sleeping: both of them against the Apostle, who saith, To be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord, 2 Cor. 5.8. And upon that account, had a desire to depart, & be with Christ, Phil. 1.23. which present advantage seemed to him to over-weigh, or at least to balance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labor surviving. Your third distinction is between the Physical operation of Christ and his benefits, on the intellect of the Believer, per modum objecti apprehensi, as an intelligible species; and the moral conveyance of right to Christ, and his benefit, which is by an act of law, or Covenant-donation. If you call the first a Justification, then very bad men, in the Church on earth, and the worst of Devils in hell, may be justified: They may have such operations upon their understanding. You seem else where to distinguish between the acceptance of him by faith, and this moral conveyance of right. Your fourth distinction is between those two question, What justifieth ex parte Christi, and what justifieth or is required to our Justification ex parte peccatoris. Which as it is laid, is without exception. Your fifth is, between the true efficient causes of our Justification, and the mere condition, sine qua non, et cum qua: Which I can scarce tell whether to approve or disapprove; with your comment upon it, I have spoken to it. Your last distinction is between Christ's meriting man's Justification, and this actual justifying him by constitution or sentence, which, as the fourth, is above exception.

Your propositions offer themselves in the next place to consideration.

1. You say, Christ did merit our Justification, or a power to Justify, not as a King, but by satisfying the justice of God in the form of a servant. This I embrace with thanks, and do believe that it will draw more with it.

2. You say, Christ doth justify constistutive, as King and Lord, viz. ut Dominus Redemptor, i. e Quoad valorem rei, he conferreth it, Ut dominus gratis benefaciens; But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi, Ut Rector et Benefactor. For it is Christ's enacting the New Law, or Covenant, by which he doth legally pardon, or confer remission, and constitute us righteous, supposing the condition performed on our part. And this is not an act of Christ as a Priest or Sacrificer, but jointly, Ut Benefactor et Rector. Hereto me are termini novi, and Theologia nova. But let the terms alone of Dominus, Redemptor, Rector, Benefactor, That which you ascribe to Christ in this place, (so far as I understand) Scripture still gives to the Father. Christ gave himself for us, indeed, according to his Fathers command; but the Father gives him to us, and he that gave his Son, appoints the terms on which Justification and Salvation is to be obtained by him, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, John 3.16.

So that this New Law (if you will call it so) is of the Fathers appointment, John 6.40. This is the will of him that sent me, that everyone who seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life. And in this sense, if we will follow Scripture, The Father justifies, Rom. 8.33, 34. It is God that Justifies, whche is that condemneth? Christ's work, is to work us into a posture, to obtain it. The Father judicially acts in it.

3. You say, Christ doth justify by sentence as he is Judge, and King; and not as Priest. Answ. If he justify by sentence, Then he condemns by sentence, when yet he says, J 1.47. He judges, (that is) condemns none. The truth is, as the Psalmist speaks, God is Judge himself, Psal. 50.6. and the Apostle tells us, he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by the man whom he hath ordained, Act. 17.31. This unquestionably Christ doth as King; but in this Kingly power, he is no other then the Fathers Agent, who hath set him on his holy Hill of Zion, Psal. 2.6. He is therefore at the Fathers right hand, as prime in power for that work. Those that are next to him, that is chief, are so seated, and Zebedees Children looked for it, in Christ's temporal Kingdom. When this is done, Christ's mediatory power will be finished, and he shall give up his Kingdom to the Father.

4. You say, Sententiall Justification, is the most full, complete and eminent Justification, That in Law being, quoad sententiam, but virtual Justification. Answ. To this I have spoken upon the first distinction.

5. You say, Faith justifies not, by receiving Christ as an object; which is to make a real impression and mutation on the intellect; according to the nature of the species, I say to justify is not to make such a real change, &c. Answ. To this I have spoke under that head of the instrumentality of faith. The works ancedent to this of Justification, as Humiliation, Regeneration, faith, imply a real change. Such a change is wrought in the Justified Soul, though the act of Justification do not work it.

6. You say, Faith can have no physical causation or efficiency in Justification, seeing that the work to be done by us, is not, nosmetipsos Justificare either in whole or in part, &c.

7. You say, The legal formal interest, or conducibility of faith towards Justification, cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law sense, &c.

I have spoken to both of these in the place last mentioned.

8. You say, Scripture doth not say (that you can find) that faith justifies, but that we are justified by faith, and therefore (you say) you use the latter phrase, rather then the former. Ans. This sure comes to fill up, or make a number, To say that we are justified by faith, and not that faith justifies, is a distinction without a difference: We have warmth by Clothes, but Clothes do not warm u • . Faith hath no less efficiency in Justification, then in miraculous cures, and yet in them faith made whole.

9. You say, Though ex parte Christi, our several changes proceed from his several benefits, and parts of his office exercised for us; Yet ex parte nostri, i.e. fidei, it is one entire apprehension or receiving of Christ, as he is offered in the Gospel, which is the condition of our interest in Christ, and his several ben fits; and the effect is not parcelled, or diversified, or distinguished from the several distinct respects that faith hath to its object, &c. Answ. It is well that this is confessed, on the part of Christ. And I think you cannot show, why Christ should undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorship, and make them known to us likewise; That we should be taught in our Catechism (which is so honored with your approbation) That Christ executeth the office of a Prophet, in revealing to us by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our Salvation; That he executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering up of himself a Sacrifice to satisfy divine Justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us; That he executeth the office of a King in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, if our faith is not to observe, which way these various privileges accrue unto us; Why does the Scripture so distinctly speak of them, if we may not distinctly consider them? Must our intellect go without our faith in this thing? I think it may be proved, that the Saints faith, hath thus distinctly acted. In danger of enemies they go to God in Christ, in consideration of his sovereignty, As Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 20.6. O Lord God of our Fathers, art not thou God in heaven, and rulest not thou over all the Kingdoms of the heathen, and in thy hands is there not power and might, So that none is able to withstand thee? &c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher, We see the censure that the Psalmist passes upon himself, So foolish was I and ignorant, I was as a beast before thee, and presently addresses himself to God, Thou shalt Guide me with thy counsel, and bring me unto glory, Psal. 73.22, 24. Under the burden of sin, to look to be cleansed and purged; To what else did the sacrifices tend? and why else did David make his address? Wash me thoroughly from my sin; Deliver me from blood-guiltiness. Here I must lay down certain propositions, in a more full way to explicate myself.

1. That these several functions of Christ must be distinguished, but may not be divided; He that is one is all, Christ a Priest doth rule, Christ a King doth merit and teach, Christ a Prophet doth both merit and rule: But as a Priest he doth not rule, as a King he doth not merit; he is still one, in all of these functions, but acts under a distinct notion.

2. There is a necessity of the actual improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office, to bring men into a Justified state; and to bring Justified ones to the end of their Justification. There must be light to lead men to Christ, power to subdue men unto him, as well as a price paid to reconcile them. When the price of our redemption is paid by Christ, and not published, it is like the hid treasure, by which no man hath advantage: Yea, were it made known, and by faith applied and brought home, our enemies yet are so potent and numerous that they would still prevail against us. Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Justice, we must be rescued by a power out of the hands of Satan; When his right determines, (as it is with many unjust possessors) he will yet keep his hold.

3. Our faith hath respect to whole Christ, to every part and piece of his Mediatorship. It yields to his sovereignty, is guided by his counsel, and rests in his atonement. So that the faith which Justifies looks at his Kingly office, at his Prophetick office, as well as at his Priestly office, but not as it justifies. Quà teaching, it looks upon him as a Prophet, and learns; Quà ruling, it looks upon him as a King, and submits to him; Quà sacrificing, and making atonement, it looks upon him as a Priest, and rests there for acquitall and discharge. Where the Gospel distinguishes, our faith is distinctly to act and look.

As to the charge laid against me, I shall say little. I had rather speak for truth then for myself. You tell me, that my expressions confound Christ and his actions, with man's faith in our Justification, or these two questions [by what we are Justified ex parte Christi] and [by what we are Justified ex parte nostri.] For answer, I only leave it to the Readers eyes, whether I do not mention, [our faith] as distinct from [the blood of Christ] in the words by you recited; And it is faith by which we are Justified ex parte nostri. The implied sense which you accuse, I shall further consider in some express reasons.

Now for your arguments, we have ten in number, and not above two of them conclude the proposition in question.

Your first concludes, That Christ is not received as Christ, if not as Lord-Redeemer, which is a new phrase, which I remember not, that I have read before I read this Apology. For Answer, I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer, and as our Master or Teacher, but faith in Justification, eyes Redemption, not Dominion.

Your second concludes from the authority of the Assembly, That Justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, as he is offered in the Gopel; But he is offered in the Gospel as Savior and Lord. All which is that which never was denied.

Your third concludes, That to save from the power of sin, is as true a part of a Savior's office, as to save from the guilt, which is not at all to the question. Saving from the power of Sin, Sanctifies, and not Justifies.

Your fourth, Of faiths receiving Christ, as he Justifies us, affirming, that he Justifies us, as King, & Judge, and Benefactor, is the same, for ought I can discern, with your tenth, and there is to be considered.

Your fifth is, If receiving Christ as Satisfier and Meritor, be the only faith that gives right to Justification; then on the same grounds we must say, It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification. If you put this argument into form, the word [meritor] will be found aequivocall, and the Syllogism to consist of four terms. We look at Christ for Justification, as satisfying Justice, and meriting pardon and remission, not as meriting Sanctification.

Sixthly you say, Rejecting Christ as a King, is the condemning sin, therefore receiving him as King, is the Justifying faith. This is like the old argument, Evil works merit condemnation, Ergo good works merit salvation. An ill meaning damns, Prov. 21.27. Our good meaning therefore saves. I further answer, Rejecting Christ as a King, is a sin against the Moral Law, which damns: Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required, that a sinner may be saved. You give in your reason of your consequent, Because unbelief, say you, condemneth, (at least partly) as it is the privation of the Justifying Faith; explaining yourself, that you speak of that condemnation, or peremptory sentence, which is proper to the New Law. To this I answer, Unbelief, if we speak properly, doth not at all condemn, further then as it is a breach of a Moral Commandment. The privation, of which you speak, only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us: which me thinks should be your judgment as well as mine, seeing you are wont to compare the New Law (as you call it) to an Act of Oblivion, And an Act of Oblivion saves many, but condemns none: If a Traitor, or Murderer be exempted in any such Act of Oblivion, it is their crime that condemns them, only the Act provides no remedy for them. It harms them not, only it does not help them. If one of those which were stung by the fiery serpent, Numb. 21. had refused to have looked on the braz • n serpent, The sting had been his death, and such obstinate refusal had kept him from the means of cure.

Your seventh is, Kissing the Son, and submitting to him, as King, is made the condition of escaping his wrath. Answ. If you had said A condition, you had spoken fairlier [The condition] implies the sole condition. The yielding up of ourselves to him in all his functions, as the Lord's Christ, verse. 2. is there understood, which is of necessity in all that will escape his wrath.

Eighthly, you say, Matth. 11.28, 29, 30. The condition of case and of rest (from guilt as well as power of sin) is our coming to Christ as a teacher and example of meekness and lowliness, and our learning of him, a taking on us his yoke and burden. Answ. This text shows the duty of men to be, not alone to seek rest and ease from Christ, but to learn of Christ, and follow him: But neither their learning nor their imitation, but faith in his blood, is their freedom, or Justification.

Ninthly, you say, That faith which is the condition of salvation, is the condition of Justification or remission: But it is the receiving of Christ as King, as well as a satisfier, that is the condition of our salvation; Therefore, &c. Answ. Here the Conclusion is safely granted. You know that we yield, that the faith that accepts Christ as a King, Justifies: But that is not the Justifying act. The hand hath more officers then one; It works as well as receives; and so hath faith. And that there is more req • ired as a condition to Salvation then to Justification, (speaking of it in Scripture phrase) you yield sufficiently, where you distinguish of Justification begun, the condition whereof is faith only, and Justification consummate, there you bring in Repentance and Obedience; That which you call Justification begun, is Justification properly so called. Faith only is serviceable to reconcile us unto God; but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications, to hold us up in communion with God. Of this I have spoke, Chap. 1.2, 13, 14. of my treatise of the Covenant.

