The Covenant Sealed

SECT. VI. Unbelief and Impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of Grace.

THe next you enter upon is, a Query, How far unbelief and impenitence in professed Christians are violations of the new Covenant: Opposing yourself against that Position of mine, Chap. 33. Pag. 245. [The men in impenitency and unbelief, that lie in sin, and live in the neglect of the Sacrifice of the blood of Christ, live in a continual breach of Covenant] Here you confess that I cite no words of yours, and therefore you are uncertain whether it is intended against you. To which I say, that it is intended against all that deny what in the Position is asserted; which you seem to do, Aphor. Thes. 34. Pag. 163 Where you say, That the Covenant of grace is not properly said be violated, or its conditions broken, except they be finally broken. But before I enter upon the thing itself, a give me leave to assume thus much out of your own mouth; That men in final unbelief and impenitency are in Covenant with God; This is clear; They that break Covenant, and render themselves properly guilty of the violation of if, are in Covenant. The breach of promise presupposes making of a promise, and b • each of Covenant presupposes entrance into Covenant, Jer. 34.18. The Lord threateneth those that trasgressed his Covenant, and had not performed the words of Covenant: And those that thus transgressed Covenant, did likewise, as we see there, enter into Covenant: But these as you affirm, break Covenant, and render themselves properly guilty of violation of the conditions of it: Therefore it follows, that they are in Covenant. And, as the Covenant is, that they transgress; such the Covenant is, that they enter; They do not enter one Covenant, and transgress another; They transgress a real, and not equivocal, half-erring Covenant: It is therefore a real, and not an equivocal, half-erring Covenant that they enter. And as this clearly follows from hence; so that from you prosition that immediately goes before it, [That Christ's passive obedience and merit was only to satisfy for the violation of the Covenant of works, but no at all for the violation of the Covenant of grace] it clearly follows, That there is no universal Redemption by Christ's Death or satisfaction. If Christ died not for satisfaction of their sin, that stand guilty of the breach of the Covenant of grace, then he died not for the sins of all: This is clear. But, according to you, he died not to make satisfaction for their sin, that thus stand guilty; Therefore he died not for the sins of all. Yea it will follow, that he died for the lesser part only, of those that make profession of his name: Seeing the greater part die in impenitency, and unbelief. Yea, it will follow, that he died for the Elect only; For Faith and repentance are proper to the Elect: All others die in impenitency and unbelief. I do not here go about to dispute the thing, but only observe, that all that Amyraut hath gone about to set up, concerning universal Redemption, with such high applause of yours, is by this position utterly overthrown. For the assertion which in the place mentioned I have laid down, that [impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant] I need say no more, then that which I have spoke, there having been nothing replied to that which I have said. My argument in the place quoted, in brief was this; [They that engage in Covenant to believe in Christ, and forsake their sin, break Covenant by a life in unbelief, and sin: But all professed Christians engaged by Covenant to believe in Christ, and to forsake their sin: Therefore all professed Christians, by unbelief and sin break Covenant] I only here add, If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of Covenant properly so called, then final unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of Covenant properly so called. This is clear. Final perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more, then a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul Godward, in which they before stood, in impenitence and unbelief; As Perseverance in Faith and Repentance, is the continuance of Faith and Repentance. If then final unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the Covenant of grace, then all unbelief and impenitence, denominating a man, an unbelieving and impenitent person, is a breach of Covenant likewise. For the clearing of your meaning, which is all that you do in this question, you distinguish, first of the Word [Covenant:] Secondly, of the word, [Violation.] You say, The word [Covenant] is sometimes taken for God's Law made to his creature, containing precepts, promises, and threatenings: Sometimes for man's promise to G • d. [Violation,] You say, is taken, either rigidly for one that in judgment is esteemed a non-performer of the condition, or laxly, for one that in judgment is found a true performer of the condition, but did neglect, or refuse the performance for a time. You apply both these distinctions: Taking the word Covenant in the latter sense, you say that you have affirmed, that man breaks many a Covenant with God: yea even the Baptismal vow itself, is so broken, till men do truly repent, and believe. To which I reply, That it is no other then the Baptismal vow, or Covenant, that we are to inquire into. Baptism is, as Circumcision was, a seal of the Covenant: In Baptism then we engage to the terms of the Covenant, and till we repent and believe, by your own confession, we break this Covenant. But taking the word [Covenant] say you, in the former sense, i. e. for God's precepts, promises and threatenings, and [Uiolation] in the latter sense, for one that in Judgment (that is at the day of Judgment) is esteemed a non performer of the conditions, so, you say, None violate the Covenant but final Unbelievers and impenitent, that is, (as you explain it) No other are the proper subject of its peremptory curse or threatening. But Good Sir, reflect upon this explanation of yours, and in a more serious way, yet consider of it. To help yourself out; you refer man's violation of Covenant, not to his own promise or engagement, in which he stands in duty tied, but to God's engagements, containing his promises and threatenings, and to violate God's promise or threatening, (which you here imply to be done by Covenant-breakers) scarce carries sense with it. We may incur his threatening, or miss of his promise; but we do not violate either his promise or threatening. Violation of God's precept is disobedience, of which Pharaoh, a man never in Covenant, was guilty, but no violation or breach of Covenant, where there is no voluntary engagement. Our engagement is necessity to make it up into a Covenant, and our violation of our engagements, to make it a breach of Covenant. Was ever any charged with breach of Covenant, in breaking not his own, but the condition of the other Conanting party? Israel was under a Law to let their Hebrew. Servants go free, the seventh year, Exod. 21.2. In Zedekiah's time, they served themselves of them beyond that term. Here was the transgression of a Law, but no breach of any particular Covenant. But when they entered Covenant with God to do that which Law required, and ratified it by cutting a Calf in twain, passing through the parts of it; and again, served themselves of them; here was a breach of Covenant.

So that the violation that you speak of (if you may call it a violation) is no Covenant-violation. Every man that breaks a Covenant, breaks his own; and not another's part, in the Covenant.

And whereas you will have that to be a violation of Covenant, laxly, and not rigidly taken, wh • n one doth negl • ct or refuse the performance for the time, but in judgment (that is in the day of Judgment) is found a true performer of the conditions; to me it is very strange, upon a several account. First, I suppose you mean his own conditions to which he stands engaged, which for a time he thus neglect • , and not God's; And you so spoil all that before you spake of Covenant-violations, respective to promises and threatenings. Secondly, Such a one, in the strictest sense, is a man guilty of breach of Covenant during such time of his neglect or refusal. Was not that younger Son of his Father, mentioned Luk. 15. properly and in the most rigid sense, a prodigal, when he wast • d his substance with ritotous living, notwithstanding that he was after reclaimed to a more frugal course? And was not she also that was a sinner in the City, Luk. 7. truly a sinner, or only in a lax sense, because she afterwards repented? Was not the penitent Thief, as truly, and in as rigid a sense, a Thief, when he stole, as he that stole and repented not? And so he that lives in breach of promise with God, is as truly a breaker of Covenant, notwithstanding following Repentance, as those that live and die impenitent. I know therefore, no other way of explanation of yourself to your Readers satisfaction, but to say, that the Covenant of grace is not finally violated unless the conditions be finally broke. Who ever doubted, but when a sinner repents, the doom which is passed against him for sin, is reversed? And that Paul a persecutor, not in a lax, but in rigid sense, afterwards building the faith that he destroyed, shall not appear in Judgment as a persecutor. And so he that is, as truly and in no lax sense, a Covenant-breaker, being by grace brought in to keep Covenant in the day of Judgment shall be reputed and esteemed a man faithful in Covenant.

SECT. VII. Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, and not God's, in the proper conditional Covenant.

