Quakerisme the path-way to paganisme, or, A vieu of the Quakers religion being an examination of the theses and apologie of Robert Barclay, one of their number, published lately in Latine, to discover to the world, what that is, which they hold and owne for the only true Christian religion / by John Brown ...

CHAP. XIII. Of Justification.

1. WE come now to that, which hath been by Hereticks principally called into question, being one of the chiefe articles of Christian Religion, The doctrine of Iustification of a sinner before God: which by some hath been accounted, and that deservedly, one of the greatest questions, whereby di∣vine Theology is distinguished from humane philosophie; the Gospel from the Law; the Church of Christ from Iewes, Turks and Pagans; and the truely Reformed from Papists Yea Bellarmine with Pighius confess, that upon this hinge, turne all the controver••ies, which are agitated betwixt us and them. Gerhard, the Lutheran, saith, that this is a Castle and chiefe strength of our whol•• doctrine & Religion, that if his truth be darkened, adulterated, or overturned, it is im∣possible, that other heads of doctrine can be keeped pure. And Luther himself said, that this Article of justification is diligently to be taught and learned; for if it be lost, we can resist no heresie, no false doctrine, how ridiculous so ever and vaine: whence it com∣eth to passe, that all, that hold not this article, are either jewes, or Turks, or Pa∣pists, or Heretikes. And againe, if it fall and perish, all the knowledge of truth falleth too, and perisheth: but if it flourish, all good things flourish with it. Religion, True worshipe, and the Glory of God. The Church of Bohemia, in their Confes∣sion, tels us, that this head of doctrine is accounted by them, for one of the chiefest and most weighty, as being that, in which the summe of the Gospel is placed, and in which Christianity is founded▪ the precious and most noble treasure of salvation, and the only and lively consolation of Christians is contained. The matter being thus, we have great cause to contend earnestly for the faith, in this point, once delivered to the Saints; And to examine narrowly what this Quaker delivereth, as the sen∣timent of all the Quakers, upon this head of doctrine, which he delivereth in short, in his Seventh Thesis, and more largly in his Vindication thereof, in his Apology.

2. What that is, in this matter, which the Orthodox maintaine; may be seen in their Confessions, and disputs against Papists and Others, and parti∣cularly, with great plainness, and succinctness in our Confession of Faith, first agreed upon at Westminster, and thereafter approven by the General Ass∣embly of the Church of Scotland Chap. XI. §. 1. in these words [Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth (Rom. 8:30. & 3:24.) not, by in∣fusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accept∣ing their persons as righteous: not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them; but for Christs sake alone: not, by imputing faith it self, the act of beleeving, nor any other Evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obe∣dience