Your tenth and last reason is, If accepting Christ a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Justificat, i. e. quae est conditio Justificationis, then it is merely, strictly, and properly the Justifying act of faith, as the accepting of Christ's righteousness is: But the Antecedent (you say) is granted by all Divines that you have to do with: Therefore, &c. Answ. If they grant your Antecedent simply, as in this phrase you deliver it, I much marvel. This seems to imply that Christ acted quà Lord, in paying the price of our Redemption: and that this work of his, is to be referred to his exaltation, and not to his state of humiliation: And I am sure the Scripture speaks otherwise. That which I yield is, That the faith which accepts Christ who is our Lord and Redeemer, is the faith which Justifies, and the condition of our Justification; But as it looks upon Redemption a sacrificing act of Priest-hood, done by him who is indeed a Lord and King, sit only Justifies. But this distinction of Fides quae Justificat, and Fides quà Justificat, is (as you are pleased to say) the general cheat, so that your Antecedent it seems is granted you, by all those Divines with whom you deal, under this limit; And as it seems, you have met with a pack of impostors, & that of the most learned in the Land, that out of their great condescension, have written for your satisfaction. This word, you think, sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon, as indeed it doth, and is no small blemish to his great pains, you may then judge how it will take from yourself, in the ears of others: And I much marvel that this distinction, that everywhere else would pass, and be confessed to be of necessity, to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities, in which men usually act, should here not alone be questioned, but thus branded. Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variously act according to them? And do not men that make address, address themselves in like variety? He that is at once, a Husband, a Parent, a Master, a School-master, a Physician, acts variously according to all of these capacities. Some come to him as a father, some as a Master, some as a Teacher, all of them come unto him, as a Physician; But only they that come to him, as a Physician, are cured by him. Believers through faith go to Christ, that bears all the relations mentioned; But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding, which is an act of his Priest-hood, they are justified. Learned Ames may worthily be ranked in the first place amongst those that you thus honor. As soon as he enters upon the dispute of justifying faith, in answer to Bellarmine's first question, What that faith is that is required to justification? he says in the name of Protestants, This is either unskilfully or sophistically put to the question, giving in his reasons. 1. Saith he, There are many things required to justification, which do not justify. 2. It is not so much inquired into, what that faith is, which do's justify; as in what notion it is that it is said to justify? And giving answer to farther words of Bellarmine, he saith in the same page, that Protestants do not restrain the faith [which] justifies, but faith [as] it justifies, to the promise of mercy. Much more may be seen in this Author in his next Chapter, Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to consult at pleasure. And together with it, that which may be seen largely in Chemnitz, enquiring into the proper object of justifying faith, in his Examen Council: Trident: mihi pag. 159. under this head, Quid vere & proprie sit fides justificans, & quo sensu scriptura velit intelligi, quando pronunciat impium fide justificari.

I shall here take the boldness to give in my arguments to make good, that faith in Christ, quà Lord, doth not justify.

1. That which the types under the Law, appointed for atonement and expiation, lead us unto in Christ, our faith must eye for atonement, expiation, and reconciliation; This cannot be denied; These Levitical types lead us doubtless to a right object, being School-masters to lead us unto Christ, and shadows whereof he is the substance; As also to that office in him (who is the object of faith) that serves for this work: But these types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office, for the most part as Sacrificing, sometimes as interceding, John 1.29. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Pet. 1.18. A great part of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a proof of it.

2. That which the Sacraments under the Gospel, setting forth Christ for pardon of sin, lead us unto, That our faith must eye, for Reconciliation, Pardon, and Justification; This is clear, Christ in his own instituted ordinances, will not misguide us: But these lead us to Christ suffering, dying for the pardon of sin, Mat. 26.28. This is my blood in the New Testament shed for you, and for many for the remission of sins. Here is a confirmation of both these arguments in one; The types of the Law, and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, lead both of them to his blood, for this reason of atonement and forgiveness. There was an Old Testament enjoin'd of God, in which the people in covenant were sprinkled with blood, Exod. 24.1, &c. commented upon by the Apostle, Heb. 9.20, &c. That blood, and this cup, lead to Christ's blood for forgiveness, and in them the death of Christ is remembered. A broken, bleeding, dying Christ, in the Lord's Supper is received.

3. As the Spirit of God guides faith, so it must go to Christ for propitiation and atonement; This needs no proof; The Holy Ghost is the best leader: But the Holy Ghost guides our faith to go to the blood of Christ for atonement, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, Ro. 3.25. It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy seat: We are justified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. And faith is our way of interest, and thither the Spirit of God, by the Apostle, leads our faith, as we see in the words mentioned. I am checked indeed by you, because I say, through faith in his blood, not faith in his command: quo jure nescio, say you. My reason, or warranty is; because I durst not add to the Apostles directory; when he leads us one way, I dare look no other. If he had intended to have led us to Christ as a propitiation, without further direction, under what notion our faith should have looked upon him; It had been enough to have said, that he is our propitiation: but distinctly pointing out [his blood] and [faith in his blood] I think I have warrant sufficient to lead souls hither, and only hither: especially seeing I find him still in the same language, Rom. 5.8, 9. God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath, through him. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of our sins, Ephes. 1.7. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. For as much as ye know that we were redeemed —with the precious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish. You demand, Will you exclude his obedience, resurrection, intercession? To which I only say, I marvel at the question; If I exclude these, I shall exclude his blood; His shedding of blood was in obedience, John 10.18. Phil. 2.8. His resurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death, and an evidence of our discharge by blood: His intercession is founded on his blood; He intercedes, not as we, by bare petition, but merit: He presents his blood as our high Priest in the holy of holies. You tell me further, that the thing I had to prove, was not the exclusion of [faith in his commands] but of [faith in Christ as Lord and teacher.] I can no more distinguish [Lord] and [command] then I can [blood] and [sacrifice] it being the office of a Lord to rule, as of blood to make atonement. You yet tell me, It was fittest for Paul to say [by faith in his blood] because he intends to connote both what we are justified by, ex parte Christi, and what we are justified by, ex parte nostri, but the former principally. To this I say, If this were fittest for Paul, then it is unfit for any to come in with animadversions, and tell us of any other thing, either ex parte Christi, or ex parte nostri, for justification. I pray you rest here, and we are well agreed. Here is Christ's Priestly office on his part alone, and I am resolved to look no further.

4. Our faith must look upon Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him, by virtue of which we may appear before God as righteous: But it is by his obedience as a Servant, that we obtain righteousness, and stand before the Lord as righteous, Rom. 15.19. By the obedience of one, many are made righteous.

5. That way that Christ took to bring us to God, our faith must eye and follow: But Christ by death, the sacrifice of himself, brings us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.

6. As Christ frees us from the curse, so he justifies us, and in that notion our faith must look unto him for justification. This is plain; Justification being no other but our acquittall from the curse, which is the sentence of the Law of Moses, Acts 13.38. But Christ frees us from the curse, in suffering as a sacrifice, not ruling as a Lord, Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.

I said in my Treatise of the Covenants, [there are several acts of justifying saith, Heb. 11. but those are not acts of justification. It is not Abraham's obedience, Moses self-denial, Gideon's or Samson's valor, that was their justification, but his blood that did enable them in those duties by his Spirit; Paul went in these duties as high as they; and I doubt not, but he overtopped them; yet he was not thereby justified.] Here are many exceptions taken. 1. At the phrase [an act of justification] with much ado made to know my meaning, when I had thought all had well enough understood it: You would fancy that I mean that justification itself acts, speaking of it, not as an object, but an efficient; but I must acquaint you, that it implies, that justification acts, when I speak of the acts of justification, as it doth, that harvest works, when I speak of harvest-work. I mean acts tending to justify, or exercised in, or about justification. 2. It is demanded, Who knows whether you mean that none of those acts, Heb. 11. are acts of justification? The proper importance of your words, say you, is for the former: but that, (say you) is a dangerous untruth, giving in v. 13. as an exception against it. Answ. I intended the generality of those acts there ascribed to faith, in that indefinite speech of mine, which you cannot make necessarily to be universal. You have justly made exception of one, verse. 13. which in my ministerial way, preaching on those words, I have interpreted, as you say, our Divines do. It see • s by you, that I have our Divines in the rest siding with me. 3. You tell me, you should not (in my judgment) have called [Abraham's obedience, Moses self-denial, Gideon's valor] acts of justifying faith. Are these acts of faith? If you mean, (say you) that these acts are fruits of faith, it is true, or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the soul, &c. Answ. And should the Apostle have then said that they were done by faith? Is not this his error, as the former is mine? I pray you what was that [work of faith] that the Apostle mentions, 1 Thes. 1.3? Faith wrought and acted somewhat. 4. You demand, what mean you to say, obedience and valor was not their justification? Answ. If no act of faith, sano sensu, by an ordinary Metonymy, may be said to be justification, make then a comment upon the Apostles words, Rom. 4.3. where to overthrow justification by works, and to establish justification by faith, he says, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: which is as much as, it was his justification. That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain justification, is not unfitly called justification. Faith in Christ's blood is such a plea, and therefore not unfitly called our justification. Your fifth and sixth need not to have been put into two; Then how come you to say next, (say you) that it is Christ's blood? The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification, &c. But I thought the contest in your dispute had been, which is the justifying act of faith, and which not? And therefore when you denied those in Heb. 11. to be acts of justification, (which I am forced to interpret [justifying acts] I expected to find the true act asserted; but instead of that, I find the opposite number, is [The blood of Christ.] Is this indeed the controversy? Whether it be [accepting Christ as Lord] or [the blood of Christ] that justifieth? Never was such a question debated by me, in the way here intimated. I am wholly for you, if this be the doubt. H • re you meet with the greatest advantage, that I think in my Treatise you anywhere find; when I say, [these acts were not their justification] and put in opposition, [but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit,] it should have been faith in his blood who did enable them to these duties; but each one may see, and some have said, (that before we read this objection of yours,) that it is plain that I meant it. S • venthly you tell me, It would prove an hard task to make good that there are several acts of justifying faith by which we are not justified, without flying to great impropriety of speech. Answ. I believe you think, that justifying faith includes in it, all those kinds of faith that Scripture mentions, as Faith Dogmatical, or Historical, and (in all that had the gift of miracles,) Faith-miraculous. They had not one faith, whereby they had their interest in Christ, and another whereby they gave assent to Divine truths, and a third whereby they wrought miracles: And to say that we are justified by such assent, or they, by such miracles, I think were a speech more then improper. You say further, That by justifying faith, I must mean the act, habit, or renewed faculty. And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts, that I should mean the last. Then you would willingly engage me in a dispute, whether that the acts and habits of man's soul, are of so distinct a nature, that where the acts are specifically distinct by the great distance and variety of objects, yet the habit producing all these is one and the same. To which I say no more for answer, but that I shall take it for granted, till I see (as yet I do not) convincing reason against it. Eighthly you tell me, that 1 Cor. 4.4. is nothing to our business. Paul was not his own justifier. Though he knew not matter of condemnation (sensu Evangelio) for no doubt he knew himself to be a sinner) yet that did not Justify him; because it is God only that is his Judge. Answ. I believe that you give a right comment on the Apostles words, as to the first branch. He was one whose heart, as John speaks, condemned him not; but your reason why he was not thereby justified is very strange: Because, say you, that it is God only that is his Judge. And thus then the Apostle argues; God only is Judge to justify: But my innocence, or integrity is not God: Therefore it doth not justify. It seems that Abraham's works with you are God, for you tell us presently that he was justified by them. The Apostle indeed adds, in the following words, He that judgeth me is the Lord; But those words have not reference to these now in hand, as is plain in the context, but to that which he had spoken to verse. 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's Judgment, yea I judge not mine own self, to which these words come in direct opposition, But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apostle here argues, He that must stand to the Judgment of the Lord, may account it a very small thing to be judged of men: But I must stand to the Judgment of the Lord: Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball, quoted by me in this treatise, which might be seconded by the authority of several others, and such (as he saith) renders the text strong against Justification by works. When you have expounded the words as you have done, they serve to shut out all works, in which Paul ever appeared, from Justification. There follows such an inference that you would hardly bear with from another. Can you hence prove (say you) that accepting Christ as a Lord is not the condition of Justification then you may prove the same of the accepting of him as a Savior.

It seems every word in a whole treatise must immediately of itself, formally prove the main thing that is in question. It proves that works parallel to Abraham's offering Isaac, or leaving of his Country, are none such whereby men are justified. It fully proves that which the next words seems to disprove.

I brought in by way of objection that text of [ James, and endeavored to give some answer to it: James indeed saith, that Abraham was Justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar, Jam. 2.21. But either there we must understand a working faith, with Pisator, Pareus, and Penible, and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct questions, The one, whether faith alone Justifies without works? which he concludes in the affirmative; The other, what faith Justifies? Whether a working faith only, and not a faith that is dead and idle? Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle, who straight infers from Abraham's Justification by the offer of his Son, And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. How otherwise do these aceord? He was Justified by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, he was Justified by faith?] Here are many exceptions taken, If James must use the term [works] twelve times in thirteen verses, a thing not usual, as if he had foreseen how men would question his meaning, and yet for all that we must believe, that by [works] James doth not mean [works] it would prove as hard a thing to understand the Scripture, as the Papists would persuade us that it is. Answ. First, it seems the difficulty of interpretation is supposed, when the word is used 12 times so near together, otherwise I doubt not but yourself will confess a necessity of interpretation of this kind, which yet you would be loath to have branded with such absurdity. Secondly, If I durst take the liberty that others assume, the doubt were easily solved, and say, that Paul speaks of a real Justification, James of an equivocal, which interpretation would far better suit here then else where. A dead faith is fit to work a dead Justification, and such as carries as full resemblance to Justification in truth, as a dead corps doth of a living man. Thirdly, were you to interpret that of David, Psal. 22.6. I am a worm and no man, I think you would so interpret it, as to make him a man and no worm. But to leave Metaphors, and come to the Metonymies of this kind. How frequently are such found in Scripture? which enforce us to say, that not to be in strict Propriety of speech, what Scrippture says, is. He hath made him to be sin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. When yet we must say, he was not made sin, an entity cannot be made a non ens, or mere privation; He was made then an atonement for sin, a sin-offering as we say, a Metonymy of the Adjunct. These died in faith, having not received the promises, Heb. 11.13. They had received the promises, Rom. 9.4. It is a contradiction to say, They died in the faith, and had not received the promise. It is taken there for the land promised; a Metonymy of the Object. When Herod the King heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him, Matth. 2.3. Jerusalem was not troubled; It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled, by a Metonymy of the Subj • ct. This is the Will of God, even your Sanctification, 1 Thes. 4.4. and this was not, voluntas Dei, but res volita, not the Will of God, but the thing willed, by a Metonymy of the Cause. A Thousand more of these might be named, which yet are as well understood, as we understand each others common Language.