THE next in order in which I am spoken unto, is, that which Sect. 55. Pag. 108. you fall upon, Entituling it, [Whether Faith, and Repentance be God's works?] Where having repeated words of mine out of Chap. 15. Pag. 101. of the Treatise of the Covenant, somewhat largely, but very brokenly, you are pleased to say, Mr. Bls. business here is to refute the answer that I gave to that objection. The objection was thus put by one, that excepted against your Aphorisms. [How make you Faith and Repentance, to be the conditions of the Covenant on our part, seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on God's part? Can they be God's conditions and ours too?] To which I answered (which in part you transcribe) [In case these two cannot stand together, that they should be conditions, both God's and ours, we may answer by way of retortion: And am I sure we have the better end of the staff, that they are our conditions; they are conditions on our part, therefore they cannot be God's: That they are ours is made known of God, as by the beam of the Sun in his word. And I shall not stand to distinguish of an absolute and conditional Covenant, and so making the whole in the absolute Covenant to be God's, and in the conditional, this part to be ours (which I know not whether exactly understood the Scripture will bear) but in plain terms, deny them to be the God's conditions, and affirm them to be ours] In all which I can confidently speak that I never had it in my thoughts to oppose you; yea, I assuredly expected, that how many adversaries soever I should find, yet I should have had you here, on my party. My confidence herein was upon these grounds. 1. In that you have shown yourself so well pleased with that which I had spoke in my answer to Mr. Tombs, for explanation of that text of Jeremiah after quoted; as may be seen Pag. 224. of your Treatise of Infant-Baptism: and I am sure there is nothing here to cross anything that I had spoken there; Showing yourself then so far my friend, I could not imagine, that persisting in the same, I should have had you to be my Adversary. 2. In that you had plainly enough (to my understanding) declared yourself against any such thing as absolute promises, Aphor. Pag. 8, 9. in these words: Those promises of taking the hard heart out of us, and giving us hearts of flesh, &c. are generally taken to be absolute promises; and after some more words, you infer, Therefore these absolute promises are but mere gracious predictions, what God will do for his Elect, the comfort whereof can be received by no man, till the benefit be received, and they be to him fulfilled: Therefore as all mere predictions, so also these promises, do fall under the will of purpose, and not of precept. And Commenting on those 〈◊〉 words of the Prophet, as applied by the Apostle, Heb. 8. you s • y, Appen. Pag. 42. Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt; and having yielded so far as to say, I think you may call it an absolute promise, you caution this freedom of calling it so, very largely, Pag. 43. And then you make all up in these words, So that I conclude, that it is most properly, but a prophe • ie what God will do, de eventu • ; as it hath reference to the parties on whom it shall be fulfilled; and so is the revealing part of God's purposing will, and belongeth not at all to his preceptive or legislative will, by which he doth govern, and will judge the world. And that God's Covenant and promises properly so called belong to his preceptive and legislative will, whereby he governs the world, and not to his purposing will, (according to you) is manifest. 3. You have appeared at large & with much zeal for the conditionality of the Covenant on man's part, and that it is not made alone with Christ, but Christians; with conditions impos • d on them, but not on him. And how this can be, when those are God's conditions and not m ns, I cannot see. If Faith and Repentance be God's conditions and not man's. Where is there any conditions on man's part remaining? 4. Summing up your answer to your Querists 6. and 7. question, you say, Now I hope you can hence answer to both your own demands. To the seventh, You see there is a Covenant absolute, and a Covenant conditional; but the last is the proper Gospel-Covenant. To the sixth, You see that in the absolute Covenant or proph • c • e, he promiseth Faith and Repentance (in promimising his Spirit and a new heart) to the Elect, who are, we know not who. And in the conditional proper Covenant, he requireth the same Faith and Repentance of us, if we will be saved: So that they are God's part which he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant, and they are made our conditions in another. And you very well know, that I speak of the conditional, proper Covenant, or else why do I contend for conditions in it? and in this Covenant of which we speak, you say, they are required of us, and are our conditions. And for the other Covenant, where you say that they are God's part, which he hath discovered that he will perform, see how full I come up to you, Chap. 9. Pag. 64. of my Treatise, where I say, [I suppose they may be more fitly called, the declaration or indication of God's work in the conditions to which he engageth, and of the necessary concurrence of the power of his grace, in that which he requireth]. So that, had you had no more mind to have been upon contradiction of me, then I of you, we had here shaken hands together, and not lift up o • r hands one against the other. You say, Section 38. pag. 37. that you are uncertain whether my 33. Chapt. be against you, because I recite no words of yours, though it be indeed full against your opinion. Here, I think, I recite no words of yours, neither did I, as I thought, oppose any opinion of yours; Yet you say, my business is to confute your answer. You say, A brief reply may satisfy this confutation, And I say, [No r ply] would have been more fit for [no confutation.] You acquaint me how you explained yourself, plainly showing that the thing called [God's condition] was not precisely the same with that called [ours.] Ours was, Believing and repenting, God is, The bestowing of these, as the question expressed. Answ. I think you should have made the difference far more wide. O • r conditions in this conditional proper Covenant, are faith and repentance, to these we are called (as you say,) if we will be justified and saved. God's conditions in this conditional proper Covenant, are those to which he engages himself, viz. rewards, in case of Covenant-keeping, and punishments, in case of Covenant-breaking; One he promises, the other he threats: and these we expect, or fear, according as we answer in Covenant-keeping, or fail, through breach of it Herein I explained myself, Chap. 5. pag. 21. and this sure was your mind, when you wrote your Aphorisms, where you say, Faith and Repentance are God's part, that he will perform in one Covenant, and made our conditions in another. The bestowing of them, then, is no condition of God in that Covenant where they are conditions required from us. You say in a Parenthesis (if I understand you) that our action of believing is called God's condition by the Querist, though improperly, yet in a language very common in Mr. Bl's Treatise. I desire instances to make this appear, that it is thus common in my Treatise. You say, Thus much being premised, I reply more particularly, 1. I will yet say, that God hath such an absolute promise as well as a conditional, till you give me be • ter reasons of your denial, or your questioning whether Scripture will bear it. Answ. It seems you perceive that I do not plainly deny it; I have reasons so far preponderating at least, that I dare not assert it; I shall adventure upon one that makes towards a denial. Meer gracious predictions, or prophecies de eventu, what God will do, are no absolute promises, how generally soever so taken. This I think is plain. There is a difference betwixt a mere prediction and a promise, or a prophecy de eventu, what God will do, and a promise. But these that are generlly taken to be absolute promises, are, (according to you) mere gracious perdictions what God will do, Aphor. pag. 9. Prophecies de eventu, what God will do, Append. pag. 44. Ergo. I shall adventure to second it with another. Promises properly so called, have some determinate object, to whom they are made, and who may receive consolation from them. This appears, Heb. 6.17, 18. But in these absolute promises generally so called, there is no determinate object to whom they are made, or that possibly can receive consolation from them. This is plain. They are made (as you say) to the Elect and being made to them, they are made, (as you further say) to, we know not who, and so none can receive consolation from them. No man can aforehand say, (as you observe,) that he shall have a new and soft heart, because God hath promised it: For he cannot know that it is promised to him; Therefore these are no promises properly so called. You add, I shall yet say, that the giving of our faith and Repentance is the matter of that absolute promise. Answ. That it is the matter of that, which you have called [God's prediction, or prophecy de eventu, what shall fall out,] and now do call an [absolute promise,] I do easily grant: And so, according to yourself, it is not the matter of the conditional proper Covenant of which we speak, which is enough for me against you in the thing in question. You further say, my argument to the contrary, hath little in it to compel you to a change. Answ. My argument, it seems found you changed: I cannot see you the same here, as, at least I thought, I saw you in your Aphorisms. Your Major, (say you) is, Whose acts they are, his conditions they are. In your reply, you seem to grant it, understood negatively, but affirmatively, (you say) the proposition holds not universally, but put not in your exception. But afterwards you put in an • xc • ption, as understood negatively; Nor negatively do's it hold, (say you,) speaking de action quâ est quid donandum. Answ. I think it holds nothing less then if there be quid agendum, as well is quid dandum, in case the action be matter of duty. You say further, to your Minor, I could better answer, if I could find it. Expecting, (say you,) that it should have been this, But our faith and Repentance are not God's acts; And observing that I say, That this rises not to make them formally God's acts, and not ours, leaving out all that, to which the Relative [This] refers, you know best for what reason. Your Reader may suspect, That it is to persuade, that I deny, (which seems your great design here) that God hath any hand in it. I was censured before for giving too m • ch to the Spirit of God, in the work of Sanctification; when I would have the denomination to be given to him, and not to man in that work: And here I am brought in, as ascribing nothing to God's Spirit, because I seem to say, that Faith and Repentance are man's acts and not God's: Where you further except against me, as over cautelous in speaking the two propositions copulatively. It is enough, you say, to prove them God's conditions, and ours, if they be God's actions and ours; Which will be, I think, a disproof (if it be once made good) of that which in your answer to your Querists, you have said; where you say, That they are God's part that he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant, and they are made our conditions in another. They are not then God's conditions and ours in the same Covenant: I am well enough content, that you make them God's conditions, and not ours, in the improper unconditionate Covenant, so that you will grant, that they are our conditions and not God's, in the proper conditionate Covenant, of which we now speak. When I say that this rises not to make them formally God's acts, and not ours, You say the word [formally] may do much to help me out; And I say it is well that I have some help that way, for I fear your great design here is to hedge me in; or else you had not opposed me, where my business is not to oppose, but to defend you, And here you come in with an objection to purpose. It is hard to know whether your [formally] respect a natural, or moral form; Where we have Logic niceties enow: But to let these pass: I think no man but yourself, would have mentioned nature, or morality here. My meaning is only, that, formali modo loquendi, they have their denomination from man, and not from God. You further observe, that I say, They are our acts, &c. God believes not, &c. Yielding that to believe is our act; you object, that to move us effectually to believe, as a superior cause, is not our work, but God's. Answ. Sure you do not think, that ever I thought, that the work of a superior cause above man, is the work of man: And you may plainly see, that I speak as much, in words that you leave out, for God's more superior causality in this work, as you do. You say, Let it be so, to believe, is our work, and our condition; It follows not, that it is not God's. But me thinks this necessarily follows. I never heard, that in any bargain, the condition of the one party, was the condition of the other. And your Reader will think, that you have here much forgot yourself, having in this very page said, The condition is his that performeth it, not his that imposeth it; And I am sure that God imposeth, and we perform the conditions of Faith and Repentance, therefore they are not his conditions but ours. You say, There are sufficient reasons why God is said not to believe, though he cause us to believe. If you please to produce these reasons, I shall he artily thank you. I have said plainly enough, that God causes us to believe, & den • 'd that he is properly said to believe. Your reasons then must needs be acceptable. You tell me of Praedeterminants and their Adversaries, Jesuits, Arminians: All of which acknowledge God to be the cause of u •• acts: And I acknowledge the same, and so far there is a • air and •• i • ndly accord. B • t you say, I adventure a step farher, and say, that faith and repentance are man's work, and not God's. To which y • u reply, 1. What mean you then to yield afterward, that God worketh all our works in us? Those which he worketh are sure his work. Answ. What need you to ask that question, when I there explain mine own meaning? Your • r • u • ent à conjugatis, [What God worketh, is his work] must have its due limits, or else you will run into many absurdities. God works our motion from place to place, and yet he himself does not move. The text itself by me quoted, gives an answer. Having asserted that God works them, the denomin • tion is still given to man: God work • all our works in u • : when he has wrought them they are yet said to be ours. I freely subscribe to that of E •• ius upon the words, Deus omne bonum, ac totum, ab initio bonae voluntatis, usque ad consummationem boni operis, in nobis effic • citer operatur, ordine, sc. causalitatis. You • dde, I never met with any Orthodox Divine, but would yield that Faith is a work of God's Spirit, and the Spirits work is doubtle • s God's work: Farther telling me, If you go the Common way of he Praedeterminants, you must acknowledge that God is the Physical Efficient, Praede • ermining, Principal, Immediate cause of every act of every creature, and therefore doubtless, of our Faith; and that both immediatione virtutis & suppositi; So that it is more properly his act then ours. Here you furnish me with an answer. Though in the highest way of Praedeterminants, I should ascribe all in every act to God, yet they are not God's works or acts in a rigid proper sense, but by a Metonymy of the cause. He works them, because he work us for the acting of them, and so I explained myself, We are his workmanship, fitted and prepared for good works. Christ was the principal efficient when he raised Lazarus; yet it was Lazarus and not Christ that did rise. Concerning acts of this nature, that we are upon, I believe, that Quod voluntas agit, libere agit, interim ex naturâ non est libera ad bonum, sed per gratiam liberata: libera in radice, non in termino. Homo denuo natus vult & perficit quod est bonum; Deus autem operatur & velle & perficere ordine sc. causalitatis. You profess yourself of Bp. Davenants mind, who saith, As for the predetermination of men's wills, it is a controversy between the Dominicans and Jesuits, with whose Metaphysical speculations, our Protestant Divines love not to torture their brains, or at least should not. Declaring yourself, that you take it to be a point beyond the knowledge of any man, which way God works on the will in these respects: I much marvel then that you will so much trouble your Reader about it. You tell us, that if you must incline to any way, it would be rather to Durand, for stronger reasons then you find in Ludovicus à Dola, who yet (you say) hath more then you have seen well answered. And yet perhaps à Dola, in case he had seen your arguments, would have judged his as strong as yours, Notwithstanding your great abilities to give answer to them, when all others that you have seen, have been wanting. So far as I have looked into the Author, I see him a man of much modesty, and one in whom reason is not wanting, though I will not undertake to declare either with, or against him. When I say [Our dexterity for holy duties is from the frame into which grace puts us, and so still the work is ours, though power for action is vouchsafed of God] You reply, Both velle and perficere are the gift of God, and not only, posse velle, & perficere. To which I say I had thought, that Power for action, had included that wnich you say, and not denied it, namely a powerful inclination of the will to the work. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, Psal. 110.3. The will is still man's, when grace has wrought him up to it. I had thought there had been no such danger in Paul's words, Phil. 4.13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me. You conclude, that I have not confuted your answer, namely to your Quaerists question, when indeed I never intended it, and if I would now go about it, I need not, finding it (as I think) done to my hand. You give in your reason, 1. That I have not disproved the absolute promise of the first special Grace. Answ. You say no more of this, in your reply to your Querist, that I can find, but Whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise, is a great doubt, and that you think we may call it an absolute promise; when you had said before, that they are mere gracious predictions. 2. These supposed promises, as you say in your answer, are not within the proper conditional Covenant, and therefore I had nothing to do with it. 2. You further say, that I have not disproved God to be the Author of our faith, so as that it is his work. Answ. I do not find that in all your answer, and you most unfairely make the title of this Section, to be [Whether Faith and Repentance are God's works] My businsse was against your Querist, affirming them to be God's conditions not ours. 3. You say, If I had; yet Believing, which is our work is not the same with giving faith, or moving us to believe, which is God's work. Answ. This I confess; You did not affirm it before, that, I know, and I yield it now. The former is ours, viz. to believe, the latter, God's, viz. to give Faith, or move us to believe. A mighty proof sure that your answer is not confuted if it had been intended, because I have gainsaid, what your answer never asserted. For that wich I intended not against you, but as I thought, for you, That Faith and Repentance are our conditions, and not God's, I thus further argue.