and satisfaction of Christ unto them (Rom. 4:5, 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 5: vers. 19, 21. Rom. 3:22, 24, 25, 27, 28. Tit. 3:5, 7. Ephes. 1:7. Ier. 23:6. 1 Cor. 1: v. 30, 31. Rom. 5:17, 18, 19.) they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by Faith: whic•• faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Act. 10:44. Gal. 1:16. Phil. 3 9. Act. 13:••8, 39. Ephes. 2:••, 8.) Read and ponder what followeth in that Chapter. So in the greater Cathechisme Q. 70. What is justification? Answ. Iustification is an act of Gods free grace unto sinners (Rom. 3:23, 24, 25 and ••:5.) in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight (2 Cor. 5:19, 21. Rom. 3▪ 22, 24, 25, 27, 28.) not for any thing wrought in them or done by them (Tit. 3.5. Ephes. 1:7.) but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them (Rom. 5:17, 18, 19. & 4: vers. 6, 7.8.) and received by faith alone (Act. 10 53. Gal. 2:16. Phil. •• 7.) Adde to this Q. 72. What is justifying faith? A. justifying faith is a saving grace (Heb. 10:39.) wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit (2 Cor. 4:13▪ Ephes. 1▪ 17, 18, 19.) and the word of God (Rom. 10:••4.17.) whereby he, being convinced of his sin and mi∣sery, and of the disability in himself, and all other creatures, to recover him out of his lost condition (Act. 2:••7. and 16:30. Ioh. 16:8, 9. Rom. 5:6 Ephes. 2:1. Act. 4:12.) not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel (Ephes. 1:13.) but receiveth and resteth upon Christ, and his righteousness therein held forth, for pardon of sin (I••h 1:12. Act. 16:31. & 10:53.) and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for Salvation (Phil. 3:9. Act. 15:11:) And Q. 73. How doth faith Iustifie a sinner in the sight of God? Answ. Faith justifi∣eth a sinner in the sight of God, not because of these other graces, which do alwayes accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it (Gal. 3:11. Rom. 3:28.) Nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification (Rom. 4▪ 5. with Rom. ••0:10.) but only as it is an instrument, by which he receiveth and applyeth Christ & his righteousness (Ioh. 1:1••. Phil. 3:19. Gal 2:16.) With all we will be h••lped to understand the orthodox truth in this matter, by consid∣ering two other questions to wit Q 75. What is Sanctification? A. Sanctification is a work of Gods grace, whereby they, whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit (Heb. 1:4. 1 Cor. 6.11. 2 Thes. 1:13.) applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them (Rom. 6:4, 5.6.) renewed in their whole man after the image of God (Ephes. 4:23, 24.) having the seeds of repentance unto life, and of all other saving graces put into their hearts (Act. 11:18. 1 Ioh. 3:9) and those graces so stirred up, increased and strengthened (Iud. vers. 20. Heb. 6:11, 12. Ephes. 3:16 17, 18, 19. Col. 1:10, 11.) as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life (Rom 6: to 14. Gal. 5▪ 24, with Q. 77. Wherein do Iustification and Sanctification differ? Answere Although Sanctification be inseparably joyned with Iustification (1 Cor. 6:11. and 1:30.) Yet they differ, in that God in Iustification imputeth the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:6, 8.) in Sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace▪ and inableth to the exercise thereof (Ezech. 36:27.) In the former, sin is pardoned (Rom. 3:23, 25.) in the other it is subdued (Rom. 6:6, 14. the one doth equally free all believers from the re∣venging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condem∣nation (Rom. 8:33, 34.) the other is neither equal in all (1 Ioh. 2: v. 12, 13, 14.

Heb. 5:12, 13, 14.) Nor in this life perfect in any (1 Ioh. 1:8, 10.) but groweth up to perfection (2 Cor. 7:1. Phil. 3:12, 13, 14.] ••hus we have the orthodox do∣ctrine, in this point, fully cleared, and confirmed.

3. Let us next see, wh••t is the opinion of the Q••akers, in this matter: And before we examine particularly, what this Man, with whom we deal, saith, we shall shortly see what other Quakers have maintained before. Mr Clapham in his book against the Quakers Sect. 5. tels us, that I. Nayler, in his Love to the lost P. 3. joyneth with the Papists, and pleads for our being made righteous, by Gods putting in righteousness in us, and by righteousness wrought in the creature. And P. 50. with Papists, he confounds Justification, Sanctification and Mortificat∣ion; and argueth for it, as they do. So Mr Stalham, in his book against them Part. 1 Sect. 22. sheweth out of their owne words, what friends they are unto the man of sin, by laying the bottome of a believers justification, not upon Christs obedience, but upon sanctification. And Sect. 25. he tels us, that I. Nailer said, that the man of sin is discovered in them, who say, beleevers are pure and spoteless too, by reason of imputation: and in his Love to the lost p. 51. that men are so justified, as they are sanctified and mortified, and no further. And that F. How∣gil, in The inheritance of Iacob Pag. 29. hath these words Christ fulfilled the Law, and he fulfils it in them, who know him and his work, and herein man becomes to be justified in Gods sight by Christ, who works all our works in us and for us. Mr Hicks in his 2 Dialogue Pag. 4. tels us, that Isaak Pennington asks this question, Can outward blood cleanse? And saith, Therefore, we must enquire, whether it was the blood of the vail, that is, of the humane nature, or the blood within the vail viz. of that spiritual man, consisting of flesh, bloud and bones, which took on him the vail; or humane nature? It is not the bloud of the vail, that is but outward; and can outward blood cleanse? And that Edward Billing most wickedly said, that the mystery of iniquity lyes in the bloud of Christ. And that these words frequently drop from their mouthes, dost thou look at Christs death afar off? What will that bloud avail? Didst ever see any of it? That carnal bloud cleanse? If thou hadst a great deal of it, would it do thee any good? If such, as speak thus of the precious bloud of Christ, can have right thoughts of Justification, the sober may easily judge. And what intimation Edward Burroughs giveth about this, may be seen there P. 18,—22, &c. I love not to transcribe the words, only that which he hath Pag. 26. seemeth to be plaine. Thou beast—who would have another righteous∣ness, than that which Christ works in the saints and by them. He tels us likewise ib. Pag. 31. that Will. Pen Sandy foundation Pag. 29.30. hath these words, Obe∣dience to justification ought to be as personally extensive, as was mans disobedience to condemnation: In which real (not imputative) sense, those various termes of Sancti∣fication, Righteousness, Resurrection, Life, Redemption, Iustification, &c. are most infallibly understood; for impute, or imputing signifies no more in Scrip∣tures, but to express men really and personally to be that which is imputed to them, whether as guilty or remitted: For any to be justified from the imputation of anothers righteousness, is both ridiculous and dangerous, whence came that usual saying amongst many professours of Religion, That God looks not upon them, as they are in them∣selves,