2. Do but read (say you) over all the severses, & put [working faith] instead of [works] & try what sense you will make? Answ. Here is implied, that, As [works] are taken in some of these verses, So they must be taken in all, If there be no Metonymy in all, then there is no Metonymy in any. As one, so all are to be understood. But if you please to consult Gomarus in his vindication of those words of Christ, Matth. 23.27. Com. 1. Pag. 110.111. You will find frequent instances where the same word, in the self same place or verse, must be taken in a different sense; in one properly, and in the other figuratively. Interpreting those words, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, of the heads and leaders of the people of Jerusalem; there lies an objection against him, that in Luk. 13.33. the words immediately before are, It cannot be that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, where the word Jerusalem is taken for the City itself, and not for the heads and leaders of the people. He answers, This consequence is weak: For it is built upon a false ground, as though the repetition of the same word should also enforce the same sense, when contrawise according to the circumstance of the place, it may be taken in a different sense, as many illustr ous examples make manifest; Instancing in Joh. 3.17. God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, Where world in the first place signifies the earth, in the second place men on the earth, 2 Cor. 5.21. Him that knew no sin, he made sin for us, Where in the first place sin is taken properly, in the latter place by a Metonymy. 2 Chron. 35.24. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchers of his Fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. In the first place, Jerusalem is taken for the City, in the second place, for the Inhabitants of it. And so also, Matth. 2.1, 3. There came wisemen from the east to Jerusalem. When Herod the King heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; With further instances which there may be seen, concluding, that therefore the supposition of the adversaries is false, that the repetition of the same word must be always in the same sense.

3. No doubt, say you, but Paul and James handle two distinct questions, but not the two, that you here express. Paul speaks of meritorious works, which make the reward of debt and not of grace, if you will believe his own description of them, Rom. 4.4. But James speaks of no such works, but of such as have a consistency with grace, and a necessary subordination to it. I prove it: The works that James speaks of we must endeavor for and perform, or perish, (supposing time) but the works that Paul speaks of, no man must endeavor, or once imagine that he can perform, viz. such as make the reward to be of debt, and not of grace. To this I answer, 1. That if Paul speaks only of meritorious works, then according to you, he speaks of no works at all, for there are none such, no not in Angels, Confess. Chap. 3. §. 6: Paul speaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt, and yet speaks not as I conceive of works of merit, seeing, as he mentions none such, so there are none such. He exclude then works to which a reward is due, vi promissi, rather then meriti, As Eph. 2. he excludes boasting of works done by the help of grace: for there is a matter of boasting in these, as we see in the Pharisee, Luk. 18.11. 2. If Paul had here spoken of works of merit, and I must believe him, so elsewhere he speaks of other works, and there both you and I are to believe him likewise. 1. He speaks and excludes all the works that we have done, Tit. 3.5. Which he universally opposes to Justification by free grace, v. 7. and it is of faith, that it may be of grace, Rom. 4.16. 2. He speaks of and excludes all those works, or that righteousness, which is not the righteousness of God by faith, Phil. 8.8, 9. that is, all the righteousness that is inherent in us, and not in Christ alone, and made ours by faith: therefore he is called the Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23.6. and said to be made of God unto us righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. 3. He speaks of, and excludes, all those works which the Law commands, Rom. 3.20. Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge, yea the Law commands to take in grace, wheresoever there is a tender of it, for our assistance, Requiring a duty, it requires all necessary helps to it. And therefore Chemnitz observes, that when the Apostle excludes the works of the Law from Justification, his intention is to exclude the highest and noblest, not only done by Pharisees or unregenerate persons, but Abraham, David, or the most eminent convents. 4. He speaks of and excludes all those works, that any man in the highest pitch of grace can attain unto, in the place quoted, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by myself, yet I am not thereby Justified. He knew no matter of condemnation say you, sensu Evangelico, he then kept up to that which God in the Gospel-Covenant calls for: And yet he is not thereby justified. Though God will not condemn a man of that integrity, through grace, yet this doth not justify. This place, (saith Cartwright on the words) is the death of your Justification by works. For if Paul knew nothing by himself (in that wherein the Corinthians might suppose him most guilty) and was not so much as in that point Justified before God, who is he that dares to Justify himself before God in any work? And Fulk on the words. Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Justified by his faithful service, and labor in the Gospel, therefore no man can be Justified by his works done of grace, in as great perfection as can be done of mortal man. If the whole discharge of Paul's ministerial function, wherein he took heed to himself and to his doctrines, was not such where by he could be Justified, How then could Abraham be justified in offering Isaac, or Rahab in her hiding of the spies? If the Apostle therefore do exclude works of merit, we see what works he also excludes with it. You futher say, Paul speaks indeed of faith collaterally, but of Christ's merits and free grace, directly and purposely: So that the chief part of Paul's controversy was, Whether we are justified freely through Christ's merits, or through our own meritorious works. But James question is, Whether we are Justified by faith alone, or by faith with obedience accompanying it, and both, as subordinate to Christ's merits. Answ. Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the by. Who can be of your mind that reads the Apostle speaking so often, and so fully to the office of faith in Justistification, but that his scope is no less to show what justifies ex parte nostri, which it still faith, then what that is that justifies ex parte Dei, which is grace, or ex parte Christi, which is his blood or merit? Paul's question, you say is of the meritorious cause of our Justification, James his question of the condition on our part. If you are in the right, Paul certainly was much defective in his Logic. We think the question in debate is to be put into the Conclusion, & see how he concludes Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law. Inferences are made, and consectaries drawn from that which is mainly in dispute, and not from that which is collaterally mentioned, and upon the by only touched upon: Now he concludes from the doctrine of Justification by faith, mentioning as we see Justification ex parte nostri, peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5.1. You further say, Paul speaks of Justification in toto, both in the beginning and progress, but especially in the beginning, but James speaks only of Justification as continued, and consummate, and not as begun, For both Abraham's, and every man's was begun, before works of obedience. I Answer, Then works do not consummate; for Paul casts off all works from this office, and he speaks, according to you, of Justification in toto, and if James speaks of it only as consummate, and finished, why does he instance in Rahab, this being the first that was heard of her being in faith or grace? The Authors that you follow are wont to say, that Paul speaks of the first, and James of the second Justification, and it had been more for your advantage, fully to have followed them, then to have said that Paul speaks principally of the first, yet speaks of the second likewise. Yet you may see how hardly those of that opinion have been put to it. Bellarmine, that knows as well how to stickle for an opinion as another, says, that Paul speaking of the first Justification, fetches a proof from Abraham, which is understood of the second Justification: and James speaking of the second Justification, fetches a proof from Rahab, which is the first Justification, which as long since I have observed, in the vindication of this text, agrees like harp and harrow. So that if the Authors that I follow have missed the meaning of these Apostles, those that follow you, are much less like to find it. Yet after all this labor, for a Reconciliation of this seeming difference between these great Apostles, the Reader stands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you, where we see in what judgment he both lived and died, taking it up as (he says) when he was a novice, and persisting in it to his last, wholly differing from you, and agreeing with me. In Paul the question is (saith he,) of sin in general, concerning which, when any man shall be therewith charged, there is no means whereby he may be justified, that is, justly assoiled from the otherwise just charge of being a sinner, but by his faith in Christ's blood: Christ's blood having made satisfaction to God's Justice for sin, and his faith in it, giving him a right to it, and interest in it. This he understands of all sin, through the whole course of a believers life; first and last, faith is his way of Justification; Whereas in James saith he, the question is concerning some special sin, and the questioned persons guilt of it, or freedom from it. What special sin he means, he explains himself, to wit, Whether a man be a true or counterfeit, believer, a sound and sincere, or a false and feigned professor? In which case any person that is so wrongfully charged, may plead not guilty, and offer himself to be tried by his works, as in some cases God's Saints have done, even with appeal to God himself. And what differs this from what I say? only the faith that is not counterfeit, but evidenced by works, justifies. The truth of his faith is questioned, whensoever the sincerity of his profession is thus charged. This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed, that faith justifies the person, and works justify faith.

4. You say, If with the named Expositors you understand by [works] a [working fâith] either you grant as much as I affirm in sense, or else you must utterly nul all the Apostles arguing from v. 13. to the end. Answ. It were too tedious to follow you through this large discourse, and you very well save me the pains, when you add, I suppose you will say, Faith which Justifies must be working, but it Justifies not, qu • operans; And so indeed I do say, and you answer, true, nor quà fides, i. e. q • à apprehendit objectum, if the [quà] speaks the formal reason of its interest in Justification. To this I say, If it neither Justifies quà operans, nor quà apprehendens objectum, I would fain know how, or under what notion it justifies. Do's it justify nihil agendo? I may well say, Cedo tertium? If you say, as I think you will, it justifies quà conditio: Is it conditio, nec operans, nec apprehendens? A faith neither working, nor receiving, is certainly as bad as the faith that James speaks of, that profits nothing. You demand further, Why cannot faith Justify except it be working? I answer, Because if it be faith to apprehend or receive, then it is in life: for if not alive, it cannot receive: If it be alive, then it doth work. You say, The Apostle doth not plead for a mere necessity of signification or discovery, but for a necessity, ut medii ad Justificationem, Even, that Justification which he calls imputing of righteousness, and that by God. I answer, He enquires what that faith is, that is medium ad Justificationem, and determines, that it is not a dead but a working faith, that is this Justifying medium, and this strengthens and not nuls the Apostles argumentation.

When you have made it your business to overthrow my interpretation, you set upon my reason, and say, As for your single argument, here I answer, And I may reply, 1. That one argument to the purpose • , is to be preferred before 31 which are all besides the q • estion. 2. That you might have found a double argument, but that you industriously leave out one, to make it single. You say, it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verses, by [works] means not [works,] and by faith alone (which he still opposeth) doth not mean faith alone, and all this because you cannot see the connection of one verse to the former, or the force of one cited Scripture. And I hope I may without offense tell you, tht this kind of reasoning, or answering, adds advantage, neither to your cause, nor reputation. You take it for granted, and would persuade your Reader, that if I suppose the word is once figurative, (where the proper acceptation is both destructive to the sense, and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Gospel, which was my second reason by you omitted) that I must therefore so interpret it all along. But you have had Scripture instances to the contrary, and are directed where you may be further furnished. I conclude, that when James affirms that faith without works is dead, and therefore cannot justify, ad says, Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac, which Scripture says was a work of faith, of if that do not please, was done by faith, Heb. 11.17. and further says, that in his justification by works the Scripture was fulfilled, which says, he was justified by faith; Is it not a fair interpretation to understand a working faith; w ^ch is alone of possible power to justify, when the Scripture also ascribing this instanced justifying work of Abrham, to the faith of Abraham, as we see, Heb. 11.17.

In the close of your ten arguments you speak your sense of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent; which I have thought most meet to reserve to this place. What sad effects, say you, it may produce, to teach the world, that the only justifying act of faith, is, the accepting of justification as merited by Christ's blood, or the accepting of Christ's righteousness to justify them, it is not hard for an unprejudic'd man to discern. For my part, in all my experience of the case of the ungodly that I have trial of, I can find no commoner cause of their general delusion and perdition, then this very doctrine. Answ. To this I might have many things to say.