Those conditions that are not mentioned in the proper conditional Covenant, as from God, but req • ired of God from us, are not God's conditions, but ours, in that Covenant. This is clear; Being there expressly required of us, and not so much as mentioned, as from God; they cannot be his engagement, but ours to perform. But Faith and Repentance are not mentioned as from God, in the proper conditional Covenant, but required of God from us. This proposition is your own in your answer, as we have heard before, pag. 45, 46. Therefore Faith and Repentance are not God's conditions in the proper conditional Covenant, but ours.

2. The conditions of a Covenant are his that performeth, and not his that imposeth. This Proposition is your own in this Section, and clear in reason. But we perform, and God imposeth Faith and Repentance. This is of two parts; First, that they are performed by us, This you confess, where you yield that they are our acts. For the second, that they are imposed on us, none can deny, See 1 John 3.23. Act. 17.30. They are therefore our conditions, and not God's, in this Covenant.

3. Covenant-conditions are theirs, that are charged with falsehood in case of failing in them, and non-performance of them. This is plain in all Covenants: To make conditions, and to fail in them, is to be false to them. But in case of failing in Faith and Repentance, man is charged and not God. God fails not but man deals falsely. Therefore they are man's conditions, and not God's.

4. Covenant-conditions are theirs, who upon failing in them, and not performance of them, suffer as Covenant-breakers. This is clear. Israel covenanted to dismiss their Hebrew servants, and dismissed them not: And Israel suffered for it, Jer. 34. But upon failing in Faith and Repentance, God suffers not, so much as in his name. He is not charged with men's unbelief and impenitence: Men themselves suffer. Therefore Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, not God's. So that though I have not refuted your answer, which never was in my eye, yet I have answered your Querist's demand, and made it good, that Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, and not God's, in the Gospel-covenant.

SECT. VIII. The Covenant of Grace requires and accepts sincerity.

I Have passed through those debates, in which our judgments stand at difference; for in the last you will differ, though I had thought there had been a full accord between us. Now I must come to that in which we do agree, which pag. 144. Sect. 82. you entitle, [Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection, and accept sincerity?] In which I take to the negative, conceiving that it requires the same that it accepts. And in your Aphorisms, if I understand anything, you have clearly delivered yourself with me, pag. 157, 158. in these words: As when the old Covenant said, Thou shalt obey perfectly, the Moral Law did partly (I think you mean perfectly) tell them wherein they should obey: So when the new Covenant saith, Thou shalt obey sincerely, the Moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein, or what we must endeavor to do, &c. Whereupon Mr. Crandon is, herein against you, with as great vehemence as in any other of your doctrines. Neither do I perceive, by anything that you have said, that your mind is changed: And I had much rather answer Mr. Crandon in defense of truth, which he, in you, here opposeth, then to spend time in my own quarrel. Though my Tenent give you not distaste, yet it seems, my arguments do not please. But if truth stand, it matters less though I fall. You answer all my arguments in order, as though you judged me to be in the foulest error; when I am yet persuaded, that if not only some, but all of my arguments fail, which you make your business to impugn, the Position itself, (which with you is truth, as well as with me) will fall with it. After a short Apology, and conjecture made, who that Divine may be, whom with much reverence I mention, supposing him the first that manifested himself in the contrary way, that the Gospel requires perfection, and accepts sincerity, You tell me, that you conceive this difference is occasioned by the ambiguity of the word [Covenant of Grace:] and tell me, that in your judgment, I ought to have removed it, by distinguishing, before I had argued against their opinion. And so you fall upon my work for me, and give in abundance of acceptations of the word [Covenant of Grace.] And if I may take the boldness to be as free with you, as you with me, I think you might have done well to have made it appear, where, and by whom, this word is taken in all of these different senses, and significations. If your Reader knew all this, before your Book fell into his hand, you have nothing benefited him, you have only told him what he knew before: If he he knew it not, he hath now alone your word for it. And I know not where else, any Reader may find a great part of it, but from your hand. I profess myself to be much more amazed then edified in Reading all that you have spoke of it. When you have reckoned up very many senses of the word, you say, Now if the question be, whether in any of these senses, the Covenant doth command perfect obedience? you answer, All the doubt is of the three latter, one of which is, Promises, Prophecies, and Types, before Christ's coming. And to speak mine own meaning, (and I had thought, no man had doubted of it) I take Covenant of grace in this dispute, for the whole transaction that passes, in a Covenant-way betwixt God and his people, in order to Salvation, as comprizing all that God requires, promises, or threats, and all that to which man engages himself, and which he expects. But when I speak of that which the Covenant, thus taken, promiseth; I mean that which it promiseth in the promissory part of it: when I speak of what it threateneth, I mean in the Minatory part of it: and when I speak of what it requires, I mean in the preceptive part of it. Now this preceptive part must needs have some rule, at which men in Covenant must look, as distinguished from threats or promises, and containing Agenda, things to be done, and not Credenda, Speranda, or Timenda, things to be Believed, Hoped, or Feared. The rule, or Standard here, in these things, which man in Covenant is called to do, is the Moral Law: God quits not man of his Subjection: He is a subject in this, as he was in the former Covenant. The Covenant of works called to the keeping of it in the highest, fullest, and most complete perfection. The Covenant of G • ace calls us to eye it, and with sincere endeavor to conform to it. When God spake to Abraham (the leading man in Covenant respective to all after-Covenanters, whether Jews, or Gentiles,) he saith, I am the Almighty God, or God all-sufficient, walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1. In which words, we have first the parties in Covenant, and the engagement of either party. God's engagement is to be to Abraham, Almighty, and Al-sufficient for protection, for provision, so that, he need not look else-where to compass good, or keep off evil. Abraham's Engagement is, to walk before God, and to be perfect, or, as it is in the Margent reading, upright, sincere: which walking saith Ainsworth, comprehendeth both true faith, Heb. 11.5, 6. and careful obedience to God's Commandments. That faith is called for in this perfection, see 2 Chron. 16.8, 9. To rely alone upon God in one verse, is to be perfect in the other. That this perfection of service, of obedience, is no other then sincerity, all interpreters that I have seen, acknowledge. See Peter Martyr, Vaetablus, Pareus, Calvin on the place. God Covenants for obedience, (saith Calvin) from his servant; and the integrity, which is here mentioned, is opposed to hypocrisy. Rivet closeth with Calvin, and in many words expresseth himself, that this perfection means nothing else, but integrity, or sincerity, otherwise (saith he) they that walk, and are yet in the way, do not attain to a perfection properly so called. So that according to him, the Covenant requires the same, that through grace the Saints here attain, and that is a perfection not property so called. Dr. Preston on the words is very large to this purpose. As for that which you produce as an opinion of an acquaintance, & friend of mine of extraordinary learning and judgment (leaving me to guess whom you mean, as indeed I do, but with possibility of mistake) That the Moral Law is the matter of the new Covenant; I cannot well understand, at least as you express it. How far the word [matter] may reach, I know not. I believe, that it is their Rule in the New Covenant, but otherwise held out, then it was in the Covenant of works, as I have before expressed myself. As a Law, it loses nothing of it's ancient strictness, for it is ever unchangeably the same; the rule of our duty, and not of our strength; only the terms of the Covenant of Grace, are not for exact observation, but sincere endeavor. So that the least failing is a sin against the Law, but not a breach of Covenant; which for ought I discern is the sense that you give. As for that which in the second place you urge from him, whom you style, Learned, Judicious, and much Honoured Brother, and my friend and acquaintance; making these two, but one Law quo ad formam, I command thee fallen man, perfect obedience; and oblige thee to punishment for every sin: yet not remedilessly, but so, as that if thou Believe and Repent, this obligation shall be dissolved, & thou saved, else not. I should rather take them disjunctim then conjunctim, but I know not whether there be any considerable difference. I so far subscribe, that all that perish by the sentence of the Law, to whom the Covenant was ever tendered, are by neglect of Covenant, left in a remediless condition. The Law damns the unbeliever and impenitent: unbelief holds him, that he is not by the Covenant of Grace delivered from the Law's sentence. When you come to bring all home, by application to me, with your censure for laying an heavy charge upon them that I oppose, and apologizing on their part; I do not well know how to understand your words, that so I might see my own error. You say, It is most likely, that those Divines that affirm, that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience, and accepts sincere, do take that Covenant in this last and largest sense, and as containing the Moral Law, as part of the matter. Before you spake of the Moral Law, as the matter of the Covenant, and now you speak of it, as part of the matter, And so understood, (you say) No doubt it is true, if I understand it of perfection for the future. And then doubtless it is an error, for I understand perfection for the present; And what the Law of God, or Covenant do's require, it doth in present, as I think, require: And what gave you occasion to suspect otherwise, I cannot imagine. When you have taken upon you their defense, or at least their excuse, that hold against you, you come to answer my arguments, that hold with you.

I said, [This opinion, That the Covenant requires perfection, establishes the former opinion opposed by Protestants, and but now refuted, as to the obedience, and the degree of it called for in-covenant.] You answer, If you interpret the Papists as meaning that the Law requires true perfection, but accepts of sincere, then if it be spoken of the Law of works, or nature, it is false, and not the same with theirs whom you oppose. Answ. I marvel that you will put the case [if I do] when I tell you expressly that I do not. I limit the parallel to the obedience, and degree called for in Covenant, which these Reverend Divines make to be the same, as those that I had spoken to, but differ respective to acceptation: and so their mistake, if it be one, is infinitely below the Popish error in the Council of Trent held forth, which I did oppose. You further say, If you take them, as no doubt you do, as meaning it of the Law of Christ, as the Trent Council express themselves; then no doubt but they take the Law of Christ, in the same extended sense, as was before expressed: and then they differ from us but in the fore-mentioned notion. Answ. I do not understand your distinction between the Law of nature, and the Law of Christ, as I have before largely told you, and given in my reasons. You speak somewhat in that which follows, that the Papists do not indeed take the Covenant or Law itself to command true perfection, but that which they call perfection, which is no other then the grace of Sanctification, as I expressed out of some of the chief of the writers: But it is true perfection that those mean whom I now write against. And so you conclude, that you see not the least ground for my first charge. But you might observe what I further say in words more at large, then is here fit to he repeated, purposely to prevent this objection, that they look upon this, which we say is no more then Sanctification, as full Perfection; and such that answers to the Law in the sense in which it was given. Our character of grace inherent is their interpretation of the Law: and so they raise up men in a conceit that they answer the Law, when they live in a continual breach of it.