but as they are in Christ. And Pag. 25 (See Mr Hicks Pag. 51. &c.) Iustification 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness, but from the actual performing and keeping of God's righteous statutes, and Pag. 25, 30. It is a great abomination to say, God should condemne and punish his innocent Son, that he having satisfi••d for our ••innes, we might be justified by the imputation of his perfect Righteous∣ness. And againe, I caution and warne men by no meanes to entertaine this principle (of Christs dying to make satisfaction to divine Justice) by whomsoever recom∣mended. And againe Pag. 26. He (i. e. Christ) fulfilled the Law, only as our pattern or example. And ib. Christ is so far from telling us of such a way of being justified, as that he informes us, the reason, why he abode in his Fathers love, was his obedience: he is so far from telling us of being justified by vertue of his obedience imputed, that unless we keep the commands, and obey for our selves &c. And P. 30. was not Abraham justified by ••orks? we must not conceive as the dark imputation of this age, that Abrahams personal offering was not a justifying righteousness? Ib. p. 30. I do say, Abraham had not the im∣putation of anothers righteousness to him, his personal obedience was the ground of that just imputation. And elsewhere Apol. p. 148. justification by the righteousness, which Christ fulfilled for us, in his own person, wholly without us, we boldly affirme to be a doctrine of Devils, and an arm of the sea of corruption, which doth now deluge the world.

This is su••ficiently plaine. And Sand. found. Pag. 30.31. I farther tell thee, that Iustification by an imputed righteousness, is both irrational, irreligious, ridiculous and dangero••s: and Pag. 27.29.30. Iustification goes not before, but is consequential to the mortifying of lusts, and the sanctification of the soul. More might be added, but here is, I suppose, enough to discover, how these Quakers homologate, in the point of Justification, with Papists, Socinians, and Arminians, in denying the imputation of Christ's Righteousness in Iustification, and substituting another ground, or formal reason thereof, even works done by us. And how danger∣ous an errour this is, undermineing the very cardinal point of Christianity, every true Christian may know. The Quakers in this are one with their Predecessours, the old Anabaptists too.

4. We come now to our Quaker, and must see, how he expresseth himself in this matter: In his Thesis he saith, who receive the illumination of this light (that is, as we evinced above, the dim light of nature) it (that must be the Light or the Natural Conscience) becometh in them a holy pure and spiritual birth, produceing piety, righteousness, purity and other excellent fruites, most acceptable to God. This, sure, is a wonderful metamorphosis. But how cometh it, that this light is so much beholden to man, in whom it is, that if he do not resist it, but receive its illumination religiously, it will become a glorious and mighty powerful thing; but if he do resist it, and receive not its illumination, it remaineth what it was? Is this the Christian New birth, and Regeneration, whereof the Scripture speaketh? Is this to be borne of the Spirit? There is no infusion of any gracious principle or habite of grace and virtue here; for the seed of all was in the man from his mothers womb, and his kinde nature, in receiving the illumination of this connatural light, blew the coale, and it became a burning fire, warming the soul into all Christian vertues. Is this Gospel doctrine? or rather is it not Pelagian-quakerisme▪ What followeth upon this? By this holy birth (saith he) to wit,