1. It is the hard fate, (if I may say so) of Christian Religion to have inferences of this kind drawn from her principles. And yet the way of Christians hath not been, either to desert the principles from which they are drawn, nor yet to own or defend the inferences or conclusions that are drawn from them. The Apostle affirming that the exaltation of God's glory, in not utterly casting of the Nation of the Jews, was eminently seen in their disloyalty and covenant-breaking with him; Inference is presently made, that covenant-breaking, and disloyalty, cannot then be blamed. If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner? That which advanceth God's glory cannot be charged as a sin, Bat covenant-breaking with God, (according to the Apostle) adds to his glory, and therefore it cannot be charged as a sin: If answer be made, that this exaltation of God in his glory is by accident, and no thanks to him that breaks covenant, but to the goodness of God that brings good out of evil: From this, inference is made also, Let us then do evil that good may come, which Conclusion was slanderously charged upon the Apostle, Rom. 3. verse. 8. The doctrine of God's free election of some, and passing by of others, occasioned two d • sperate inferences; 1. That there is then unrighteousness with God, as deserting, yea hating his creature without cause, Rom. 9.14. 2. That God then without reason finds a fault with his creature, this being his will, who can resist it? Ro. 9.19. The wits of some have been indeed busied to put such a comment upon the Apostles words, that no such inference as these, with any color, or show of reason, can be drawn: and thereby make it appear that their comment is utterly dissonant from the Text; for from the Apostles doctrine, these inferences, in the judgment of blinded reason, and rules held between creature and creature, seem directly to follow, as evidently appears in the Apostles answer. To come nearer to the business in hand, the Apostle making it his work to advance God's free grace in man's justification, some feared lest their sin was above the grace of a pardon: To satisfy these, the Apostle tells them, that where sin abounded, grace doth super-abound, Rom. 5.20. So that the greatness of their sin exalts the free grace and favor of God: an inference is presently ready, Let us then continue in sin, that grace may abound, Rom. 6.1. And here indeed was as fair and full encouragement to sin, as any that you hold out, in your objection against this doctrine; this very use which you say is now made by wicked ones, of this Doctrine, generally taught by Protestants, was made (as is said) in the Apostles times, by the Gnostics and others, who maintained, that it was enough to believe that Christ died for sin, though a man lived in all wickedness and ungodliness. How could this so soon spring in the Church, but that carnal ones found some-what that would bear some color on which they might bottom it? as, omne mendacium fundatur in aliquâ veritate, as may be seen verified in the instances mentioned. Let not Christian doctrine then be blamed upon the account of such desperate deductions, and cursedly wrested inferences. As soon as reformation began, and this doctrine among others appeared, it is well known what from the adversaries it suffered. As it was laid to the Reformers charge, that they made God the author of sin, so that Gibieuf with his black mouth, makes Calvin worse then the Manichees: so also that they utterly laid aside all care and regard of good works, or ways of godliness, and that upon account of their doctrine, that faith alone justifies. It is well known with what a belly they use to picture Luther, as if his work had been alone to drink. And Bellarmine taking upon him in the preface to his fourth Tome, out of the Revelation, to set out what a creature a Lutheran is, saith, that those that are addicted to their belly for the most part fall to them. And their orator, Turner, in his elogie of Drunkenness, applauds the Lutherans with a been secistis, in that they have lest the Catholic Church, to betake themselves to that party. How full their invectives were against Calvin and Beza, and all of their opinion, as enemies of all godliness, and friends of profaneness, almost all books of popish writers may witness. Those things are famous that Bellarmine out of Bolsecke and Colcheus quotes to this purpose. Granatensis in his dedicatory Epistle before his Dux peccatorum, having laid this down as a maxim, that Holiness and purity of doctrine is a certain mark and note of true faith and Religion, and asserted, that there hath been no sect from the beginning of the world, if we run through all ages, to be compared with Christians, for doctrine of concernment to man's Moral conversation; he enters comparison, first, with Heathenism, then with Turkism, then with Judaism after Christ's coming, and lastly takes notice of the lives of Heretics in the primitive times; of the Manichees out of Austin, Of the Gnostics out of Epiphanius, Of the Carpocratians out of Austin, then he falls upon his own times, and says, The Heretics of our own times are no more holy. They that have fetched back the errors of faith of former Heretics from hell, are also diligent followers of their practices; what holiness of life, saith he, is to be expected from the Lutherans, that with their special faith have set open a door to all impiety? and the wicked practices of the Calvinists are better known, saith he, then we desire: and thereupon tells us two tales, first, that some that neighbor upon Geneva, being demanded, why they did not reject the Catholic, and receive Genevas Gospel, answered, That was not to be wondered at, for said they, the words and books of Calvinists, stuff'd with lies and fraud, are carried further then the narrative of their wickedness; But to us (say they) that go every week to their Market, it is well known to be a kingdom of hellish confusion, and therefore their Gospel doth not take with us. His next is, of a certain Minister of theirs, who a few years before went into Hungary, & petitioned a Bashaw of the Turks for liberty to preach their Gospel to the Christians that lived among the Turks under tribute; and to persuade the said Bashaw to grant his Petition, he began with many reasons to tell him, that the Religion of the Calvinists was most near to that of Mahomet. And having ended his request, the said Bashaw answered, I see that you Calvinists and we are like to be shortly one, Save only that leaving the drinking of water to us, you willl keep yourselves to wine, and be drunk with it. Charges of this nature, Lutherans and Calvinists were wont still to hear, but divine providence, through grace, hath so ordered, that these Calumnies, as with a beam of the Sun, have been dispelled. The holy lives of those that appeared for this doctrine hath been an abundant real comfutation. Not to look beyond the seas where we might be furnished with several instances, let Jewel, Grindall, Pilkington, Reynolds, Fulk, Whitaker, Perkins, Fox, Greenewood, Dod, Hilderson, Pemble, Ball, and many others, with their Followers, witness. In so much, that by degrees, shame hath caused them to forbear this Language. And as for those who of latter times have receded from this doctrine of this supposed danger (as Montague and his followers, as may be seen in his Gag, and Appeal ) whether their lives and zeal for the Gospel did at all outstrip those already mentioned, whose supposed errors in doctrine they went about to correct, I leave to all of impartial judgment to witness. How great a trouble is it then to have this, by a man of your name and reputation, now revived? For that experience of yours, of which we have already heard, and you further enlarge, in your affirming that you never met with the most rebellious wretch (except now and then one under terrors) but when they have sin'd their worst, they still think to be saved, because they believe; and what is their believing? why they believe that Christ died for them, and therefore God will forgive them, and they trust for pardon and salvation from Christ's death and God's mercy. To this I answer: Though I do not in any other thing appear in competition with you, yet here I may say, my experience hath been of a longer standing then yours, yet I can say, it answers not that which you here mention. When I have to deal with such that you name, if they look out of themselves at all, it is usually to God's mercy. He is, say they, a merciful God, and at what time soever a sinner repenteth from the bottom of his heart, he is ready to receive, and so relying on God's mercy, they will take their time for their return. Which is answered also, as is evident in the experience of others. Read Practical Treatises, and published Sermons, and see whether this plea be not commonly spoken to: Ordinarily their answer is, that their good doings, their Prayers, and Repentance, must save them. Few comparatively will have Christ in their mouths, till he be put into their heads. And if they hit upon faith, as sometimes they will, they yet know not how to terminate it on Christ's blood. It is only a good belief, that God will not deal so with them. Such a faith the Plain man's path-way to heaven, out of much experience of such men's answers, doth notably decipher. It is a rare thing to meet with one that will argue as you would put it into their mouths, viz. He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified: But that have I; For I accept of Christ to forgive and justify me by his blood: Therefore I am justified. But in case any shall thus reason, you say you are not able to answer, and I shall not presume to be your teacher. But me thinks you might deign to learn of Mr. Gataker, and tell such a disputant, that it is not everything that bears the name of faith, that is an acceptation of Christ to justification. You may acquaint him, that there is a true and sincere faith, and that there is a false and counterfeit faith; and that it is not enough for justification to say, that a man hath faith, but soundly and sincerely to believe. If he say, that his faith is not dissembled, but sincere, put him upon that which Mr. Gataker says, is Saint James his way of trial, If he will have faith to justify his person, let works then justify his faith. There is life in that faith that takes Christ's blood for justification, and that faith that hath life to take, hath life also to work. Where a receiving or taking faith is, there Christ is, and where Christ is, the soul can do all things through Christ that strengthens. So tha • if the man be such as you speak, his faith is cast, at the first sight, and evidenced to be no better then counterfeit, and is no medium to justification. He may talk that Christ is his, but it is clear that it is on a cracked title: and his faith being no better then you say, had he all the Logic in the world, here he must be non pluss'd. And here I would willingly learn how you will convince such a man of whom you here speak, upon your own principles. If he shall argue, He that hath the only justifying act of faith is justified: but that have I; for I take Christ as my Savior, and Sovereign Lord: Ergo. Seeing there are many that profess to take Christ for a Lord, as well as a Savior, that must never enter into the kingdom of heaven, Mat. 7.21. If they do not spit at Christ and defy him, they persuade themselves that they serve him. A service of Jesus Christ, with their own most favorable and easy comment upon it, they doubt not will save them. And I know no viler persons in the world, then those that say, that they love and serve Christ with all their heart, and that their good works and serving of God must keep them from hell and damnation: As I once heard a man stark drunk on a Lord's-day profess, that fall back, fall edge, he would never leave serving God whilst he lived. These, if they may be believed, have as good an heart to God, as he that is most precise in all the world. And if they be wanting in that acuteness of Logic that you before mention, they may be well holpen, out of your principles, which they may find anon, thus to reason. He that falls short of the precepts of the Law, and requisites in the Gospel, may yet be justified and saved, if he answers to the conditions of the Gospel-covenant: But thus do I: although I come not is to the precepts of the Law, not to what is required in the Gospel, yet I answer to the conditions of it, for according to you, these come short both of the commands of the Law, and the precepts of the Gospel. Though they do not all that is commanded them neither in Law nor Gospel, yet they hope they do that which will save them. They have their faults, they confess, and who, say they, is free? Few days pass over their heads, but they say, God forgive me. What you say is their wickedness, they will say is innocent and praise worthy; I never knew a more vile wretch then one that would say, that he thought in conscience he served God better on a Sunday, spending six pence in an Ale-house to help a poor woman with her children to live, then in going to Church, when his own wife and children stood in a much need, as any Ale-wive's whosoever. Look among Papists, who look upon works, not only as such that justify, but also merit, and supererogate, and see how far they exceed those that hold this, which you call so dangerous a principle. They are Saints here, they say, compared with those in Italy and Spain; this being the place of their persecution: Yet Doctor Hall observes in his serious dissuasive from Popery, that he never yet could know that Papist, which made conscience of all God's ten moral Laws: so that in leaving our principles to choose theirs, upon a design to advance good works, you much mistake your way, and go about to work with a wrong engine. And I can conclude no other, but that these inferences are without reason, and that there is no Gospel-principle that can be laid down, but men may alike wrest to their own perdition.

SECT. II. Mans Evangelical, Personal Righteousness, is not here perfect.

THe next in order which you examine is, concerning the instrumentality of faith in Justification, which is already spoke to and inserted into the body of the Treatise: and therefore I pass to your third, to which you speak, Sect. 28. pag. 41 entitling it, Of Evangelical, personal Righteousness: Where you set down words of mine at large; and then subjoin; The third opinion which you rise against, is, that which you take to be mine, as your citing my words doth manifest. Where I do not then cite any words which are yours, nor use your name, I pray you, let me not hear any such charge. I am loath to cause this piece to swell with repetition of all my own words. That which I excepted against, was, [That our personal inherent righteousness is affirmed to be perfect] and a charge of intolerable ignorance laid upon learned men that speak otherwise.] Here, I partly implied, and partly expressed several concessions, which you take hold of, and raise several questions about them. 1. I yield [a righteousness of this kind inherent in Christians, though I deny such a perfection ] as I take to be asserted in your Treatise. And here you think, I am already caught. For ens and perfectum, are, say you, as convertible, as ens and bonum, or ens and verum. And after pains taken out of Scheibler, and Scaliger to correct my ignorance, you tell me, It is a Metaphysical, Transcendentall perfection that you speak of, which hath no contrary in being, which consisteth in the presence of all things necessary to being, &c. And you warn me still to remember, that you take it not, de perfection accidentali but essentiali. And I wish that you had told your Reader so: I am confident there was not one that did so understand you in your Aphorism • s. When we dispute, whether such, or such a thing be perfect, or imperfect, we take it for granted, that there is such a possible imperfection, of which we dispute. If I dispute the truth of this proposition, Coelum movetur ab intelligentiis, I do not question whether this be truly a proposition; but whether in the common acceptation, it be logically true; whether the predicate be truly affirmed of the subject. Did not you speak of righteousness, and so of holiness, as it denominateth the subject? not as an abstract, but a concrete, and so susceptible of magìs and minùs, (if Qualities do suscipere magìs and minùs, ) and such as is subject to contrarieties? When learned divines have spoke in your hearing, (as you imply that they have done,) of imperfect righteousness, can you think that it was in their heads to take it in that sense, in which a little learning might acquaint them, that there is no possible imperfection? 2. I further yielded [ a perfection of the subject, as opposed to hypocrisy, dissimulation, or doubleness, and a perfection of the entireness of the object, respecting, not one, or only some, but all commandments, called a perfection of parts.] This you say, you do not understand, though I think, few other Readers have been so quick, as to discern any difficulty. When Divines speak of universal obedience grounding their words on several Scripture-Texts, do not they ordinarily explain themselves, 1. Of an universality of the Subject? when the whole man is brought into obedience, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Thes. 5.23. The very God of peace sanctify you [wholly] per omnia perfectos, Vatablus reads it, and puts in the margent, vel totos, according to our reading, wholly: And then adds his comment, The following words declare what that [wholly] is, viz. in soul, in spirit, and body. This is the perfection of the subject of which I spake, and as I thought, sufficiently explained myself. 2. Of an universality of the Object, when not one, but every command is heeded, as Psal. 119.6, 128. You tell me, you charitably conjecture, that when I speak of a perfection of the object, I mean a perfection of our acts, as they respect the object extensively. And if you please but to make use of your eyes, they will inform you, that nothing else can be my meaning, and so I shall not stand in need of your charity in it. And hereupon you fall to distinguish of objects, I know not why, but that I may know, (which I well knew before) that you can distinguish. You tell us of objects of absolute necessity, and objects of less necessity. For answer to which, it is enough for me, that there is such an entireness in the soul, respective to all known obliging commandments, that denominates the man in an Evangelical sense, universal and entire in his obedience.