2. I said, [If this opinion stand, then God accepts of Covenant-breakers, of those that deal falsely in it, whereas Scripture chargeth it upon the wicked, upon those of whom God complains, as rebellious, Deut. 29.25. Jos. 7.15. Jer. 11.10. and 22.8, 9.] &c. You answer, This charge proceedeth merely from the confounding of the duty as such, and the condition as such; And you proceed ex non concessis, to charge me with this confusion; taking it for granted in the words that follow, that a Covenant, which is also a Law, as well as a Covenant, may by the preceptive part, constitute much more duty then shall be made the condition of the promises. In which I conceive there is a double mistake. 1. That a Covenant properly so called (of which we speak can be a Law in the proper acceptation. For a covenant is of 2. parties, either of both concurring to the constitutiō of it, & if it be a Law, both parties are as well Law-givers, as Covenant-makers. A Superior may impose a condition as by a Law, but that is but one part of a Covenant. 2. That there is any duty in a Covenant, that is not also of the Condition of it. I am sure in the Covenant of Grace there is nothing duty, which is not a condition. Faith and Repentance are conditions, and if you can tell me of anything else which is matter of duty, taking Repentance in its due latitude, viz. to cease to do evil, and learn to do well, it will be a piece of a new Catechism with me; These you grant are conditions, and this the [all] of a Christians duty. Whereas you say, If you will speak so largely as to say, All who break the preceptive part of the Covenant, are Covenant-breakers, then no doubt God accepteth of many such, and none but such — for Whether we say, (say you) that the New Law commandeth perfect obedience, or not, yet except you take it exceeding restrainedly, it must be acknowledged, that the precept is of larger extent then the condition, having appointed some duties which it hath not made sine qua non to salvation. Answ. I think God accepts of none that break the preceptive part of the Covenant, in the sense, as the preceptive part of it qua Covenant, is to b • understood; & as interpreters usually give as the meaning of it. God accepts (that I know) none (to speak de adultis ) but those that walk before him, and are sincere. He neither accepts of profaneness, nor men of hypocritical dissimulation. I know sincerity hath its latitude, as perfection strictly taken hath not: An upright heart in temptations hath many a great shock; but if you can say, that the duty of the Covenant is so laid aside, that the heart is not right in the sight of God, as Peter of Simon Magus, (which must be said if the precept of sincerity and uprighthnesse be broke) then I do not know that there is any acceptance. Simon Magus must be in another frame, before the thoughts of his heart be forgiven him. And this I am confident is the thoughts of my learned friend whom you mention, if I do not (as I think I do not) mistake the man: And I have my reason for this confident opinion. And as I wonder at your distinction betwixt the duty and condition of a Covenant, so I no less marvel at your Simile. You tell me, If I send my Child a mile of an errand, and say, I charge you, play not by the way, but make hast, and do not go in the dirt, &c. and if you come back by such an hour, I will give you such a reward; if not, you shall be whipt; He that plays by the way & dirties himself; & yet comes back by the hour appointed, doth break the preceptive part, but not the condition. Your distinction is between the preceptive part, and the condition in a Covenant, and here you talk of a precept that is no part of the Covenant; but if I put all within the Covenant, and say, Come again within an hour, not playing, or dirtying yourself; if he either out stay his hour, or play, or run in the dirt, he forfeites his reward, and is at mercy for a whipping, according to Covenant. You speak afterward of a man's breach of some particular Covenant, which a man may do in a temptation; and yet as to the Covenant of grace, be sincere.

3. I said, [Then it will follow, that as none can say, They have so answered the command of the Law that they have never failed; So neither can they with the Church make appeal to God that they have not dealt falsely in the Covenant, Psal. 44 17. Every sin (according to this opinion) being a breach of it, and a dealing falsely in it.] You reply, This charge is as unjust as the former. I confess it, and you giving no further reason, I shall sit down with the former answer.

4. I said, [Then the great promise of mercy from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto Children's Children to such as keep his Covenant, and to those that remember his Commands to do them, Psal. 103.17, 18. only appertains to those that keep the Law, that they sin not at all against it.] You answer, It follows not: If they sincerely keep the Law, they fulfill the conditions of the Covenant, though not the precept. And I say, the precept of the Covenant goes no higher then sincerity: And I had thought you had fully concurred with me. That Christ (say you) as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but perfect obedience to the moral law; & so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel, not only as a directory and instruction, but also as a command, I am not yet convinced: Adding, My reason is, because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform. Aphor. 157, 158. How these can be reconciled, I know not. I think none is enabled through grace to be more then sincere: and then the precept of the Covenant according to you requires no more. You further say, They keep the precept in an improper, but usual sense, as keeping is taken for such a less degree of breaking as on Gospel grounds is accepted. Answ. They keep it, if they be sincere, in the sense as Christ the Mediator of the Covenant gave it, & in as proper a sense as they keep the conditions.

5. I said, [Then our Baptism-vow is never to sin against God, and as often as we renew our Covenant, we do not only humble ourselves that we have sinned, but we afresh bind ourselves never more to commit the least infirmity.] To this you answer, We do not promise in Baptism to do all that the precept of the Covenant requireth, but all that is made the condition of life, and to endeavor the rest. I desire to know where you find this distinction as applied to our Baptism-vow. You say pag. 79. of this Apology, that Baptized ones are to renounce the Flesh, the World, and the Devil, and that this abrenunciation hath been in the Church ever since the Apostles days, q • oting Tertullian, Cyprian, and all antiquity for it. I would know whether Tertullian, Cyprian, or any other eminent in ancient times, helped it out with your distinction, that we engage to renounce them, not as duty, but as a condition to obtain Salvation. This privative part of duty holding out the terminus à quo, in our Christian motion, implies a positive work, which also was expressed in our English Leiturgie, constantly to believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his commands; and confirmed by the Apostle to be our duty, Ro. 6.4. Buried with him by Baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of li • e. This we vow, and I desire to know what more in any Gospel-precept is required?

6. I said, [then the distinction between those that enter Covenant, and break it, as Jer. 31.32, 33. and those that have the Law written in their hearts, and put into their inward parts to observe it, fall • : all standing equally guilty of the breach of it; no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant.] To this you answer: When sincere obedience, and perfect obedience, are all one, and when the precept, and the condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equal extent, then there will be ground for the charging of this consequence. I marvel how the first part of the answer came into your thoughts. That Text of Jeremiah speaks to sincerity, and not to perfection. For the second, sincerity is the precept, and since • ity is the condition: sincerity is one and the same, and therefore precept and condision are one and the same. That which we are to renounce, and that to which we engage, is our condition. But that which we renounce, and that to which we engage is th • Gospel, or Covenant-precept: The precept and condition are therefore the same. Faith and new obedience are the precept, Faith and new obedience are the condition; The precept and condition are therefore one and the same. So that your distinction falling, as I doubt not but it do's, all my arguments after the first to the last, eo nomine stand. You go about to evade them all with this one distinction, which I leave to the judicious Reader to determine, whether it be not without a difference.

But before I undertake your next, I have to thank you for that which you have transcribed out of Robert Baronius, pag. 401. of your Confession. Treating in an Appendix of the possibility of fulfilling the Law of God, considered according to Gospel lenity, you tell us what his second assertion is, pag. 122. which I desire the Reader to peruse, either in your book, or in the Author himself: Where he may see, 1. That the Gospel is below the Law, as to the degree that it requireth. As to the one there is a possibility of fulfilling, (according to him) and not so to the other. 2. That the obligation of the Law yet remains, so that all failings are transgressions. 3. That it stands as a Rule for us to affect, and with our best strength to endeavor after. 4. That the Gospel requires a certain measure of obedience, on pain of eternal damnation. This doubtless is that which is the condition of it. 5. That this obedience thus required, is necessarily to be, as high as grace enables to reach. In which we see in the first place, their distinction opposed, that say, That the Gospel requires perfection, and accepts sincerity. The Gospel according to him requires no more then it accepts, and for which grace enables. And in the next place, your distinction of duty and condition, is by him utterly overthrown, according to him, all comes within the condition, which is matter of duty.

My last argument was, [Then it follows, that sincerity is never called for as a duty, or required as a grace, but only dispensed with, as a failing, and indulged, as a want. It is not so much a Christian's honor, or Character, as his blemish; rather his defect, then praise. But we find the contrary in Noah, Job, &c.] To this you reply, I will not say, it is past the wit of man to find the ground of this charge, i. e. to see how this should follow; but I dare say, it is past my wit. If it had been said, The Covenant commandeth perfection, and not sincerity, or the Covenant accepteth sincerity, but not commandeth it, there would have been some reason for this charge. But do you think that sincerity is no part of perfection, &c? Answ. My wit is so low, that I know not where the cloud lies. I do not take sincerity to be properly a part of perfection, but a degree towards it; as Calor ad unum, is a degree towards, rather then a part of Calor ad octo, So the lower deg • ee of heat would remain, when a higher is introduced, and not be swallowed up in it. And if the command looks no lower then perfection in degree, the imperfect degree is not directly commanded, though (according to these) it is in dulged. It is said Matth. 12.20. that Christ will not break the bruised Reed, nor quench the smoking Flax. Is that feeble strength, and remiss heat, there looked upon as a duty; or rather is it not looked upon as a defect, or want? Is it not Christ's indulgence, rather then the obedience of his command, that is there noted or pointed out?

My answer to the single argument, (so far as I have read, or heard, against that which I here delivered) follows. But, seeing that your reply, so far as I can judge, is rather with me, then against me, as to the Position itself; and your endeavor, rather to excuse, then defend those of the contrary opinion, (which very well pleaseth me, for I wish that more were said for their honor, so that the truth do not suffer) I am well content to pass it by, having a greater desire to defend you, where you speak for truth, then myself, where not truth, but my reputation is impugned: And shall make it my business to look into that, which Mr. Crandon hath against you in it. Concerning the second, that the Gospel doth require but sincere, not perfect obedience, which is both your assertion and mine, he saith, What shall we think of those Texts in the New Testament, which require us to be perfect? 2 Cor. 13.11 Jam. 1.4. Yea perfect as God is perfect, Matt. 5.48. reproving weakness and infirmity, and commanding a going on to perfection. Answ. We are to think of them as Protestant Divines ordinarily do in their commenting upon them; We deny, saith Rivet, that the perfection of which Scripture speaks, either when it commands us to be perfect, or gives testimony of perfection, or integrity to some, consists in a freedom from sin, Exercit. 52. in Genes. pag. 267. The Text quoted out of James, serves well to explain the rest, Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting, nothing, whence we may argue, 1. That perfection which Christians may attain, is the perfection that the Apostle calls unto, This is plain in the Text, he calls for perfection, that we may perfect: But Christians can reach no further a degree in perfection then sincerity; Therefore the Apostle calls only to sincerity. 2. That is the Apostles meaning, where he speaks of perfection, that himself gives in as his meaning; This is clear, he is the best interpreter of himself. But he expresses himself by perfect there to mean entire, or lacking nothing. A perfection of entireness, or integrality then he means, a perfection of parts, and not of degrees. For that Text of Paul, 2 Cor. 13.11. Finally brethren, farewell, be perfect, &c. let us compare with it, that which he testifies of some in Corinth. 1 Cor. 2.6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect, that is, those that have a right and more full understanding of Gospel mysteries, put in opposition to the weakness of novices, which perfection is, (according to the Apostle) the way to unity of judgment. As for the Text, Matth. 5.48. Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect, If it be streined to the highest, it calls for a divine, increated perfection, Mr. Crandon then must yield, that there is a sicut similitudinis, non aequalitatis, in that place. And if the context be consulted, we shall find, that it is opposed to that half-hypocritical righteousness, which was found in Scribes and Pharisees; which all must exceed that enter into the Kingdom of heaven. In Heb. 6.1. a novice-like imperfection in knowledge, is reproved; and a further growth towards perfection is called for.