Christ Iesus formed within (a goodly title; but it is but the Quakers Jesus; that is, blake Nature, or the product of Corrupt nature,) produceing his works in us, (these, sure, are nothing but works of darkness) as we are sanctified, so are we justified in the sight of God. Then Iustification, and Sanctification, ••tand upon one and the same ground; and if there be any difference betwixt them, Iustifi∣cation must follow Sanctification. Thus it is manifest, how he homologateth with other Quakers, and how they all agree with Papists, in the doctrine of Iu∣stification. He addeth (and one may wonder at the mans confidence and bold∣ness) according to the Apostles words, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, in the name of the Lord Iesus, and by the Spirit of our God. But if either his sanctification or Iustification, as now explained to us, be either in the name of the Lord Iesus, or by the Spirit of God, I am far deceived: Nay, it is manifest, that they are rather by the Power and Authority, Vertue and Efficacy of Free will, and the Natural Spirit of man, receiving kindly the Illumination of that natural Light, in every man, and so transforming that natural thing to produce such works, as by which the man is both Sanctified and justified. Though this be the native sense and import of his words; yet marke his effrontedness. Therefore (sayes he) it is not done by our works, produced by our will, nor yet by good works, considered by themselves. What a shameless man is this, to deny these works to be mans owne works, which flow from a principle, borne and brought into the world with him; and not only so, but actuated, and transformed into a new pure and spi∣ritual spring, by the sole will of the man, not resisting its light, but receiv∣ing the same. If these be not properly the mans owne works, it is a great que∣stion, if man have any works, that can be called his owne. But let it be so, that they goe under the name of works done by a new infused principle (and yet the Quakers are more Pelagian, then the Iesuites, and all the Papists; for these acknowledge infused habites, which Quakers know nothing of) yet they may be called mans works, and works produced by mans will; to wit, now regenerated and principled of new; otherwise they are produced in man, and mans will hath no elicite or imperat acts thereanent, This is indeed Phana∣ticisme in folio. But how can men be Sanctified, or Iustified (according to the Quakers,) by that which is none of theirs, nor wrought by them? Againe, he must know, that the Scripture excludeth all these holy works, even produced by that new principle, from being the ground or formal reason, or ratio for∣malis objectiva, of our Iustification; as all our Divines shew, writting against the Papists, on this head: And in this he giveth further evidence of his con∣spireing with Papists against the truth. Finally, I wish he had explained that to us, nor by good works considered in themselves, for it importeth, that good works con∣sidered some other way, possibly in conjunction with some other thing (and what that is, I know not,) are the ground of our Iustification: But seing Iusti∣fication and Sanctification, stand upon the same ground, with him, he must also say, that we are not Sanctified by good works considered by themselves: and if good works, or works of Sanctification and holiness, considered as such, will not ground the denomination of Sanctification, I would faine know what will?