After a large discourse to show how our righteousness is essentially perfect, you seem thus to sum up all, pag. 43. Take up all together then, and you will soe, that, 1. Righteousness is formally a relation, 2. And that not of our actions or dispositions to the mere precept of the Law, determining of duty as such (Commonly called the Moral law) but 1. To the law as determining of the conditition of life or death, 2. To the promise and threatening of that Law which are joined to the condition. But you should consider, that we are talking of a Rule, without consideration either of reward or punishment, and you run out into a discourse of a Covenant. The query is, Whether righteousness be perfect or imperfect: You fall upon it, as a condition of Justification, which never was put to question. And you well know, that those learned men whose ignorance you thus challenge, never had any such thing in their thoughts, Making the Scripture their study, and Protestants writers their Comment, they find Justification by the blood of Christ, Rom. 5.9 and interest in this blood alone by faith, Rom. 3.25, 28. and works they find again and again excluded. I wish you to consult the Homilies of the Church of England, especially the Homilies of the Salvation of Man-kind by Christ our Savior, pag. 14. Having touched upon divers passages of Saint Paul, This is added, In the aforesaid places the Apostle toucheth especially three things which must go together in our Justifycation, upon God's part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ's part, Justice, that is, the satisfaction of God's Justice, or the price of our Redemption, by the offering of his body, & shedding of his blood, with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ — And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his Justification, but only a true and lively faith. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God to be joined with saith in every man that is Justified, but it shutteth them out from the office of Justifying, With much more to the same purpose. Your Readers that are not so much seen in the Language of Bellarmine, and Suarez, as they are in the Scriptures, or at least, that do not so much heed them, deny all that you take for granted. In which also you have phrases more uncouth to your Readers, then any that I have uttered can be to you; to be righteous signifieth, say you, quoad legem novam, non obligatus ad poenam, & cui debetur premium. This signification, according to this new law, I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries. Those that are righteous shall be thus acquit, and rewarded, we believe, but not upon account of any righteousness inherent in them, but the righteousness of Christ made theirs by faith: and so their faith is accounted to them for righteousness. You then add, So that you see that your first righteousness [non reatus poenae, vel jus ad impunitatem & ad premium] as it requires Christ's perfect satisfaction as a medium to it, by which all the charge of the Law works must be answered; So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace, as another medium, by which Christ and his benefits are made ours. I had thought that our righteousness had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing, at best, were it as perfect as Adams was, but reather non reatus culpae. If a man be charged with Murder, his righteousness as to this charge, is, his not-killing, and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet, That follows upon it; non reatus, is not of the essence of righteousness, nor is reatus of the essence of sin, otherwise then consecutive. And that Christ's righteousness should be thus called a medium, I do not see. I think it is the thing itself, and not a medium to it. And that our righteousness is any medium to Justification as it is inherent, I deny: and that our inherent righteousness required by the Law of Grace, stands in any such subordination to the righteousness of Christ, as a necessary means to make it ours, I see your word for it, but I think (and the reformed Churches are of the same mind) that I have the whole current of Scripture against it. You close up this discourse thus; And thus I have done what at present I thought my duty, that it might be not my fault, that you are in ignorance all over; But I have said the less, because I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteousness, in answer to the Animadversions of another learned brother. But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received satisfaction from that more exact pains of yours. Perhaps his learning may serve to give as exact an answer. And if his greater learning be not satisfied, with that which is more exact and elaborate, my less learning may well remain as much unsatisfied with less exactness. And your Reader will think you were not so well advised, to publish yourself, and conceal your most exact opening of this point of so great concernment. Though you might think, that anything might serve me, yet all your exactness will, I believe, be litte enough in this point to give satisfaction to many Readers.

Whereas you had said in your Aphorisms, pag. 122. Imperfect righteousness, is not righteousness, but unrighteousness. It is a contradiction in adjecto, yet there admitting an imperfection in holiness, I answered, [I never took imperfect righteousness to imply any such contradiction, more then imperfect holiness] To this you reply, 1. By a way of concession, that holiness is taken, first, for the relation of a person or thing dedicated to God, So it admits not of magìs and minùs more then righteousness; 2. That the common use of the word, Holiness, is for the qualities or actions of a spiritually-renewed man, & this is confessed to have its transcendent perfection, as well as righteousness. Hitherto we are agreed; but here, say you, is the difference, Holiness thus taken is a quality, which though it have the truth of being, yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs & minùs righteousness is a relation which in suo formali is not intended or remitted. And is not Righteousness a quality in like manner, which is intended and remitted? when Zacharias says, We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, to serve in righteousness and true holiness, Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit, as well as the other? When the Angel said, Rev. 22. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still: As [unjust] and [filthy] hold out vicious qualities from the flesh, so [Holy] and [righteous] both signify renewed qualities by the Spirit. It follows, Nay if you will exactly open it, it will appear that the righteousness in question is a relation founded in a relation. Yea more, that the very subjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur, nec remittitur, & this is that I mean by perfection, besides the aforesaid transcendentall perfection. And how shall we know what the righteousness in question is? either it must be gathered out of your own words, or out of their words, that you censure as guilty of such ignorance, as before; Let us look upon your own words, Thess. 2.2. which you there comment upon. In this fore-explained sense, it is that men in Scripture, (say you) are said to be personally righteous: And in this sense it is, that the faith and duties of believers, are said to please God, viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace, and not as they are measured by the Covenant of works. Are not [faith] and [duties] here our personal righteousness? and is not [faith] a branch of holiness as well as it is of righteousness? And hath it not its degrees as well as righteousness? Surely the Apostles thought so when they prayed, Lord increase our faith, Luk. 17.5. And the Lord Christ had no other thoughts, when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith, Matth. 6.30. And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatness of her faith, Matth. 15.28. And as it riseth and falls, so do other duties with it: they are more intense, or remiss, in like manner. And as for their speeches which you challenge; do you think that their ignorance was in that measure intolerable, as to believe the righteousness of what they spake was a mere non-entity, i.e. had nothing of the being of righteousness in it? They doubtless looked upon righteousness as a renewed quality, as you do upon holiness, and the Apostle, both upon holiness and righteousness, Eph. 4.24. The new man is so put on that we must be still putting it on. It follows, that seeing these things are exactioris indigationis, understand that the reason of my assertion lies here: The law as it is the rule of obedience, doth require perfect obedience in degree, and so here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree, as being short of what the rule requireth, and it being these actions with their habits which we call our holiness, therefore we must needs say, our holiness is imperfect. And if our righteousness were to be denominated from this law, commanding perfection, we must say, not that such righteousness were imperfect, because the holiness or obedience is imperfect, but it is none at all, because they are imperfect. It seems you intend here, exactness equal to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned; and as you did distinguish before of a metaphysical and moral perfection, so you seem here to distinguish of righteousness and holiness: either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule; or else as a condition required by the Covenant of works, respective to the attainment of life upon terms there required. This seems to be your meaning in your last words in this Paragraph: Duty simply as duty, and holiness or supernatural grace as such may be more or less; But holiness and duty, as the materia requisita, vel subjectum proximum justitiae, consistit in indivisibly. How duty and holiness can be the subject of itself, I know not; for so they are, if they be the subjects of righteousness. That righteousness in which we must exceed the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees is our duty, and our holiness as well as of our righteousness; but if you carry it thence to make it the righteousness of the covenant of works, it is easily granted, that the imperfection of it, renders it as no righteousness respective to that end of attainment of life by it. A Pharisee might as well be justified upon the terms of that covenant, as Noah, Daniel, and Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth, or any other of those, that were most perfect and eminent in righteousness. But I think, no Reader could observe either in your own words, or theirs that you censure, any such meaning.

To assert the imperfection of our righteousness I said, [ Isaiah, I am sure, saith, All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, Is. 64.6. no greater charge of imperfection can lie against the most imperfect holiness, then the Prophet lays upon our righteousness, Interpreting the Prophets words, as I think the sense of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern. But seeing you go off to speak of righteousness of another kind, I will not contend. I there added, [Neither do I understand how holiness should be imperfect, taken materially, and righteousness perfect, taken formally in reference to a rule.] After such courteous censure that you please to give, you fall to examine what that is, that I understand not. In which you take one piece of my sentence apart, and say, [How holiness should be imperfect, taken materially,] sure you understand that. It is therefore, say you, no doubt, the other branch that you mean, How righteousness is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule. If the Reader please to consult my words, he may see that I put them not divisim, but conjunctim, giving in my reason, why to me it is non-intelligible, telling you that [we may for ought I know, as well make holiness formal, and refer it to a rule, and righteousness material, in an absolute consideration, without reference to any rule at all.] This you disjoin from the rest, and fall upon my words apart; for what reason, is best known to yourself; And I leave it to the Reader to judge, whether that I may not call holiness perfect, and righteousness imperfect, as well as you may call righteousness perfect, and holiness imperfect; and whether there is not a materiality, and formality, (not in the one, or the other)) but in the one, as well as the other: and this was that which I spake to. And any man that understands no more then I, will ( I think) take this to be a material exception against that which in your Aphorisms was delivered. You say, if you, or any man resolve to use holiness in the same sense as righteousness, if I once know your minds, I will not contradict you, for I find no pleasure in contending about Words, but for myself, I must use them in the common sense, if I will be understood. But you might have done well to let us know that, that is the common sense of the word righteousness, (taken for personal inherent righteousness) which you here use; till I see that made good, I shall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it. I would know what interpreter of Zacharias's words, Luk. 1.75. of Paul's words, Eph. 4.24. of John's words, Revel. 22.11. do put such a difference as you make between righteousness, & holiness, as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit, the other no such thing, but a relation in esse formali, to what you must explain yourself; I have read so much difference indeed made, as to put holiness for duties of the first Table, in immediate reference to God; righteousness for duties of the second Table, in immediate concernment to man: but thus taken, they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit, and have their intension and remission, one, as well as the other. And I have read a rule given, that where they are put together (as in the Scriptures quoted) they are to be distinguished as before, but where the one is put apart, it is to be understood as comprehensive of both. It were easy to show, that writers of most eminent name promiscuously use these terms of righteousness and holiness. But for your interpretation, for ought I know, you are alone in it, speaking as you do, and entitling your discourse of personal inherent righteousness. I added, [And in such consideration, ( viz. without any reference to any rule at all) I do not know how there can be perfection, or imperfection, (either in holiness, or righteousness: Is is as it they come up to,) or fall short of the rule, that they have the denomination of perfection, or imperfection.] To this you say, At the first view the sentence seemed so strange to me, that I thought it meetest to say nothing, because it is scarce capable of any apt answer, but what will seem sharp, or unmannerly: Now you have found out a way to speak, both mildly and mannerly, you think, (it seems) that your words will be more heeded, then at other times. You further say, That which I say you may consider, is something, or nothing: if something, and yet not capable of perfection, or imperfection, it is such a something, as the world never heard of till now. I had thought, on the contrary, that there is many a thing in the world, (& I believe shall think, when you have spoke all that you can against it) capable neither of moral perfection, or imperfection, and of such perfection we speak, when we speak of inherent personal righteousness, and therefore uncapable either of perfection, or imperfection, because there is no rule by which they are measured. The Schoolmen, you know, speak of actions preventing reason, which they say are actions of men, but deny them properly to be actions human, as you may see in Thom. 1, 2. quaest. 1. art. 1, 2. as to move the foot, rub the beard, when a man's thoughts are intent on somewhat else. These, they use to say have neither rectitude, nor irrectitude in them, are neither good, nor evil, and therefore neither perfect, nor imperfect. But if all actions of men must be also human, and such that reason orders, according to rule, or at least ought to order, and are therefore either right or oblique, as some in opposition to Schoolmen do determine; yet doubtless it is not so in the actions of brute creatures: These have neither moral perfection, nor imperfection, seeing they act by no rule, save that of natures instinct. And if all rule were taken from man, his actions would be parallel. Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and consequently no conformity, nor inconformity, no rectitude, nor irrectitude, and so neither perfection, nor imperfection. You add, But upon second thoughts, I find that your words, de justitiâ may be born, for it is nothing that you speak of. This I think is such an answer, that few will see either mildness, or manners in it. I speak of man's personal righteousness, and so do you: This you affirm to be perfect, and charge learned Divines, as before, for charging it with imperfection. And if it be nothing, you might well have kept silence, for [nothing] suffers nothing by their language. That which follows, must at least be repeated: But that holiness taken for spiritual habits and acts, can have neither perfection or imperfection; or that, that they are capable of no perfection, or imperfection, in any other sense, but as related; nor yet in relations to God, or the person dedicating, save only in relation to the Rule; all these for the first reason, shall have no answer but a recital. I might say of much that is here repeated, Tu male dum repetis, incipit esse tuus. And I think that which you now repeat, is not such that you may say, magnâ front recit-âsse, est refutasse. To this supercilious reply, I only say; that this is the first time that ever I heard of holiness of separation, dedication, or relation, applied to acts, or habits of this nature. And what else, but the reference to the rule, can denominate them imperfect, I would you had spoke out. They are sinful only, according as they transgress the rule, and righteous as they hold to it, and by consequence, I think that they are either perfect, or imperfect, on like account.