Mr. Crandon goes on, If perfection were not the duty of a Christian, and unperfectness, and infirmity his sin, why doth the Apostle groan, and grieve under the remainder of his natural infirmities, and press on to perfection, Rom. 7.14. to the 24. Phil. 3.12, 14? The conclusion here is granted; the one is a duty, the other is a sin, and because of failing in the one, and the burden of the other, the Apostle groans. Foreseeing that this would be yielded him, he adds by way of objection, Or is such unperfectness a sin only in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the Rule of the Gospel, or that the Law doth, but the Gospel doth not call for perfection? Answ. There is not one rule of the Law, as I have demonstrated at large, and another of the Gospel, seeing the Gospel establishes the Law; only the Gospel-Covenant calls for those sincere desires, which grace works to conform in its measure to the Rule of the Law. He adds. This is both contrary to the Scriptures alleged, and doth withal make the Gospel to allow imperfections. But both of these have been already answered. What he further adds, answers itself, save only his great pains to pump out your meaning. But I shall leave you to be your own interpreter, and forbear in this to interpose between you.

Thus I have passed through (Grace assisting) those things, wherein our judgments differ, as also those in which we agree in one. Some other things there are, which both of us problematically inquire into; which Sect. 56, 57, 58. You treat of, under this title [ Of the life promised, and death threatened to Adam, in the first Law. ] In which neither you, nor I, (as I think) see any important difference; and in them I must confess, that you deal with much candour; though there be some things in them, to which I might speak my differing thoughts, yet I shall forbear further to be the Readers trouble, and leave all to enjoy their own judgment.

SECT. IX. The conclusion of the whole, with an enquiry into the judgment of Antiquity about several things in reference to justification.

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

To take into consideration who they be that make the loudest noise, and send out the greatest Cracks about the Fathers; If the Church of Rome may be believed, all Antiquity is theirs. Hoping to put that cheat upon us, as the Gibeonites sometimes did upon Israel, It is still their pretence that all former ages were on their side. If we might but appeal to the Fathers (saith Campian) the controversy were ended, They are all as fully ours, (saith he) as Pope Gregory the 13. that most Loving father of the Sons of the Church. As the windows in the Church & all other things and thinglings (to take the liberty to coin English as he doth Latin) are their witnesses, So all the Fathers also, that the truth is with them. I will say no more, but that these naked names will appear to Judicious Readers, but as an empty sound; a voice and nothing more.

2. That some of untainted integrity, and of no less ability to give account of the Judgment of Antiquity, in these controversies, have asserted the full contrary to that, which you here with so much confidence deliver. Chemnitz was a man differing from you, in every piece of this doctrine, in which you dissent from me, and particularly your adversary in all these three points in which you make this appeal to former ages. He is a man zealous for the instrumentality of Faith in Justification, he is large in asserting the promise of mercy in Christ, to be the special object of Justifying Faith; and against your distinction of Justification, begun by Faith alone, and consummate by works; yea, there is not a man that ever wrote, that appears more your adversary in this point then he, being judged the most learned, grave, and moderate of that party in the Reformed Churches, wherewith you are most displeased, in this Controversy, yet he is full in quotation of Antiquity as of his side, both in his Common places and in his Examination of the Council of Trent, 144. After a List of authorities brought by him, his close is worth observation, These few (saith he) I have noted, that it may appear that our doctrine of Justification, is attested by all the Godly of all ages, that have lived in all times, and that not in their Rhetorical declamations, or vain disputes, but in their serious exercises of Repentance and Faith, in their Conflicts of conscience in temptation, or with their own unworthiness, or before the Tribunal of God, or in the Agony of death: For this way (saith he) the doctrine of Justification as it is delivered in Scripture, can alone rightly be understood. What can be now more contrary then his Testimony and yours? how high are both your confidences in full contradiction one against another. That which you say is a notorious novelty, he saith, hath the attestation of all antiquity; who shall he now believe, that hath not, nor cannot search the Authors themselves, that have lived in your 1300. or 1400. years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. They object. That in the use of this particle [sole] the Fathers exclude all works going before Faith, and Regeneration, and denying only, that the works of Infidels, and unregenerate, do justify. This Rule Franc. à Sanctae • Clara doth produce out of Casalius, but plainly enough signifies, that it will not satisfy. This Chemnitz also overthrows, by several clear testimonies out Origen, and Ambrose.

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

4. Seeing none of these will hold, Franc. à Sancta Clara produceth another Rule out of Aquinas, in Quaest. de veritate, Quaest. 14. artic. 5. ad 12. When anything that is common to many, is attributed specially to one, that comes to pass, either because it is most eminent, or because it is first in it, which Rule might serve with some reason as applied to this purpose, for answer both to Scripture-texts, and testimonies of Fathers, in case they only said, that we are Justified by Faith. But when the Scripture doth not barely give it to Faith, but denies it to works; and the Fathers do not only say that Faith Justifies, but that Faith only Justifies, and particularly exclude works, this Rule therefore can do nothing here. So that I conclude, that Faith hath its office in Justification, which other graces have not, which is not by you denied; And that this office is ascribed to Faith in words implying an instrumentality, as in Scriptures, so in the Fathers, an no other office peculiar can be found for it, according to your Confession, therefore according to Scriptures and Fathers, it Justifies as an instrument. Before I go off this head, let me mind you of that of Dr. Prideaux, which you may find Lect. 5. de Justific. Pag. 146. It did not, saith he, please Arminius, ( as his interpreter Corvinus says) that Faith should be called the instrumental cause of our Justification; Whereupon he addresses himself to him: Tell us in good earnest, O Arminius! how it Justifies? May not I put the same question to you? He speaks for Arminius, o • t of an Epistle of his to Hippolitus à Collibus, the Palsgrave's Ambassador. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 credere, i. e. the act of Faith is imputed for Righteousness, and that in a proper, not a Metonymicall sense, as it apprehends the object, which he there refutes. But it will not serve you to answer thus, For with you, works justify, and yet you confess that Faith hath its peculiar way and prerogative, which agrees not to works in Justification. We must either then yield that it Justifies as an instrument, or shut it quite out from the office of Justification; or plainly confess, we know not what office it hath in this work, notwithstanding Scripture speaks so much of it, and still in those words which in men's common Language denote an instrument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.

• Abraham.
  WHether any Sacraments from Adam to him Page. 24
  • The question discussed in several propositions. Ibid. &c.
• Acts
  Of God are entitled to man, and the acts of man to God in Scripture Page. 451
• Actions.
  Are denominated good or evil from the Law only— Page. 613
• Adam
  Was not Created an infant in understanding, Page. 15
• Admission
  Of men of years to Baptism examined Page. 101
  • The way of the Primitives in it laid open ibid.
  • Admission by a Church-Covenant examined Page. 102
  • Admission to the Lord's Supper, is no act of jurisdiction — Page. 253
  • Admission to the Lord's Supper not to be exempted from cognizance of Church power Page. 273. &c.
  • Rules for admission to Sacraments more explicit in the Old Testament — Page. 92
• Antiquity.
  Who they be that make the highest claims to it, as being on their party Page. 652
  • Chemnitz his thoughts of the judgment of Antiquity, concerning the Protestants doctrine of justification Page. 65 • , 653
  • Quere's put concerning Mr. Brs appeal to Antiquity, in point of Controversy Page. 653, &c.
  • Proofs from Antiquity, for the instrumentality faith Page. 628, &c.
  • Evasions of these testimonies examined— Page. 661
  • Proofs from Antiquity that faith in Christ as pardoning sin is the justifying act. — Page. 633
  • Proofs from Antiquity against the interest of man's obedience in justification as consummate. Page. 665
• Apostates.
  Application of the Seals of the Covenant to them, is a putting a Seal to a blank Page. 20
• Assent.
  Essentiall in Faith Page. 502
  • It must be firm Page. 503
  • Unlimitted ibid.
• Assurance.
  Of faith is possible Page. 496
  • What sins cloud it Page. 394

• Astrology.
  Judicial Astrology censured Page. 39, &c.
• Arminianism.
  The Author vindicated from it Page. 158, &c.

B.

• Mr. Ball.
  HIs testimony of the instrumentality of faith in justification Page. 434
  • That works do not justify ibid.
  • That the New Covenant hath its conditions ib.
  • That repentance is a condition of the Covenant Page. 435
  • No condition of justification Page. 436
• Baptism.
  Johns Baptism, in the whole of it of divine institution Page. 436
  • Contempt and neglect of Baptism censured Page. 68
  • An emprovement is to be made of it Page. 72
  • The sin of Covenant Parents destroys not the Childs right to Baptism Page. 97
  • Visibility of interest the Churches guide in admission to Baptism Page. 104. 110
  • How far Faith and Repentance anciently were required in Baptism Page. 109
  • Their grounds, or reasons, who delayed Baptism in the Primitive times Page. 110
  • Their way of admission of the Catechumen to Baptism Page. 111
  • Over much rigor in admission to Baptism, hinders the progress of the Gospel Page. 112
  • The admission of some to Baptism in prudence may be delayed Page. 113
  • Papists expect not grace for, but a convenient disposition to grace, in the person to be Baptized Page. 111
  • The restraint of right to Baptism—a breach in the Church of Christ Page. 181
  • Baptism, a leading Church-privilege Page. 161
  • In what sense Baptism works what it figures Page. 383
  • Babtisme engages to the first work of regeneration Page. 369
  • The Blood and Spirit of Christ, are not always applied in it Page. 381
  • Dangers attending the restraint of Baptism to the regenerate Page. 551
• Baptized.
  A man unbaptized, is bound to believe in Jesus Christ for justification Page. 144
  • The Author vindicated from a supposed assertion of the contrary ibid.
  • Titles given by the Apostle to Baptized persons do not argue they were always answered with inherent grace Page. 149
  • Upon what grounds Simon Magus was Baptized Page. 160, &c.
• Believers.
  A title in Scripture not proper to the justified
• Believing.
  What ordinarily meant by believing, in the History of the Acts. Page. 177
  • The distinction of believing Christ, and believing in Christ groundless ibid.
• Blood.
  Faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Page. 766
  • This assertion quit from danger Page. 582
  • Blood and Spirit may be distinguished, but must not be divided Page. 367

C.