5. But if they neither be Sanctified, nor Iustified by these good works, by what are they Sanctified, or Iustified? It is by Christ (saith he) who is the gift, and the giver, and the cause produceing the effects in us. But this Christ is nothing else but a Creature, produced in man, by mans industry and goodwill, not stubbornly resisting, but piously receiving the illumination of the light; and that out of this light, which is in every Son of Adam; for he told us, that this Light, when thus religiously entertained, becometh a holy, pure and spiritual birth; and this is the Christ formed in us, who is the gift and the giver, and producer of all the fruits of holiness, which are acceptable unto God: Are we not then Iustified by our works, when Iustified by this Christ, or Principle produceing these works in us; especially seing this Christ, is a Christ formed within; and not that Christ, who laid downe his life a ransome for sinners, and offered up himself a sacrifice to divine justice, to satisfie justice and the Law, by his Obe∣dience and Death, for the Redemption of his people? We heard lately, that this Christ, and his Blood, is far off, in their account, and cannot cleanse, or do us any good. But further I think, that, even in this, Quakers are far worse then Papists; for when Papists will have us Iustified by works, they speak of works wrought in the soul by the Spirit, real works of grace, flowing from an inward principle of grace; but our Quakers, though they give goodly words, yet really their works, by which they are Sanctified and Iustified, are but works wrought (at best) by the Power of Nature: For that Light within every man, (as was shewed above) is but pure Nature, and whatever is borne of or proceedeth from this seed, is but Nature; for that which is borne of the flesh, it flesh, Ioh. 3:6. And from nothing that is in man by nature, or in all men, can that which is heavenly and spiritual spring: unless we turne Pelagians, this is to be held. And that Light within them, if its eyes were not blinded with pre∣judice, though it be not sanctified, nor of the Spirit, might even cau••e them understand so much. And when all the Efficient cause, that we hear of from him, produceing this pure and spiritual birth, or educeing it out of its matter, or causing its change, and being some other thing than it was, is only man, and man doing nothing but receiving the illumination of this light; can we sup∣pose, this to be any thing else, than a pure product of nature, which Heathens and Pagans, Turks and Tartars, who never heard one word of Christ, may be partakers of? And can this Sanctification and Justification, be that mentioned in the Scriptures, when it is common to infidels, who are without God and without Christ, in the world, if they will but obey the light of nature? Is this which he talketh of, to be borne of God? No certainly, but rather it is to be borne of bloud, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man; but so are not any borne, that receive Christ, and beleeve in his name, Ioh. 1:12, 13. One thing more, Seing this Light, which the Quakers say, is in every man, is in Devils, and that in a greater measure, than in man; may it not also be said of them, that if they will receive this light, and not resist it, it shall be∣come an holy, pure and spiritual Birth, and Christ formed within? And shall not they likewise, upon this account, be capable of this Sanctification and Justi∣fication? (I must still put Sanctification first, that I may speak according to the

Quakers Language:) and shall we have no other Sanctification and Justification. preached to us by Quakers, than what Devils are capable of, and have the real feed of already? O poor deluded wreatches? Is this the top of all their en∣deavours, and the upshot of all their hopes? Sall we get nothing, at most, but a Paganish Iustification and Sanctification?

6. He closeth his Thesis thus, who (i. e. Christ) when he reconciled us, while enemi∣es, according to his wisdome, doth save and justifie us this way, as the Apostle saith else where, He hath according to his mercy saved us, by he lawer of regeneration, and renew∣ing of the Holy Ghost Ans. But what way did he reconcile us, while enemies? was it by his bloud, and by his crosse? Ephes. 2:16. Or by the bloud of his crosse; or in the body of his flesh, through death? Col. 1:20, 22. Or was it by his death? Rom. 5:10. If so, then sure, he died for the ungodly Rom, 5:6. And for sinners vers. 8. that they might be reconciled to God by his death vers. 10. And then the grace of God, and the gift by grace must abound unto them, vers. 15. and that unto justification vers. 16, 18. Then, sure, Christ died in their roome and place, as their Cautioner, and Surety; and as their Surety made satisfac∣tion to justice, that they should be redeemed and delivered from Law, Justice and Wrath; for what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his owne son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, Rom. 8:3, 4. And if so, as the Scriptures do richly witness; then that mediatory Righteousness of Christ the Redeemer, and Cautioner, must legally be made over unto them, to the end that they may be legally acquit, and freed from the Accusation and Con∣demnation of the Law: And by vertue of that Righteousness of Christ the Cau∣tioner, imputed unto them by God, they, as cloathed therewith by faith, and appearing therein, must be Iustified before God, and not by any thing wrought in them, at what hand so ever: And thus all that he hath said, in his Th••sis, is overturned. (2.) It is true, that the Lord in wisdom hath ordered things aright, and appointed the way, how we should be partaker of the bene∣fites, which he hath purchased, and particularly of Iustification and Sancti∣fication: But that the wisdom of God hath appointed, that we should be Iusti∣fied, by any thing done by us, whether from a principle of Nature or of Grace, wrought in us even by the Spirit of God, as the formal objective reason, or that, upon the account of which, we can be accounted Righteous, and Absolved from Accusation, and have our inquities pardoned, is not revealed to us in all his word; but the contrare rather, as hath been seen. (3.) Nor doth these words of Paul to Titus Chap. 3:5, 6. any way confirme his fancy; but rather establish the contrary truth: to wit, that all the favours, which God conferreth upon us, in order to salvation, are of free grace, and not by works of righteousness (or works, which are done in righteousness, and righteously, as the words in the original bear) which we have done: Grace and Mercy here are set in opposition to all our works, yea to our best works; and therefore, if Iustification be an act of God's grace, (as the Scripture saith it is) it is not, nor can it be, because, or upon the account of our works of righteousness. And if in and through or by Iustification, there is pardon of