I added in my Treatise; [ Paul's Gospel frame, whether you will call it righteousness, or holiness, is set out I am sure, Rom. 7. full of imperfection, yet all this as in reference to the rule, as it answered, or fell short in conformity to it, v. 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man.] Here you begin to q • arrel with the phrase, and say, Is not [righteousness] or [holiness] as Scriptural, as Logical, as plain a term, & as fit for disputants as [Gospel frame?] I answer, yes doubtless, when they are used Scripturally, or Logically: but when your Reader is confounded with the use of these terms, making one imperfect, and the other uncapable of any imperfection; making one to stand in conformity to a rule, the other without any such conformity at all; taking one Metaphysically, and not telling us how you take the other: sometimes telling us that you take holiness for the qualities, and actions of a spiriturally renewed man, else-where, that it signifies no more then a dedication to God, either by separation only, or, by qualifying the subject; first, with an aptitude to it's divine employment, and then separating, or devoting it, I was put upon it, to seek a third word, to hold out that which I mean by righteousness, and holiness; and learned men mean, when they speak of imperfect righteousness, which also is the same with your qualities, or actions of a spiritually renewed man. You further say, Till I further know whether by [Gospel-frame] you mean, Habits, Acts, Relations, (and what Relations) or what else, I shall pass it, as uncapable of a better reply. Adding further, Did not I acknowledge expressly as much imperfection, as you here affirm, of Paul's frame; why then do you intimate by your arguing, as if I did not? Answ. If you did expressly make such acknowledgement, surely you knew what you meant, when you did expressly acknowledge it, and how is it then that you are so to seek in my meaning? you tell me further, There is a twofold rule, or action of the Law; which our habits, and actions do respect, as you say, you have oft said. The first is the precept determining the duty simply; this, all our habits, and actions, come short of, and therefore no man hath righteousness consisting in this conformity, The second is the promise, or that act going along with the promise, whereby God determineth of the condition. To this I say, If I had spoken of [action of Law,] confounded [rule] and [action] together, I should have heard of it. And if you have often said, that there is such a twofold rule, I think no other man, but yourself, hath said it, and I neither hear of Scripture, nor reason for it. We are speaking of agenda, and not credenda; and that here should be any rule de agendis, but the precept determining of duty, or that the promise, or any act that goes along with the promise (which what it means, I cannot imagine) should be any rule of our actions, I never heard, but from your mouth. And for your inference, That all our Actions and Habits, coming short of the precept, determining of duty, no man therefore hath a righteousness consisting in this conformity, I should think, all but yourself, would take to be a Non sequitur. There is a righteousness in conformity to the precept, which yet falls short of a full and perfect conformity. Look I pray you upon Zechariah, and Elizabeth; that have this praise in the Gospel, that they were both righteous before God, and by what rule this righteousness had its denomination, let the Text be consulted. If walking in all the ordinances, and commandments of God blameless, give men the denomination of righteousness, then there is a righteousness in conformity to the precept? But walking in all the commandments, and ordinances of God, denominates men righteous; Ergo, doing righteousness denominates righteous; He that doth righteousness, is righteous, 1 John 4.7. And what should be the rule of doing, but the precept, I cannot imagine: If we break the precept when we sin, the precept is our rule; but we break the precept when we sin, 1 John 5.4. Abel hath often that Testimony to be righteous, and that because his works were righteous, 1 John 3.12. And so Lot, in like manner, 2 Pet. 2.8. there is a righteousness then in conformity to the Law of works, though not to the covenant of works. Zacharias says, We are redeemed to serve without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God, Luk. 1.74, 75. And this righteousness, is not without its rule, and hath no other rule then that which Zacharias' righteousness had, in the sixth verse of the same Chapter. There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law; and so an imperfect righteousness in conformity to it. (b) We grant (saith Davenant) that the regenerate love God, and their neighbor, but they love imperfectly, and by consequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly, de Justit. actuali, p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Paul's frame, (as you say, you do,) you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law, and an imperfect conformity to the Law. It is in reference to the Law, that he had his imperfections, and gradual inconformity. He delights, he says, in the Law, in the inward man, but sees an opposite power, drawing him aside, and he quotes the precept, and not the promise annexed, Thou shalt not covet, to which in such imperfection he conformed.

I added in my Treatise, [Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers, that commonly understand the word [Righteousness] and [Righteous] as it refers to the old Rule, I profess myself to have little of their learning, but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance. I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.] Here you first complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you spoke, and if is but this once, that I know, that I am thus charged: And the sense, I think, is full in those words that I do set down. Secondly, you go about to clear yourself from some aspersions, concerning harsh speeches used by you against learned Divines: in which, you say, you speak not to me, but to others, standing thus charged by them, and not by me. In which I am well content that you should stand as right in your Readers eyes as you can desire, and shall forbear to rake further into that ulcer. Thirdly, you take me to task, and are content to put my name at length, As for Mr. Blake's profession, that he hath little of their learning, but is wholly theirs in this ignorance, I did still think otherwise of him, and durst not to have described him: But yet my acquaintance with him is not so great, as that I should pretend to know him, better then he knows himself, and I dare not judge, but he speaks as he thinks. Good Sir, say it over again, that it may be known from an hand of your eminence; that I say, my learning is little; and that I speak it, not more modestly, then truly, neither do you know, how much I suffer, that it is no more. Yet, least the cause in which I appear should suffer with me, or rather in me, let me assume so much boldness, as to tell you, that I yet think, that, that little which through grace I have obtained, may serve to satisfy those arguments, which this piece of yours holds forth against me. I have been often confounded with your multitude, but never perceived myself shattered by your strength; not that my learning is equal with yours, ( I know myself better, then to enter such comparisons) but your cause is unequal to mine. Your advantage is not so great against me in the greatness of your abilities, as mine against you in the goodness of the cause. It would often go ill with a good cause if the most able Advocates should not sometimes be worsted, in the presence of impartial Judges. Should you and I make exchange, So that I were to appear in the cause that you maintain, and you in that which I defend, a weaker then you, would easily do that, which I think you have not yet done. But your willingness is observable to take a hint from my mouth, to strip me of all the learning of these learned men, charged with intolerable ignorance; and leave their ignorance only with me, as the whole you are willing to allow me. Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavors to help me out of my ignorance in this. Let me be hold to show him, (say you) part of that, which he saith he is wholly ignorant of: That our personal inherent Righteousness is not denominated from the old Law, or Covenant, as if we were called righteous (besides our imputed Righteousness) only because our Sanctification, and good works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of works. But I were ignorant indeed, if you could surprise me with your confounding of these terms, [Law] and [Covenant.] Those two I take much to differ. In your Aphorisms, (where you think you speak most full, and here complain, that I omitted somewhat of that which you there said) you have the word [Law] and the word [Rule:] But I hear not of the word [Covenant] at all. But here, Law, and Covenant, are confounded, as though every Law were a Covenant, and every Covenant a Law. And I were yet more in ignorance, if I should let your Syllogisms pass, as you have laid them down. The first of your seven is, If no man be called Righteous by the Law of works, but he that perfectly obeyeth, (so as never to sin) then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous (nisi aequivoce) by that Lawy: But the Antecedent is true; Therefore so is the consequent. Here I would desire that you would explain yourself, in what sense any Law can call any particular man Righteous? The Law lays down general Rules, and makes not particular application to this, or that person. If you mean that no man hath the denomination of a righteous, or just person, upon his observation of the precepts of the Law, you must except Zacharias, and Elizabeth, and all other which in Scripture have the title of just, or righteous. I pray you consult Calvin on Luke 1.6. Neither is this definition, saith he, to be neglected, that they are just that frame their lives according to the precepts of the Law; and afterward adds, Because the Lord doth not impute unto them sin, he honors their holy life, though imperfect, with the title of righteousness. See also Rivet, on Gen. 6.9. Exercit. 5.2. Perfection begun in us, in all parts, though not complete in degree, is a sincere and undissembled obedience according to the whole Law, or a sincere and serious endeavor of obeying God according to all his Commandments. God in the Covenant of Grace, looks upon and accepts a sincere endeavor of ordering our conversation according to the precepts of works. All the rest of the arguments, carry it to a denial of justification by the Law, (which is far from me to go about to assert) but touch not upon denomination of [righteous] or [righteousness] upon a sincere endeavor of conformity to the Law. Who knows not but that the Law curseth upon the least transgression, were there not a redress in the Gospel? yet men of Gospel-grace, to whom sin is not imputed, are denominated righteous upon their sincere, though weak endeavor of conformity to the Law. A man may, saith Davenant, be denominated just in himself, from such quality of righteousness, which is true, though it be imperfect, but he cannot be constituted, justified before God, but from that righteousness, which compriseth all kind of perfection in it. Davenant, de Just, habit. pag. 342. We are dead to the Law, saith, Gomarus, upon a several account. To the Ceremonial Law, as to necessary observation, justification, and condemnation. To the Moral Law, not as to righteousness, and observance, but as to justification. Gomarus in Galat. 2.19. So that the whole of these seven Syllogisms, may be put to the other thirty one, concerning unbaptized persons, believing in Christ Jesus. There is not one of the Conclusions that touch me. I say not that the Law judges righteous, or that men by the Law are judged righteous, but that God in the Covenant of Grace, calls weak conformity to the Law, [righteousness] and men of such conformity [righteous.] Davenants distinction of denomination of a just man, and a justified man, is a sufficient answer to all these arguments.

SEC. III. The Moral Law is a perfect rule of righteousness.