• Call.
  AN outward call asserted Page. 169
• Calvin.
  Vindicated Page. 118. 550
• Catholic
  And universal, in Authors use of them, distinguished Page. 155
• Chemnitins.
  His testimony for the instrumentality of the word and faith in justification Page. 490
  • See Antiquity.
• Christ.
  The Covenant of works was without reference to Christ as Mediator Page 10
  • Whether the Covenant of works be made null, or repealed by Christ Page. 19
  • Faith in his blood only justifies Page. 566
  • Faith hath respect to whole Christ, to every part and piece of his Mediatorship Page. 562
  • Interest in him, interests us in all other privileges Page. 458
  • Scripture speaks of receiving Christ, and not of the Species of Christ only Page. 459
  • The healing of our nature, and the removal of our guilt is his work Page. 366
  • Faiths instrumentality in receiviug Christ being granted, it's instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page. 441
  • Communication of titles between Christ and his Church Page. 448. 449
• Christians.
  Unregenerates are real and not equivocal members of visible Churches Page. 153
  • Human authority vouched for it ibid. &c.
  • Christian, a title in Scripture not proper to the justified Page. 149
• Church-Membership.
  What gives right to it Page. 201, 102
• Circumcision.
  How Infants were saved before Circumcision Page. 26, 27, 28
  • Several propositions for clearing of the truth Page. 24
  • Circumcision and Baptism engaged to the first work of regeneration Page. 369
  • The right of Circumcision implied the propagation of corruption Page. 368
  • Circumcision was no earnall badge Page. 425
• Cloud.
  Whether two or only one Cloud with Israel in the wilderness Page 521
  • No ordinary one, but supernatural Page. 522
  • The motion of it guided by an Angel ibid.
  • The form of it in appearance as a pillar ib.
  • The use of it twofold.
    • As Israel's guide Page. 522
    • As Israel's guard ibid.
  • It was of the nature of a Sacrament Page. 525
  • No standing Sacrament Page. 526
• Communicants.
  The Lord's Supper must be administered for their edification Page. 199
• Communication
  Of titles between Christ and his Church Page. 448
• Conclusions.
  Desperate conclusions often inferred from right principles Page. 579
• Condition.
  The great condition to which Baptism engages is not a prerequisite to the essence, and being of Baptism Page. 143, 44
  • The Authors meaning cleared Page. 145
  • In what sense faith is the condition of the promise of remission of sin Page. 171
  • Actual existence not necessary to the being of conditions in a Covenant Page. 462
  • One and the same thing, is not the condition of both parties in a Covenant Page. 632
• Confirmation
  Preferred by the Church of Rome before Baptism Page. 528
  • Perfects what Baptism begins ibid.
  • The matter of it— Page. 529
    • The form Page. 529
    • The fruit
      • Minister
      • Ceremonies
        • at consecration
        • at administration. Page. 529
  • Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament Page. 530
  • The Apostles imposition of hands, no proof of it Page. 530
  • The ancient use of it degenerated Page. 531
• Consecration
  Respects not elements, but participants Page. 58
  • Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be Consecratorium, or Concionatorium ibid.
• Contradiction.
  The Author acquit from any Page. 447
• Conversion.
  The Lord's Supper with the word, as an Appendant to it, may be serviceable towards Conversion Page. 200
  • Arguments evincing it Page. 200, 201, &c.
  • Whether the Lord's Supper may be styled a Converting Ordinance Page 211
  • Explicatory propositions ibid. &c.
  • The Lord's Supper doth not necessarily suppose a through conversion Page. 217
• Covenant.
  Law and Covenant are not to be confounded Page. 598
  • Keeping Covenant, failing in Covenant, and forfeiture of it, to be distinguished Page. 392
  • The Covenant falling, Sacraments annexed fall with it Page. 18, &c.
  • Where God denies his Covenant, there the seal must not be granted Page. 20
  • The Covenant people of God, the adequate subject of Sacraments Page. 74
  • All relation to God in tendency to salvation is founded in the Covenant ibid.
  • Interest in Sacraments, is upon the account of the Covenant Page 75, &c.
  • God enters a Covenant with his people exactly and properly so called Page. 79
  • The word Covenant asserted ibid.
  • The thing itself asserted Page. 80
    • in the essentials of it Page. 80, 81
    • in the solemnities Page. 81
  • Arguments evincing a Covenant between God and man in its proper nature Page. 82
  • Covenant and seal are commensurate Page. 120
• Covenant outward and inward.
  This distinction examined Page. 83
  • The Author vindicated in it Page. 124
  • The outward Covenant is most properly a Covenant Page. 83, &c.
  • To it belongs the definition of a Covenant, ibid.
  • It usually bears the name in Scripture Page. 84
  • Men enjoy privileges of Ordinances, and interest in Sacraments, upon account of the outward Covenant Page. 86
  • Scripture characters of men in Covenant Page. 115
• Covenant God.
  God's Covenant with his people not equivocal Page. 80
  • Men of a visible profession timely and really not equivocally in Covenant with God Page. 128
• Covenant of works
  Passe between God and man in an immediate way, without any reference to Christ as Mediator Page. 10, 11
  • Whether this Covenant be made null, or repealed by Christ. Page. 19
• Covenant of Grace.
  Righteousness of faith the great promise of it Page. 414
  • Duty and condition in it are one and the same Page. 641, 643
  • It requires and accepts sincerity Page. 637
  • Arguments evincing it vindicated Page. 639
  • Mr. Cramdons Arguments against Mr. Br. herein answered Page. 645
• Covenant absolute Conditional.
  Arguments offered against an absolute Covenant Page. 626
  • Faith and Repentance are man's conditions, not God's in the proper conditional Covenant Page. 626
• Covenant Old and New.
  Sacraments under the old and new Covenant one and the same Page. 25

Disciple. D.

• A Title in Scripture, not always proper to the justified Page. 149
• Discipline.
  Church-discipline asserted Page. 266, &c.
  • Objections answered Page. 268
• Dogmatical Faith
  Is a true Faith Page. 176
  • Entitles to Baptism Page. 103
  • The Authors Arguments proving That a Dogmatical Faith, or a Faith short of justifying, entitles to Baptism, uindicated. Page. 120, 121, &c
  • 17. Arguments added for the proof of it Page. 161
  • Arguments from human authorities against a Dogmatical Faith examined Page. 147
• Dogs.
  Dogs and Swine what they mean Page. 260

E.

• Eldership.
  ALlegations for the power of an Eldership in admission to the Sacrament Page. 252
  • These taken into consideration Page. 253
  • Ruling Elders uindicated Page. 270, &c.
  • Grotius his testimony concerning them Page 171
• Election
  And the Covenant of grace not commensurate Page. 124
• Elect.
  Restriction of the Covenant to the the Elect regenerate confounds the Covenant, the and conditions of it Page. 134
  • Exceptions against it answsred Page. 135, 136
  • Restraint of Covenant to the regenerate, denies any breach of Couenaut Page. 138
  • Exception against it examined. ibid, &c.
• Elements.
  No continual holiness in Sacramental Elements. Page. 324
  • Their touch or abode makes not holy Page 325
• Engagement.
  Answer to Sacramental engagements necessary to Salvation Page. 387
  • Arguments euincing it Page. 389
  • Sacraments without spiritual profit to those that lived in breach of Covenant Page. 18
  • Sacraments are mere shadows, and empty signs where conscience answers not to the engagements Page. 389, &c.
  • Sacraments are aggravations of sin, and hightnings of judgments, when conscience answers not to Sacramental engagements Page. 390
  • When conscience answers not to Sacramental engagements, men subscribe to the equity of their own condemnation Page. 391
  • When it is that conscience answers to Sacramental engagements Page. 392
• Equivocall.
  Men of a uisible profession, really and not equiuocally in Covenant with God Page. 128
  • God's Covenant with his people, no equiuocall Covenant. Page. 80
  • Scripture language not equiuocall Page. 140. 150
• Equivocation.
  What it is Page. 139
• Errors.
  Reformers uindicated from a charge of four supposed great errors Page. 438
  • Protestants uindicated from four supposed great errors. Page. 452
• Erroneous.
  Persons in an incapacity to receive any benefit from the Lord's Supper Page. 236, &c.
• Evidence.
  Men in grace often want assuring evidence of grace Page. 190
  • Grounds laid down Page. 190, 191, &c,
• Eunuch
  His Baptism inquired into Page. 176

F.

• Faith
  THe alone grace that interests us in the righteousness of the Covenant Page. 432
  • All foreign reformers make not faith a full persuasion Page. 439, &c.
  • Whether the act, or habit of faith, doth justify?— Page. 442
  • These phrases to be justified by faith, and faith justifies, are one and the same— Page. 444
  • Faiths instrumentality in justification asserted by Scriptures ibid.
  • The unanimous consent of Protestant writers in it— Page. 445, &c.
  • There is somewhat of efficiency in man's faith for justification— Page. 447
  • How Christ dwells in our hearts by faith Page. 450
  • Faith doth more then qualify the subject to be a fit patient to be justified Page. 460
  • More then a bare presence of faith is required to justification Page. 468
  • In what sense the Gospel through faith is efficacious for justification Page. 481
  • Christians must bring their faith to trial Page. 492
  • The absolute necessity of faith ibid.
  • Manifold benefits of it Page. 494. &c.
  • The humbled soul the proper seat of faith Page. 498, &c.
  • Faith hath its seat in the will, as well as in the understanding Page. 504
  • It is hold out in words in Scripture implying affiance, trust, &c. ibid.
• Faith defined
  Page. 505
  • Faith far under-values all earthly things respective to Christ Page. 510
  • Faith is against all whatsoever is against Christ Page. 512
  • It suffers no lust to divide from Christ ibid.
  • Faith in Christ quâ Lord is not the justifying act— Page. 554
  • The distinction of fides quae, and fides quâ asserted Page. 565, 566
  • Protestant writers guilty of no cheat in it ibid.
  • Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Christ only justifies Page. 566. &c.
• Faith dogmatical,
  See dogmatical.
• Faith justifying,
  See justification.
• Faiths instrumentality,
  See instrument.
• Fathers
  And Councils often too rigorous in their Rules respective to Church discipline Page. 112
  • Queres put touching the authority of the Fathers in Controversies— Page. 653, &c.
• Mr. Firmin
  His Appendix as to the latitude of Infant-Baptism examined Page. 94, &c.
  • The Authhor vindicated Page. 95, 96
  • His Appendix as to admission of men of years examined Page. 104, &c.
  • Advertisments given to Mr. Br. touching his undertakings for him Page. 180
  • Their disagreement Page. 180, &c.
• Food.
  Ordinary and quickening food differenced Page. 218
  • The word as well as the Sacrament is food. — ibid.
• Forum Dei
  Mr. Brs. distinction of Forum Dei, and Forum Ecclesiae examined Page. 141
• Form
  A precise form of words not of the essence of Sacraments Page. 59

G.