iniquity, as there is Rom. 4:5, 6, 7. And if pardon of iniquity be a merciful and gracious act in God, being an act of his free grace and mercy Ephes. 1: vers. 7, 8. it is manifest, that Iustification is not upon th•• account of our works. Ther••fore, we are said to be Iustified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Iesus Christ Rom. 3:24. Moreover, the judgment of God is alwayes, (as in condemning of sinners, so in justifying of beleevers) according to truth Rom. 2:2. And in the matter of justifying of the ungodly, the righteousness of God is declared; and it is all so contrived, that he might be just, and the justifier of him, which beleev∣eth in Iesus Rom. 3:25, 26. Therefore cannot Iustification passe upon the account of any thing framed, and done in us, or by us; because, that is not, nor can it be, that which will passe for a Righteousness, in the eyes of God, and a Righteousness answerable to the Law, in all points; it being, when it is at its best, but imperfect; nor can it have any merite or deserving in it, to com∣pensat for former transgressions, being alwayes that only, which we are obliged unto; so that when we have done all, we must say, that we are but unprofitable servants, Luk. 17: vers. 10. we have done but what was our duty to do.

7. Having thus briefly dispatched his Thesis, wherein we see his opposition to Iustification by, and upon the account of, the Righteousness of Christ imput∣ed, and therein his harmony and agreement with Papists, Socinians and Armini∣ans: we come now to consider what he sayes, more largly, in his Apology Pag. 122. &c. In the beginning, he tels us that the handling of this doth well follow his treating of universal Redemption, and universal grace: And I shall not quarrel with his Method, were his doctrine orthodox; but seing few, who plead for the universality of the death of Christ, and who contend for the universality of grace, are found sound and orthodox, in the point of Iustification, we migh•• ••pon this ground, though we had gote no taste of his judgment in the Thesis, suspect his doctrine of Iustification. But after tryal, we will be better able to judge. He saith truely, that there are many controversies moved already about this point; and the more blame worthy is he, who doth not diminish, but increase these rather, as to some things; though in the principal, he liketh the Popish way better than ours. He promiseth first to state the controversie, so far as con∣cerneth them, and to explaine their judgment; and then, he saith, he will confirme it by Scripture testimony, and the certain experience of all that are really justified: we must see how he performeth what is promised.

8. What he saith §. 2. of the Papists depraving of this truth, we heare; but are ready to suppose, that howbeit he do not with them stand up for the merite (ex condigno, as it is called; and yet many Papists reject this, and are satisfied with meritum ex congruo, in the mater of Iustification; and some reject both, as may be seen in Stapleton Prol. ad lib. 5. de justific.) of good works; nor approve of the vulgar Papists, placeing their Justification, in things that are neither good nor evil, or in things, that are rather evil as good, (as he think∣eth to be evident from their doctrine of the Sacraments, and Indulgences, &c.) but commend our Reformers, for opposeing these Abominations: Yet as to the maine controversie, handled betwixt our Reformers, and the Papists, viz.