IN the next place, you take me up for saying, [I know no other Rule but the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule:] And make it your business to Catechize me better: And thereupon you say, distinguendum est. And so we have a multitude of distinctions, (too many to write out) with this Elogy] upon them: I think the solidity and great necessity of all these distinctions is beyond dispute. But I confess, I cannot be induced to be of your mind. I think the solidity of some of them may well be disputed; and the necessity of most of them (as to our business) wholly denied. I am to seek, how the preceptive part of the Law of nature, delivered to Moses, and the preceptive part of the Law of nature, now used by Christ, as his own Law, (which is one of your distinctions) do differ. Whether Christ and Moses, in holding out a Law of nature, stand at any such distance, may at least be disputed, though perhaps, when others see it not, you may be able to conclude it. I as yet neither know, any detraction from, or addition to, the preceptive part of the Law of nature by Christ. I think there was neither any abolition, addition, or diminution respective to the Law thus considered, made by our Savior. I do not yet see reason so much as to recede from that opinion, that this Law, as delivered by Moses, is binding to Christians. If you be able to conclude the negative, yet I know, that as it hath been, so it may be still disputed. And when we are speaking of the rule of Righteousness or obedience, which is the line and thread according to which our actions should be squared, (under which you justly comprehend the prohibition as proeceptum de non agendis ) I see no necessity of talking either of a rule of reward, or punishment, or a rule of the condition of the reward, or punishment; which is another of your distinctions. These three last Rules, if they be true Rules, may here, as to this business, be very well over-ruled. They are not at all essential to a Law, as coming neither within the direction for duty, nor obligation to duty, but only serve ad been esse, to quicken our obedience, and to withhold from transgression. As to the [Promise] God might have commanded us to work, and never have told us of any pay, and, The [Punishment] is upon supposal of failing in duty. And if you thus bring them in, as accessory parts of the Law, yet I see no imaginable reason to speak of them as Rules, unless it be such as God hath proposed to himself, in his way of distributive Justice. They can be no Rule to us, determining only, (as yourself observe) what shall be done to us, not what shall be done by us. The first branch then of your fourfold distinction of a Rule is here alone of useful consideration, that is, the Rule of Obedience, or what shall be due from us. We have nothing to say here either of the Rule of Reward, or Punishment, nor of the Rule of the condition of the Reward, or Punishment, which are your other branches. And that only, I here intended; and I had thought, all I would have known that I only intended it. This you say, you suppose is my meaning, as well you might: but withal you say, It is strange to your ears; and give your reasons. 1. That is but part of that very Law of nature. Doth not the Law of nature (say you) as well as the Positive Law determine de debito poenae, as well as de debito officii? But sure debitum officii, and not debitum poenae, is our Rule. 2. You say, If you took it for the whole of nature, is that the only Rule? And here comes in, it seems, that which is strange to your ears; that I should make the Moral Law, as determining de debito officii, our only Rule, perfect and complete: Which assertion being so unanimously received, might well have delivered you from all wonder at the strangeness of it, how erroneous soever you had judged it. Undertaking the negative part, and impleading it of imperfection, you have indeed Arminians, Socinians, and Papists, on your part. But Protestants (for ought I know) unanimously your adversaries. Papists have their Traditions added as well to the Law, as to the Gospel, which is an accusation of the written Law, as imperfect: They have also their Evangelical Counsels, which though they are not commanded, yet (as Bellarmine speaks) are commended, as raising Christians to an higher perfection, then ever the Law required. Socinians (with whom many Arminians join) affirm, that Christ hath instituted new precepts of Obedience in the Gospel; and added them to the Commands of the Law, such as transcend and exceed all that were delivered in Old Testament-times. Gerrard having disputed for the perfection of the Law against Papists, cap. 14. De Evangelio, saith, The Popish opinion of New Laws promulgated by Christ, the Photinians (which is another name of Socinians) greedily embrace; making a fair way for Mohammedanism, seeing that in the Alcoran it is in like manner said, That Moses gave a Law, less perfect, Christ more perfect, and Mahomet most perfect of all. Out of the Cracovian Catechism in the same Chapter, Gerrard quotes this passage, Christ came not only to fulfill the Law for us, but added new precepts to it. These new precepts, (the same Author saith) they make twofold: Some of which do appertain to manners, Some to ceremonies, or outward rites in worship. He names three that appertain to manners: To deny a man's self; take up his Cross; and follow Christ: Which three precepts my Author in way of opposition saith, belong to the first Commandment. Peltius in his Harmony of Arminians and Socinians, Chap. 4, 4, 6. showeth their combination against the Orthodox party, as in many other things, so in this proposition now controverted. He there quotes from Socinians these positions: That Christ in the New Testament did not only abrogate the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, but did much increase and add unto the Moral Law: That he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; which fulfilling, (saith he) is nothing else but a perfecting of it, and addition of what was wanting: That we ought not only to observe those things that are given to us of God, and not abrogated by Chrijst, but those precepts in like manner that are added by Christ. Much more from many Socinians, and Arminians, may be seen in that Author to that purpose. Dr. Hammond in his Practical Catechism, speaking of Christ's Sermon in the Mount, agrees indeed with the Papists against the Protestants, That Christ doth not here expound Moses, and vindicate the Law from false glosses, but that he adds to the Law, and names many additions to the 6. & 7. Commandment, & other Commandments, but dissents from Papists that make these Evangelical Counsels, and makes them precepts; not precepts of Moses, but of Christ, added by him to the Law: but this with much Modesty, as though he would not be peremptory in his opinion. So that Mr. Burgess, pag. 166. handling controversies about the Law, saith, I shall now handle the perfection of it, and labor to show that Christ hath instituted no new duty, which was not commanded before by the Law of Moses. And this question, (saith he) will be profitable, partly against the Arminians, partly the Papists, and lastly, the Socinians. He further saith, pag. 169. That Christ did not add new duties which were not commanded in the Law, because the Law is perfect, and they were bound not to add to it, or detract from it, Therefore we are not to conceive a more excellent way of duty, then that prescribed. Further, if we speak of holy and spiritual duties, there cannot be a more excellent way of holiness, this being an Idea, and representation of the glorious nature of God. Dr. Ames in his Sciagraphia, handling the Decalogue, makes this his first doctrine, The Law of God contained in the Decalogue is a most perfect Rule of the guide for the life of man. He gives four reasons, with an use of information, That we esteem this Law as it ought to be esteemed, & that, as the only Rule of our lives, and such a Rule that hath no defect, but is perfect in itself, and requires all perfection in it. Davenant de Justit. actual. cap. 40. pag. 463. saith, The Law of God itself is a most exact and perfect Rule of Holiness and Righteousness: And in the proof of it saith, This is everywhere confirmed in Scripture, which wonderfully extols the perfection of the divine Law. Downham in the preface of his Tables of the Commandments saith, that, The Law of God is perfect, requiring perfect obedience both inward and outward, not only in respect of the parts but of the degrees. The Leyden Professors say, The Law is so perfect, that nothing in Moral precepts, either by Christ or his Apostles, as anymore exact rule of good works hath been added under the New Testament. Disp. 18. §. 39. Ursinus in his definition of the Moral Law inserts this, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience both inward and outward, Pag. 681. Chemnitz entitles his third Chapter de Lege, Of the perfect obedience which the law requires, and presently lays down these words, This doctrine of the perfect obedience which the Law requires, in all ages past hath been, and is now depraved. Bucan in his Common places, Pag. 188. thus defines the Moral Law; A divine injunction containing a rule to live piously and justly before God, requiring of all men perfect and perpetual obedience towards God. I shall conclude with the Confession presented to both houses of Parliament, by the Assembly of Divines, Chap. 19. 2. The Law after his (i. e. Adams) fall, continued to be a perfect Rule of Righteousness, and as such was delivered by God on mount Sinai in ten Commandments; To these, more might be addded, but these are sufficient to take you out of that wonder that I should assert the perfection of it.

But I shall not rest barely upon the authority of these testimonies, but offer to your consideration these following reasons.

1. If the Law be not a fully perfect and complete Rule of our lives, then there is some sin against God which is not condemned in the Law, this is clear; Deviation from any rule given of God is a sin; Deviation from that supposed additional rule is a sin: But there is no sin which the Law doth not condemn; Sin is a Transgression of the Law, 1 John 3, 4. He that sins, transgresseth the Law.

2. If the Law alone discovers and makes sin known, then it is a perfect, full, and complete Rule; this is plain: Omne rectum index est obliqui. But the Law alone discovers sin, Rom. 3.20. This office is ascribed there to the Law, and is no other but the Moral Law. Had not the light of that Rule guided him in this work, he had never made any such discovery. And it is the moral Law written in the decalogue that he means, as appears in the quotation; I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

3. That which alone works wrath is the alone Rule and guide of our lives. This is clear, in what sense soever it is, that we take working of wrath: whether we understand it of working of wrath in man against God, as some do; Mans heart being apt to rise against him that will exercise Sovereignty over him. Or of the wrath of God kindled against man upon transgression of the Law. But it is the Law that works wrath: it is ascribed to it, and it alone, Rom. 4.15.

4. That which being removed will take away all possibility of sinning, that is alone, the Rule of our obedience: This is plain; were there any Rule, the transgression of it would be still our sin. But the Law being removed, all possibility of sin is taken away: Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4 15.

5. If the Law only adds strength to sin, viz. for condemnation, then the Law is the alone Rule of obedience: This is plain; Any other Rule whatsoever adds like strength to sin, and upon transgression will condemn. But the Law only adds strength to sin, 1 Cor. 15.56. The strength of sin is the Law.

6. Either the epithet [moral] is not justly given to the Law, or else it is a perfect Rule of manners, that is, of obedience: This is plain; for moral denotes, as Ames observes, that use of it. But this epithet given to the Law, and appropriated to it, was never (as I think) upon any such account challenged. Ergo.

7. Either this new Rule doth transcend the old Rule of the Moral Law, requiring a more exact degree of perfection (as Papists speak of their Evangelical counsels, & Socinians of their additional Gospel precepts) or else it falls short and admits of obedience in a degree more low. If it require obedience more high, then even the doers of the Law, in the greatest highth and possible supposed perfection; though equal to the Angels, are sinners: The Law might be fulfilled, and yet disobedience charged. If it fall short of the old Rule (which it seems is your opinion, seeing you confess an imperfection is our personal righteousness, as it refers to the old Rule; and assert a perfection, as it relates to the new Rule) then the new Rule allows that which the old Rule condemns, and so you bring in a discrepency between them, and find an allowance for transgression. So that I think, I have sufficient authority, divine and human, with reasons that are cogent, to conclude that which I have asserted, That the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, is a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.

You come in here with six several exceptions taken against the perfection of this Law, or singularity of it, as rule.

1. You demand, What say you for matter of duty to the positive precepts for the Gospel? of Baptism; the Lord's day; the Officers and a government of the Church, &c? Is the Law of nature the only rule for these? And foreseeing what I would answer, as well you might, you add, If you say, they are reducible to the second commandment, I demand, 1. What is the second commandment, for the affirmative part, but a general precept to worship God, according to his positive institution? 2. Do ye take the precept de genere to be equivalent to the precepts de speciebus? &c. To this I think I may answer out of your own mouth. Aphor. pag. 149. The neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second commandment. In case we break the commandments in the neglect of them, then the commandment requires the observation of them. For which you may consult also, Mr. Burgess Vindiciae legis pag. 149. Balls Catechism, Ames his Sciographia, Dod on the Commandments, Downhams Tables, Zanchi, each of them on this Commandment; and Cawdry and Palmer on the Sabbath, Part. 2. Pag. 176. For further clearing of this point, we must consider of the preceptive part of the Moral Law, which alone in this place, is our business to inquire after, 1. As it is epitomized in the Decalogue, those ten words, as Moses calls them, Exod. 34.28. or else, us commented upon, or more amply delivered in the whole Book of the Law, Prophets, and Scriptures of the New Testament. 2. We must distinguish of the manner how the Law prescribes, or commands anything as duty, which is either expressly, or Synecdochically, either directly, or else interpretatively, virtually, and reductively; I very well know, that the Law is not in all particulars so explicitly, and expressly delivered, but that, 1. The use and best improvement of Reason is required to know, what pro hic & nunc is called for at our hands for duty. The Law lays down rules in affirmative precepts, in an indefinite way, which we must bring home by particular application, discerning by general Scripture Rules, with the help of reason (which sometimes is not so easy to be done) when it speaks to us in a way of concernment, as to present practical observation. 2. That hints of providence are to be observed, to know what in present is duty, as to the affirmative part of the commandments of God. If that man, that fell among thieves, between Jerusalem and Jericho, had sat by the way, on the green grass, without an appearance of harm, or present need of help, the Samaritan that passed that way, had not offended, in case he had taken no more notice, then the Priest & Levite did: But discerning him in that case as he then was, the sixth commandment called for that, which he then did, as a present office of love to his neighbor, according to the interpretation of this commandment given by our Savior, Mark. 3.4. When the Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath day, He demands of them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil, To save life, or to destroy? It was not their mind, that Christ should kill the man, only they would not have had him then to have cured him: but not to cure, when it is in our power, according to Christ's interpretation, is to kill. If diligent observation be not then made, the commandment may be soon transgressed. 3. Skill in Sciences, and professions, is to be improved by men of skill, that the commandment may be kept. The Samaritan poured Wine and Oil into the Samaritans wounds, knowing that to be of use, to supple and refresh them: Had he known any other thing more sovereign, which might have been had, at hand, he was to have used it. As skill in Medicines is to be used for preservation of men's lives, so also skill in the Laws, by those that are versed in them, for the help of their neighbor, in exigence concerning his estate and livelihood. 4. We must listen to God's mouth, to learn when he shall be pleased at any time, further to manifest his mind, for the clearing of our way in any of his precepts. There was a command, concerning the place of public, and solemn worship, Deut. 12.5. Unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even to his habitation shall ye seek, and thither shalt thou come. Now they must depend on the mouth of God, to observe what place in any of the Tribes he would choose for his habitation. When God commands, that all instituted worship shall be according to his prescript; this is a perfect Rule implicit, and virtual, tying us to heed the Lord at any time, more particularly discovering his will, and clearing this duty to us. Was not the Law of worship, perfect to Abraham, unless it explicitly told him that he must sacrifice his Son? And if you take yourself to be so acute, as to set up a new Rule, as you are pleased to style it, then you antiquate and abolish the old Rule, and singularly gratify the Antinomian party. Two Rules will no more stand together then two Covenants: In that you say a new Rule, you make the first old: Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8.13. You add moreover, doth not the Scripture call Christ our Law-giver, and say, The Law shall go out of Zion, &c. Is. 2.3. And was not I pray you the old Law, (as you are pleased to call it) his? Saint Paul I am sure quotes that which belongs to the preceptive part of the Moral Law, and calls it the Law of Christ, Gal. 6.2. His Laws were delivered in the wilderness, whom the people of Israel there tempted and provoked; This is plain, for they sin'd against their Law-giver, and from his hands they suffered. And who they tempted in the wilderness, see from the Apostles hand, 1 Cor. 10.9. And as to your Scripture, the words quoted are exegetically set down in those that follow them. The Law shall go out of Zion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem: Which is no more, but that the name of the Lord, which was then known in Judah, shall be great from the rising of the sun, to the going down thereof. You further demand, And is he not the anointed King of the Church, and therefore hath legislative power? For answer, I desire to know what King the Church had when the old Law was, before Christ came in the flesh? the Kingdom was one & the same, & the King one and the same then, and now, as I take it. Many shall come from the East, & West, & shall sit down with Abrah. Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. The Gentiles coming in at the Gospel-call, are under the same King, and in the same Kingdom. And if all this were granted you for which you here plead, it is no more then a change in some positive, circumstantial Rites, and what is this to our question, That our righteousness, which is imperfect according to the old Rule, can be perfect according to the new? when old and new in that which is naturally Moral, is ever one and the same. When the Law required heart-service, and love with the whole heart, upon spiritual ends and motives, upon which account all fell short in their obedience, and performance, shall we say that Christ did dispense with any of this? so the Rule being lower, our obedience now may answer. Others that make Moses and Christ two distinct Law-givers and agents for God, in holding out distinct precepts, give the pre-eminence to Christ, and account his Law to be of more eminent perfection. You on the contrary seem to make the Laws of Christ to stoop far beneath those of Moses.