• Gesture
  NO one Gesture of necessary observation in receiving of the Sacrament Page. 310
• God
  His great goodness in condescension to man's weakness in institution of Sacraments Page. 52, &c.
  • He is the Author of all Sacraments, and Sacramental rites Page. 63
  • He is to prescribe in his own worship Page. 65
  • He alone must distinguish his servants in relation from others Page. 65, 66
  • He only gives efficacy to Sacraments Page. 66
  • He only can seal his promise Page 66, 67
  • His great goodness, and the tender care of Christ in condescension to our weakness Page. 349
  • His compassion to us should move us to compassionate ourselves Page 551
• Gospel.
  Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his Priestly Office. Page. 567
• Grace.
  Papists speak doubtfully of any work of inherent grace infused in Baptism Page. 377
  • Protestants deny any such infusion of grace in Baptism Page. 378
  • The Fathers acknowledge no such infusion of grace in Baptism ibid.
  • Common grace is real Page. 132

H.

• Heresy
  IN the Parent divests not the Child from Church-privileges Page. 99
• Holiness.
  Covenant-holiness must not be confounded with inward holiness Page. 148, 149
  • The doctrine of Covenant-holiness more ancient then Zwingli Page. 117
  • Calvin and Beza not the inventers though the promoters of it Page. 118
• Mr. Humphreys.
  His Treatise of a free admission to the Lord's Supper Page. 247

I.

• NAtural Idiots uncapable of benefit by the Lord's Supper Page. 229
• Ignorance, Ignorant.
  In Covenant Parents divests not the Child of Church-privileges Page. 99
  • Grossely ignorant ones in an incapacity of benefit by the Lord's Supper Page. 230
  • Ignorance distinguished ibid.
• Image.
  An Image less like the Pattern, is an Image. Page. 612
• Impenitence
  And unbelief in professed Christians are violations of the Covenant of grace Page. 622
  • Arguments evincing it Page. 624, &c.
• Infants
  Of confederate Parents put no bar to their Baptism Page. 95
  • They are uncapable of benefit by the Lord's Supper. Page. 226
  • The different practice of Antiquity ibid.
  • Schoolmen divided about it ibid.
  • The present practice of the Church of Rome in it Page. 227
  • Whether Infants were saved by their Parents faith, and how before circumcision Page. 26, 27, 28
  • Several propositions laid down Page. 29, &c.
• Infant-Baptism.
  Several benefits of it Page. 185, &c.
  • See Baptism.
• Infirmities.
  Men Covenant not with God to be above all infirmities Page. 392
  • Meer infirmities no Covenant-breaches ibid.
  • Their happiness whose sins are not above infirmities Page. 393
  • Sins above infirmities and towards presumption ibid.
  • See Sin.
• Institution.
  A word of institution necessary to the being of Sacraments Page. 58
  • Repetition and explanation of this word of institution singularly useful Page. 59
  • All Sacramental rites must be of divine institution
• Instrument. Faith.
  The instrumentality of Faith in justification asserted Page. 437
  • Scripture Texts holding out the instrumentality of Faith, as in other actions, so in justification Page. 444
  • Whether the action of the principal cause, and of the instrument in Moral operations is always one Page. 445
  • The unanimous consent of Protestant writers, that Faith is an instrument ibid. &c.
  • Faiths instrumentality makes not man the efficient cause of his justification Page. 438. 464
  • Faiths instrumentality in receiving Christ being granted, its instrumentality in justification cannot be denied Page. 441
  • Faith is the instrument of the soul, and not of itself in receiving Christ Page. 443
  • Instruments of mere reception, and further operation distinguished Page. 448
  • Faith an instrument of the proper reception of Christ Page. 460
  • It is the instrument both of God and man in the work of justification Page. 448. 487
  • The grant of the New Covenant, is not an instrument of justification solely sufficient Page. 466
  • Concauses instrumental have efficacy one from another Page. 470
  • Instruments Cooperative, or Passive Page. 474
  • Whether the word be a passive instrument, or Cooperative with the Spirit ibid.
  • An instrumental effi • iency ascribed to Faith respective to Salvation Page. 486
  • Arguments for the instrumentality of faith in justification Page. 485
  • Proofs from Antiquity for its instrumentality in justification Page. 628, &c.
  • See Faith.
• Justification.
  The relative change in it necessarily presupposes a real Page. 447
  • God and man not co-ordinate causes in it Page. 449
  • In justification of man, God acts not without man Page. 446
  • Quaeres put, in what sense the grant of the New Covenant is said to be solely instrumental in the work of justification Page. 478
  • Arguments against the sole sufficiency of the grant of the New Covenant for justification Page. 489
  • Justification by Gospel grant, and by the sentence of the Judge, how they differ Page. 556, 557
  • Justification at the day of judgment not specifically distinct from that which precedse. Page. 558
  • The Father appoints the terms of justification and salvation Page. 559
  • Paul treats directly and industriously of justification by faith Page. 576
• Justifying
  Faith which is short of justifying gives title to
  • Baptism Page. 163, &c.
  • Several arguments vindicated Page. 120, &c.
  • Exceptions examined Page. 143
  • Additionall arguments to prove it Page. 161
  • Covenanting and justifying not Synonima's Page. 135, 136
  • None able to Baptize, if justifying faith only give admission Page. 160
• Jurisdiction
  Admission to the Lord's Supper is no act of jurisdiction Page. 253
  • Arguments evincing it ibid. &c.
  • Objections answered Page. 262

K.

• Knowledge
  A necessary prerequisite in faith Page. 500
  • Knowledge distinguished Page. 501
  • See Ignorance.

L.

• Law
  ANd Covenant are not to be confounded Page. 598
• Law Moral.
  Arminians, Socinians, and Papists oppose the perfection of the Moral Law Page. 601
  • Authorities of Protestant writers, for the perfection of the Moral Law Page. 602
  • Arguments evincing the perfection of the Moral Law Page. 603
  • Objections answered Page. 605
  • There is no sin that is not condemned in the Moral Law Page. 603
  • In what sense the preceptive part of the Moral Law is a perfect rule of righteousness Page. 605, &c.
  • Actions are denominated good or bad, from the Law only Page. 613
  • Men are denominated really, and not equivocally righteous, that imperfectly obey the Moral Law Page. 614
  • The Law commanding duty, and the end of the duty are not opposite, but subordinate Page. 614
• Law nature.
  What meant by the time of the Law of nature Page. 24
  • No Sacraments appointed of God, during the time called the Law of nature Page. 24, &c.
  • Scripture silence a probable argument Page. 26
  • Jesuits arguments herein examined. ibid.
  • The preceptive part of the Law of nature delivered to Moses, and as used by Christ, whether they differ Page. 600
• Liturgy.
  Divine ordinances must not stand or fall upon the want, or fruition of any set leiturgy whatsoever Page. 308
  • Liturgy of the Church of England taken into consideration ibid. &c.
  • 1. As to the work itself Page. 308
  • 2. As to the sanction put upon it Page. 309
• Life.
  What meant by it in the Covenant of works Page. 11
  • Not barely an animal life, ibid. &c.
  • The tree of life had not any natural power to answer its name Page. 12
• Lord.
  Faith in Christ qua Lord, is not the justifying act Page. 554
  • The position at large discussed Page. 555, &c.
• Lord's Supper.
  • See Sacraments.
  • Supper.
• Lunatick
  Persons uncapable of any benefit by the Lord's Supper Page. 229

M.

• Man
  His first original is in sin Page. 363
  • Arguments evincing it Page. 364
  • In man's restitution, his nature must be healed, and his guilt removed Page. 366
  • The healing of his nature, and the removal of guilt is the work of Christ Page. 366
• Manna.
  Whence it hath its name Page. 523
  • The time it continued with Israel Page. 524
  • Miraculously provided ibid.
  • A fable concerning it ibid.
  • Of a Sacramental nature Page. 525
  • No standing Sacrament Page. 526
• Means.
  Their necessity for our help in the way of faith and obedience Page. 17
  • Objections answered Page. 17, 18
• Mediator.
  See Christ.
• Metonymies
  Frequent in Scripture Page. 572
• Marriage.
  The Matter Page. 540
  • Form Page. 540
  • Minister. Page. 540
  • Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament Page. 541
• Minister.
  Allegations for a Ministers sole power in admission to the Sacrament Page. 251
  • Inconveniences objected against it answered. Page. 262
  • A Ministers prudence in this work, to see with more eyes then his own Page. 272
  • Where an Eldership is erected to make use of them ibid.
  • To make scrutiny into men's knowledge with all tenderness Page. 273
  • Not to refuse, but upon known crimes ibid.
  • When he cannot in this do what he would, he is to do what he is able Page. 274
• Ministerial
  Dispensation of Sacraments a part of the Ministerial function Page. 277
  • Whether Ministerial dispensation be of the essence of Sacraments Page. 277, &c.
  • Gospel order transgressed, when Sacraments are not dispensed by a Ministerial hand Page. 278
  • Doctor Abbots, and Mr. Hookers judgment in it ibid.
• Mixt.
  Lawfull to communicate in mixed congregations Page. 314
  • Arguments evincing it ibid. &c.
• Moral.
  Perfection, or imperfection is in reference to a rule Page. 592
  • Duties naturally Moral bind all Page. 195
  • Where a positive command is given, there is a Moral tie to obedience. ibid
  • See Law.
• Moses.
  Baptism into him what Page. 526

N.

• Names
  GIven by God not empty titles Page. 12
• Nature
  What meant by the times of the Law of nature? Page. 24
• Necessity
  Of Sacraments asserted Page. 285, &c.
  • Argumeats evincing it Page. 288, &c.
  • The kind of degree of the necessity of Sacraments inquired into Page. 289
  • Not absolutely necessary to Salvation Page. 289
  • Objections answered Page. 290
  • Explicatory Rules delivered in it Page. 294, &c.
  • A greater degree of necessity in the initiatory leading Sacrament then in that which follows Page. 298
  • Arguments evincing it ibid. &c.

O.

• Obedience
  MAns sin disobligeth him not from obedience Page. 195, 196, 197
• Obligation.
  Mans Obligation of himself unto God implies God's mutual obligation Page. 130
• Oblige
  Mans inability for duty, doth not disoblige from duty Page. 197
• Orders
  Their number in the Church of Rome, and their divisions Page. 538
  • Most of this number doubted by themselves, whether they be Sacraments ibid.
  • The Matter Page. 539
  • Form Page. 539
  • Effect Page. 539
  • Minister Page. 539
  • Reasons evincing it to be no Sacrament ib.
• Ordinances
  All outward Ordinances are for the Church in fieri and not only in facto Page. 189
  • Sacraments must have the Honor of divine Ordinances Page. 68
• Original sin
  Asserted Page. 363
  • Distinguished into peccatum originans & orinatum Page. 365
  • Original sin not a mere want of primitive integrity, but attended with unversall defilement ibid. &c.
• Oil
  Anointing with Oil, Jam. 14, 15.
  • What it means Page. 536, 537
  • Queres put to those that would revive this practice Page. 537

P.