what is Iustification: and what is the formal reason Objective; or the formal cause (as some speak;) or Material cause (as others speak;) or that, because and upon the account of which, men are Justified, in the sight of God; this Quaker joyneth with the Papists. The Councel of Trent. Sess. 6. Chap. 7. tels us, That Iustification is not only remission of sins, but also Sanctification and renovation of the inner man, by a voluntary susception of grace and gifts; whereby man of unjust becometh just, of an enemy becometh a friend, that he may be an heire, according to the hope of eternal life. Why doth our Quaker embrance this, upon the matter, and give a worse Justification; even a Justification, wherein there is no mention made of remission of sinnes? Why doth he, with this Synagogue of Satan, con∣found Justifi••ation and Sanctification? He knoweth, how Bellarmine de Iustif. lib. 2. Cap. 2. briefly stateth the question, betwixt us and them, in these words. Whether the formal cause of absolute Iustification, be a righteousness inherent in us, or not? If this Quaker be no Papist, why doth he conspire with them, in this car∣dinal point of difference? Why doth he and the rest rise up so much against the Imputed righteousness, as do the Papist, following the Councel of Trent, as we see Pag. 125. he doth, shewing his teeth against our Confession of faith? And there also, I cannot but take notice of a base falshood, and deceit, when he would make his Readers beleeve, that the Papists do not place Justification in any real inward renovation of soul, more then the Protestants; while as we have seen the contrary out of the Councel of Trent. and Bellarm. and multitudes moe might be cited. But what needs more, when we have the words of that Councel, which all Papists must stand to: and in that forecited Chapt. the same Councel saith; The only formal cause is the righteousness of God, not that, by which he himself is righteous; but whereby he maketh us righteous, to wit, by which, we are renewed in the Spirit of our minde; and are not only repute, but truely are called, and are righteous or just. It is true, that they say, that this grace and charity, that is infused in Iustification, is through the merite of the most holy suffering of Christ: And in this they are more orthodox, and less Socinian, than are the Quakers; to this Mans shame be it spoken: Yet still they make Justification to consist in the In∣fusion of grace, and Renovation of the soul.

9. He beginneth his explication of their judgment Pag. 126. §. 3. And tel∣leth us first. That as it appeareth from the explication of the former thesis, they renunce all natural power in themselves, for delivering of themselves out of their lost condition. And in our examination thereof, in its several parts, we have manifested the contrary: And whether this be not a palpable untruth, the Reader is free to judge. He faith moreover. That they deny remission of sins, or justification to be had by any work of theirs; &c. And what is this to the point, seing they say, that we are justified by an Inherent Righteousness, and not by Righteousness Im∣puted?

10. He giveth us, in the next place, good words about the satisfaction of Christ: which if he would stand to, and not deceive us with Socinian glosses, and metaphoricall senses he should withall overturne his owne doctrine about justification; as we did shew lately §. 6. In the third place, he sai••h several things, that are not true, as first. That all men, that have come to mans age, (except

Christ) have sinned, insinuating, that none else have sinned, nor are capable to sin, until they come to Mans age: and so denieth original sin, and denieth that the wicked actions of young children, and young girles, who are not yet come to be men and women, are sinnes. Then sayes he, Therefore all have need of a Saviour, to take away Gods wrath, due for sinnes. Have none need of a Savi∣our, but these only, who are come to mans age, qui aetatem virilem adepti sunt? Doth the Scripture make any such restriction? Where is then his universal Redemption, that he pleaded For? He addeth, In this respect therefore, he is truely said to have born the sinnes of all, in his owne body, on the tree. In what respect is this? Is it in respect, that all have sinned? but what sense is there here; or truth either? did he bear the sinnes of none, but of such as are come to mans age? what becometh then of infants, boyes and girles? and if he beare all their sinnes, they must, upon that account, be freed from the guilt of sin, and justified; and so we shall have an universal justification, as well as Redemption; and this is confirmed indeed, by the following words; to wit, therefore he is the sole mediator, removing the wrath of God, that our bypast sinnes may not meet us, seing the•• are pardoned by vertue of his sacrifice. For this he understandeth of all, for whom Christ died. But he tels us afterward, that remission is no other way to be expressed. And I would ask, whether there be any remission in or by justi∣fication? and if so, why are we not justified upon the account of the Righteous∣ness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith? Then followeth a word, which undoeth all (not to mention his parenthesis, were he saith, some may par∣take of this remission, who have no knowledge of the history of Christ, sufficiently above spoken unto) Christ (saith he) hath by his death and passion reconciled us while enemies, unto God, that is to say, he offereth unto us reconciliation, and maketh us capable there∣of. If this be all, it is but the Arminian Reconciliation, he hath been speaking of; yea and nothing but what a Socinian may say. Sure the Apostle speaketh otherwayes of this Reconciliation; as of that, which certainly is attended with Iustification, & with such a Iustification, as hath life following, saying Rom. 5:8, 9, 10. But God commendeth his love towards us, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us: much more then being now justified by his bloud, we shall be saved from wrath through him, for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by ••is life. The reconciliation then, which was had, by the death of Christ, the Son of God, was not a meer offer of reconciliation, nor a meer capability for it; But that which was a certain forerunner of salvation, and that which Salvation must necessarily, with a much more, follow. He citeth 2 Corinth. Chap. 5: vers. 19, 20. and tels us, that the Apostle insinuateth, that seing the wrath of God is removed by Christ's obe∣dience, the Lord is ready to be reconciled with them, and pardon their sinnes, if they re∣pent. Which is a manifest perversion of the scope and meaning of the Apostle, who is there shewing, how the Reconciliation of sinners unto God is brought about, both upon Gods part, and upon mans part; not of all the world, but of the Elect scattered over the face of the earth, and from the beginning of the world, & how they were brought into peace with God, through Iesus; & so it is a limited world, as appeareth by the us used ver. 18. And againe more fully ver. 21.