2. For Justification of your accusation of the Moral Law of imperfection, you say, I think the Moral Law, taken either for the Law given to Adam, or written in tables of stone, is not a sufficient Rule for us now, for believing in Jesus Christ, no nor the same Law of nature as still in force under Christ. For a general command (say you) of believing all that God revealeth, is not the only Rule of our faith, but the particular revelation and precept are part, &c. To this I say,

1. As before, I think I may answer out of your own mouth, where you say, Neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandment, and unbelief is a breach of the first. If we break the Commandment in unbelief, then the Commandment binds us to believe.

2. Much of that which I have spoke by way of answer to your former, may be applied to this likewise.

3. I have already spoke to this, that faith is a duty of the Moral Law, Treat of the Covenant, Chap. 3. pag. 18, 19. To which I refer the Reader.

4. If Adam had no command for faith, then he was not in any capacity to believe, and by his fall lost not power of believing: And consequently it will not stand with the Justice of God to exact it at our hands, having never had power for the performance of it.

5. I say, there was power in Adam, for that faith that justified, but not to act for justification. Adam had that habit, and the Law calls for it, from all that are under the Command of it: But the Gospel discovers the object by which a sinner through faith is Justified.

3. The same answer may serve to your third objection, which indeed is the same with the former, only a great deal of flourishing is bestowed, in discourse of the understanding and will, paralleling them with the Prefaces, grounds and occasions of Laws. And at last bringing all to the Articles of the Creed, to which enough already is spoken.

4. You say, But what if all this had been left out, and you had proved the Moral Law the only Rule of duty? doth it follow the • efore that it is the only Rule? Answ. I take righteousness to be matter of duty, and then the only R • le of duty, is the only Rule of righteousness. You say further, Sure it is not the only Rule of rewarding. And I say, Rewarding is none of our work, but God's, and I look for a Rule of that work which is ours, and that we are to make our business, I confess an imperfection in it to give life, but assert a perfection as th • Rule of our lives, It justifies no man, but it orders and regulates every justified man.

5. You say, The same I may say of the Rule of Punishment. To which I give the same answer: It is not our work, bu God's, either to reward or punish. And here you speak of a part of the penalty of the new Law: And I know no penalty properly distinct from the penalty of the old. You were wont to compare it to an Act of Oblivion, and Acts of Oblivion are not wont to have their penalties. You instance in that of the Parable, None of them that were bidden shall taste of the supper; when th • sin for which they there suffer is a breach of a Moral Command.

6. You say, The principal thing that I intend is, that the Moral Law is not the only Rule, what shall be the condition of Life or Death, and therefore not the only Rule according to which we mu • t now be denominated, and hereafter sentenced, Just or Unjust. To this I have already given a sufficient answer, and if I had not, you answer fully for me, Aphor. p. 144 Thes. 28. Where you say, The precepts of the Covenant, as mere precepts, must be distinguished from the same precepts considered as conditions: upon performance of which we must live, or die for non-performance. And I speak of them as mere precepts, and so they are our Rule of righteousness, and not as they are conditions either of the Covenant of works or grace: And a man may be denominated righteous by the Laws Rule, when he cannot stand before the sentence of it as a Covenant, of which we have heard sufficient. After a long discourse against all possibility of Justification by the Law of works (as though I were therein your adversary, or that the Antinomian fancy were above all answer, that a man cannot make the Law his Rule, but he makes it withal his Justification) you go about to prevent an objection and say, If you should say, this is the Covenant and not the Law, you then tell me that you will reply, 1. Then the Law is not the only Rule. To which I say, When my work is to make it good, that the Law is our only Rule, I marvel that you will so much as imagine that I will say that which makes it not the only Rule. But perhaps, you think I do not see, how it cannot follow, as indeed I do not, neither can I see any color for it. 2. You reply, It is the same thing in several respects, that we call a Law and a Covenant (except you mean it of our Covenant-act to God, of which we speak not) who knows not that praemiare and punire are Acts of a Law? And that an Act of Obliviom or general pardon on certain terms is a Law, and that the promise is the principal part of the Law of Grace. To which I say, that praemiare and punire are not essential in a Law. Some have power of command, so that their words in just things is to be a Law, where most deny any power of punishment; as an Husband over the Wife. Some Parents have Authority to command Children, (Children remaining under the obligation of the fifth Commandment as long as the relation of a Child continueth) when they have neither power to reward or punish. Jacob took himself to be in power to command Joseph (among the rest of his Sons, as appears in the charge that he gives concerning his burial, Gen. 47.29, 30. and Chap. 49.29. So compared) and yet he was not in power either to reward or punish him. And though they be acts of a law where he that gives the Law is in power; Yet they are no parts of a Rule, nor any directiory of life to him to whom they are proposed. I know that an Act of Oblivion or general pardon may be called a Law, as many other things are, catachrestice and abusive but that it should be a Law properly so called, I know not. The Romans defined a Law, whilst that a Democracy was in force among them, to be, Generale jussum populi aut plebis rogante magistratu. Afterwards, when the State was changed, and the Legislative power was in other hands, they defined it to be, Jussum Regis aut Imperatoris. And Tullye's definition of a Law is, that it is, Ratio summa insita in natura, quae recta suadet, prohibetque contraria. Here jussio, suasio, and prohibitio are expressed, which are not found in Acts of Oblivion. That every man, who is within the verge of such an Act, may be said to be acquit by Law, I willingly grant; seeing that Act takes off the form of the Law force condemning him: But that it is a Law, strictly so taken, I know not. You conclude, that you have now given some of your reasons, why you presumed to call that [Ignorance.] And I must presume to acquaint you, that till I hear more of your reasons, I shall remain in this, as Ignorant as ever.

SECT. IV. Imperfect conformity to the Law, is Righteousness inherent; as an Image, less like the Pattern, is an Image.

I Said in my Treatise, [The perfection of this Holiness and Righteousness in man's integrity, stood in the perfect conformity to this Law; and the reparation of this in our regenerate estate (in which the Apostle placeth the Image of God) must have reference, as to God as a pattern, so to his Law as a Rule.] Here I pass by some words of yours of a Transcendentall p • rfection, not well understanding them, much less understanding that they serve at all to our purpose, and come to your second, where you answer, That there is a partial reparation of our Holiness in Regeneration, but no reparation of our personal, inherent Righteousness at all. Is Righteousness by the Law of works? I take this to be dangerous doctrine. Answ. You entitled this controversy, pag. 41. Sect. 28. [Of Evangelical personal Righteousness] And now you understand it, of personal, inherent, Legal Righteousness. Are Legal and Evangelical the same, or, are not you the same? When the Apostle joins Righteousness, and true holiness together, as that in which the Image of God did consist, and is to be repaired in the Regenerate, Is there a partial reparation of the one, and no reparation at all of the other? In your former reply, you say, I hope you observe, that we speak not of that called Moral Righteousness, consisting in an habit of giving every man his own, but of justitia forensis: where you seem to make that a full definition of such Righteousness; when I had thought that Moral righteousness had given God, as well as man, his own: And if we speak not of this righteousness, when we speak of a Rule of righteousness, I cannot but observe, that it hath been a wild discourse, and little to purpose, ever since either of us entered upon it, either we speak of this, or else (I think) we might as well have kept silence. I know no inherent Righteousness, that is not Moral Righteousness. You demand, Is Righteousness by the Law of works? I take this for dangerous doctrine. Answ. You put it as though I int • nded, that the Law raiseth a man to that Righteousness for which it calls in order to justification, and life, according to the tenor of the Covenant of works, which were dangerous doctrine indeed, rendering Christ's death to be in vain, as we may see from the Apostle, Gal. 2.21. And of the more danger it is; the more I suffer. I say, that the Righteousness of which I speak, (and which, all, I think, understand, when they speak (as you do of a believing man's personal, inherent Righteousness) is from the Spirit of God, working with power in the hearts of his chosen, but yet according to the Rule of the Law of God, and led by no other Rule. And here I think there is no danger.

I illustrated this with a comparison [As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Sampler, is an Image: so conformity, imperfectly answering the Rule, is conformity likewise.] Here 1. You come in with yoor Dilemma against me. Either that Image say you, is like the Sampler in some parts, and unlike in others, or else it is like in no part, but near to like. If the latter, then it is but near to a true Image of that thing, and not one indeed. If the former, then it is nothing to our case. Answ. You may do well to tell us, what near to like means, in the mean time, I must tell you, that you bring no perfect enumeration. It is like in all parts, though not with a full resemblance, complete in degree. 2. You tell me that Scheibler says, that similitude do's lie in puncto as it were, and ex parte sui admits not of magìs and minùs, and therefore strict & philosophice loquendo, saith he, that is only simile, which is perfectly so, but vulgariter loquendo, that is called simile, which is properly but mi • ùs dissimile. And then you add by way of concession, that Scripture speaks vulgariter often, and not strict & Philosophice, as speaking to vulgar wits, to whom it must speak, as they can understand. Give me leave then that pretend to know no more then a vulgar wit, to speak the language of Scripture, which I think was your own language in the last Section, where you said, that There is a partial reparation of our holiness in our regeneration, and this, the Apostle tells us is the reparation of the Image of God, Eph. 4.24. And as I take it, the language of Scheibler also in his Topics, where I had thought he had spoken strict or logice at least, and there he saith, Paria â similibus omnino differunt, and how they differ I know not, if there be not magìs and minùs in simili, as there is not in Pari. As you confess it to be true in Scripture-sense; so I take it, with Scheiblers leave, to be true in the exactest philosophical sense. Similitude is founded in quality, as parity in quantity; And that qualities are intended and remitted, I shall believe, till I have learned new Logic. Davenant in Colos. 3.10. saith, This is to be held, that Christ is otherwise the Image of the Father then we. He is the Image of equality, enjoying the same nature with the Father, whose Image he is. Every regenerate man is the Image of imitation, imperfectly resembling some similitude of the divine nature in certain gifts of grace. You conclude, If all this were otherwise, it is little to your purpose, for in this conformity of ours, there is something of quantitative resemblance as well as qualitative, and so it hath a kind of quantity and parity in it as well as similitude to the rule. Answ. What there is of quantity, and how much, you do not tell, and if there be not only a similitude, but also a parity between God and man, so that when God is judged of man, he should be tried by his peers, I shall say nothing, but rest amazed.

SECT. V. Our actions are denominated good or evil, from the Law only.

TO your next Section, in which you complain of unfair dealing at my hands, I have spoken sufficiently: your close only is observable. No doubt, say you, but that sincere obedience consisteth in a faithful endeavor to obey the whole preceptive part of God's Law, both natural, and positive; but no man can by it be denominated righteous (nisi aequivoce) but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree. Your concession I accept, but wonder at your assertion. Is not doing required in, and by the Law, and did John equivocate when he said, He that doth righteousness is Righteous, 1 John 3.7. And do you equivocate also when you put it in your title page of this piece against me? Is that an equivocal honor that is given to Zacharias, and Elizabeth, to Abel, Lot, Joseph, Simeon, and divers others in Scriptures? The men of Sodom were denominated wicked upon their breach of God's Law, being sinners exceedingly: And Lot is denominated Righteous upon his observation of it. I said in my Treatise, [A perfection of sufficiency to attain ths end, I willingly grant, God condescending through rich grace to crown our weak obedience; In this sense our imperfection hath its perfectness: otherwise I must say, that our inherent Righteousness is an imperfect Righteousness, is an imperfect conformity to the Rule of Righteousness.] Here you are displeased, with the ambiguity, as you say, of the word [otherwise] and tell me of a natural perfection, or imperfection, of which actions are capable, without relation to the Rule, which you confess is nothing to this business. And then you add, Many a School Divine hath written (& Gibieuf at large) that our actions are specified à fine, and denominated good, or evil, and so perfect, or imperfect, à fine, more especially à fine then à lege. But this requires more sbutilty and acurateness for the discission, then you, or I, in these loose disputes do show ourselves guilty of. Answ.