• Parables.
  CHrist speaking in Parables what it meaneth Page. • 4
• Pardon
  Closing with God for pardon is not to pardon a man's self Page. 452
• Passive
  Neither believing, nor receiving are to be judged merely passive Page. 442
  • In what sense faith passive in justification Page. 476, &c.
• Pemble
  Not sole, and singular in asserting the word to be a passive instrument Page. 476
  • He is large in reasons of it Page. 475
• Penance
  The parts of it
  • Contrition Page. 531, 532
  • Confession Page. 531, 532
  • Satisfaction. Page. 531, 532
  • Papists agree not what that is in Penance that makes up a Sacrament Page. 533
  • Arguments evincing it to be no Sacrament ib.
• People.
  Allegations for their power examined Page. 252, 264
• Perfection
  Of the subject, and perfection of parts respective to the universality of the object distinguished Page. 586
• Pighius
  A learned Papist, with divers others, joins with us in the doctrine of justification Page. 440
• Pope
  He hath his visible pardoner as well as others Page. 464
• Prayer
  A necessary means of faiths nourishment Page. 509
• Priest
  The several functions of Christ as Priest, King, Prophet, are to be distinguished, but not divided Page. 562
• Priestly
  Levitical types lead us unto Christ in his Priestly office Page. 566
• Privileges
  A faith short of justifying entitles to visible privileges. Page. 161
• Profession
  Men of a visible profession truly and really in Covenant with God Page. 128
  • Profession of faith engages to a lively working faith Page. 172, &c.
• Promise.
  That which is the condition of the thing promised, is not the condition of the Seal. Page. 173
  • Exceptions against it examined. ibid.
  • Gospel promises are a savor of death unto many Page. 469
• Protestants.
  Vindicated from four supposed great errors Page. 452
  • The author is confessed to appear in the common cause of Protestants ibid.

R.

• Rainbow.
  DEfined— Page. 516
  • It had respect to a Covenant improperly so called Page. 517
  • It was an instituted sign ibid.
  • Correspondencies between it and the promise Page. 518
  • How far it was Sacramental ibid.
  • How far it falls short ibid 519
• Real
  Covenants may be broke by men in Covenant Page. 138
  • Common grace is real— Page. 132
  • Men of a visible profession really in Covenant with God— Page. 128
• Regenerate
  Duties of positive institution do not only bind the regenerate Page. 195
• Repentance.
  How prerequired in Baptism Page. 108
• Repentance and Faith
  Are man's conditions not God's in the proper conditional Covenant Page. 626
• Right
  Fundamental, and actual distinguished Page. 88
  • The distinction cleared
    • In civil immunities Page. 88
    • Ecclesiastical privileges Page. 89
  • They must be both written Page. 90
  • Right unto, a bar to detain from Sacraments not always express Page. 91
• Righteous
  Men are so denominated, really and not equivocally that imperfectly obey the Law Page. 614
• Righteousness
  Non rea • us is not righteousness Page. 588
  • Imperfect righteousness is no contradiction Page. 589
  • Righteousness as well as holiness is intended and remitted— ib.
  • Righteousness and holiness in what sense commonly used Page. 592
  • Righteousness in an imperfect conformity to the Law asserted Page. 595
  • There is a partial reparation of in herent righteousness in regeneration Page. 611
  • That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal— Page. 413
• Righteousness. Christ.
  The natural righteousness of Christ is not our justification Page. 439
  • Whether the righteousness whereby Christ's person was righteous be given to us Page. 453
  • Queries put concerning this gift of righteousness Page. 454
  • Faith being terminated on Christ, is terminated on his righteousness Page. 455
  • To receive his righteousness for justification no fancy or delusion Page. 456
• Righteousness. Faith.
  The Righteousness of Faith is the great promise of the Covenant of grace Page. 414
  • This righteousness is sealed in the Sacraments of the Covenant of grace— Page. 415
  • Proved by Scriptures— Page. 417
  • Confirmed by reasons— Page. 418
  • Explained by rules— Page. 419, 420
  • Bellarmine's five objections answered Page. 421, &c.
  • Propositions explaining the meaning of the righteousness of Faith Page. 415
  • So called in opposition to the righteousness of works required in the Covenant. ibid.
  • It is the Synecdochically put for the whole of the Covenant that interests us in this righteousness ibid. &c.
  • All blessings and privileges flowing from, and following upon this Covenant unto true blessedness are comprised under the righteousness of faith Page. 416
  • Christ the Mediator of the Covenant, is the fountain from whence the blessedness of this righteousness comes ibid.
  • Faith considered as an instrument receiving this righteousness ib.
  • All must see that they be right principled in the doctrine of the righteousness of faith Page. 429
  • Ignorance here was the Jews undoing ib.
  • Papists mistake in this point Page. 429, &c.
  • Faith the alone grace that interests us in this righteousness. Page. 432
• Rock.
  How it was said to follow Israel Page. 524
  • The Rock itself was not intended as a sign, but the water flowing out of it Page. 525
  • Of the nature of a Sacrament ib.
  • No standing Sacrament Page. 526
• Rule.
  See Law.

S.

• Sacrament.
  THe word vindicated— Page. 2, 3
  • The reason of the word inquired after Page. 4, 5
  • The various acceptations of it Page. 6, 7, 8
  • Whether man enjoyed, or was capable of a Sacrament in the state of integrity— Page. 9
  • No Sacrament instituted of God during the time called the Law of nature Page. 24, &c.
  • A Sacrament may be defined— Page. 32, &c.
  • The definition of a Sacrament in general Page. 8
  • The Apostles definition, Rom. 4, 11
  • Vindicated— Page. 33, 34
  • A full definition thence laid down Page. 36
  • The sign and thing signifi • d in every Sacrament are Analogically one Page. 49, 50
  • No Sacrament without a promise preceding Page. 56
• Sacraments.
  The distribution of them Page. 9
  • God not tied to Sacraments Page. 30, 31
  • They are standing Ordinances Page. 294
  • Reasons evincing it Page. 295, 296
  • When they are dispensed they may not without weighty reasons be omitted Page. 306
  • The being of them consists in their us • . Page. 317, &c.
  • Arguments evincing it ib.
  • The Sacrament of the Supper not exempted Page. 119
  • Reasons given ibid. &c.
  • Sacraments have respect both to the change of of our nature, and the removal of our guilt Page. 368
  • We are to look for no more from Sacraments then God hath put into them Page. 405
  • As the word teacheth by the ear, so Sacraments by the help of the word teach by the eye Page. 413
  • Men professing relation to God, may see in Sacraments further engagements, and provocations to holiness ibid.
  • Sacraments are necessary means of faiths nourishment Page. 508
  • Sacraments are seals entrusted in the hand of men— Page. 192, &c.
  • Sacraments seal the promise of the Gospel condionally Page. 194
  • Gospel Sacraments lead us unto Christ in his priestly office Page. 567
  • All Sacraments from the fall substantially one Page. 424, 426
• Sacramental
  God's condescension in sacramental signs Page. 52, 53
  • Sacramental signs must be explained Page. 56
  • Men's aptness to delude themselves in Sacramental privileges Page. 405
  • All ages have over-highly advanced Sacramental privileges Page. 406
• Sacraments. Covenant.
  All interested in Sacraments must come up to the terms of the Covenant Page. 280
  • Sacraments annexed te the Covenant of works were without relation to Christ Page. 10, 11
  • That righteousness which the Covenant requires the Sacraments appendant to it seal— Page. 413
  • Sacraments are ever suitable to Covenants Page. 413
  • All Sacraments must answer to the Covenant to which they are annexed Page. 6
  • Sacraments without spiritual profit to them that live in breach of Covenant Page. 18
  • A Covenant falling, Sacraments that are annexed fall with it Page. 18, &c.
  • Sacraments under the Old and New Covenant one and the same Page. 25
  • The Covenant people of God, the adequat subject of Sacraments Page. 74
  • All interest in Sacraments is upon the account of the Covenant Page. 75, &c.
• Sacraments. Number.
  The way to find out the number of Sacraments. Page. 514
  • No express Scripture to determine their number Page. 515
  • Two only standing ordinances in the Old Testament of the nature of Sacraments— ibid.
  • Five suppositious Sacrments of Rome examined— Page. 528
• Sacrifices.
  Whether of the dictates of nature Page. 21
  • Not Sacraments— Page. 529
  • How far Sacramental— ibid.
  • How they differ from Sacraments ibid.
• Saint.
  A title in Scripture not proper in the justified, Page. 149
• Sanctification.
  The Spirit of God, and not man, is to have the denomination in it Page. 452
• Satisfaction
  How Christ's satisfaction to God for us is received by us— Page. 457
• Satan
  His imitation of God in the ways of his worship Page. 20
• Sea.
  Israel's passage through it of the nature of a Sacrament Page. 525
  • No standing Sacrament Page. 526
• Seals.
  Various acceptation of the word Page. 326
  • Several use of a Seal Page. 327
    • For secrecy ibid.
    • For warranty ibid.
    • For distinction ibid.
    • For security ibid.
    • For ratification ib. &c.
  • Seal of the Covenant, and the Seal of the Spirit not of equal latitude— Page. 141
• Seals. Sacraments.
  Sacraments are Seals Page. 326
  • Serving for ratification of promises Page. 328
  • Objections answered ibid. &c.
  • The whole use and office of Sacraments is by way of sign and seal Page. 352
  • Reasons confirming it Page. 354, 355
  • Human authorities produced Page. 356
  • Variety of opinions about the working of Sacraments Page. 359, &c.
  • Propositions tending to clear the truth— Page. 363
  • Texts of Scripture brought by those that would raise the work of Sacraments higher, of two sorts Page. 372
  • 1. Such where no Sacrament is mentioned ib.
  • 2. Such where faith is required to the attainment of the effect Page. 376
  • Objections answered— Page. 380
• Sermon
  Formally so called not essential to a Sacrament. — Page. 61
  • Whether the word which gives being to Sacraments be concionatorium, or consecratorium Page. 57. &c.
• Scripture
  Must not be left to hunt after human authorities Page. 111
  • Scripture order of words no foundation for arguments Page. 170
  • Scripture characters of men in grace, are laid down for men to try themselves by Page. 189
• Sign
  What it is— Page. 38, &c.
  • Several kinds of Signs Page. 39
  • Natural ibid.
  • Prodigious— Page. 41, &c.
  • By institution— Page. 42
  • Rules for the right understanding of natural signs Page. 39
  • Remote causes are no signs ibid.
  • Partiall causes are no signs Page. 40
  • Natural signs when causes work unavoidably— Page. 41
• Sacramental signs.
  Sacraments are signs Page. 38
  • Sacraments are to be defined as signs— Page. 321
  • Objections answered ibid. &c.
• Sacramental signs.
  Their properties— Page. 43
  • External and sensible ibid.
  • Visible— Page. 43, 44
  • Analogical— Page. 45
  • Ritual— Page. 46
  • Distinguishing Page. 46, 47, 65, &c.
  • Congregating Page. 47, 48
  • Engaging— ibid.
  • Remembrancing ibid. 49
  • Ratifying— Page. 49
  • God's condescension in Sacramental signs Page. 52, 53
  • Sacramental signs must be explained— Page. 56
• Sin.
  All sins are not Spirit-grieving sins Page. 392
  • Notable sins in regenerate persons followed with many dangers Page. 394