for he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteous∣ness of God in him. And therefore it is onl•• that world, he understandeth here, for whom Christ was made sin, having their sinnes imputed to him, as their cautio∣ner and sponsor; & who by vertue hereof are cloathed in due time, with his righ∣teousnesse, imputed unto them, and so are made the righteousness of God, in him. Now all this was not a meer may be, or a mere possible or potential thing, but such as was attended with a non-imputation of trespasses: nor doth it import only a readiness in God to be reconciled with all, upon conditions; as if there were none in particular, whose sinnes the Lord did bear, and for whom he of∣fered up himself a satisfactory sacrifice to the justice of God, purchasing unto them faith to be granted in due time, whereby they should come ••o be actual∣ly reconciled unto, and brought in favour with God, when through his grace they should yeeld unto the beseachings of Christ's messengers, to whom the Word, Ministrie, or Administration of this Reconciliation is committed, as to Ambassadours for Christ, sent forth to beseach in Christ's stead. By all which the Apostle is clearing, how all things are of God, and particularly all the new things which the new creature, the man in Christ, is made partaker of vers. 17, 18. And moreover we see, verse 14, 15. that these all, for whom Christ died, are one time or other, made alive unto God, through grace com∣municated to them from their Head, Christ, As it followeth. And that he died for all, that they which live, should not hence forth live unto themselves, but unto him, which died for them, and rose againe. And who will say, that it shall, at any time, be said, with truth, of all the world, that they are thus alive?

11. He tels us next of a double Redemption, both which he sayes are perfect in their owne nature, and as to us cannot be separated; Then all, certainly, must be redeem∣ed the one way, who are redeemed the other way. What is the first? That (sayes he Pag. 127.) made by Christ, in his crucified body without us—and by this, Man, as he standeth in the fall, is put in a capacity of salvation, and hath transmitted into him, a certain measure of power, of grace, and of the vertue of the Spirit of life, which is in Christ, which is able to overcome and eradicat the evil seed Ans. 1. The Re∣demption made by Christ on the crosse, and by his obedience and sufferings, we cheerfully acknowledge; But that it was a Redemption made for all••, we abundantly disproved above Chap. VIII. (2.) That there was any such Pow∣er, Grace, or Vertue of the Spirit of life purchased hereby, and granted to all, is false, and abundantly above disproved likewise. See Chap. X. (3.) To i∣magine, that every son of Adam hath power granted to him to subdue, and root out natural corruption, is but pure Pelagianisme, Arminianisme, & Iesuitisme; but not the truth, revealed to us in the word of God; & is to wedge warr against th•• pure grace of God, and the free operations thereof; & to set the crown of salvation, upon the head of the creature: all which we made manifest above, at several occasions.

12. What is the Second Redemption, that is inseparable from the other? It is that (sayes he) which Christ worketh in us: And what is that? It is that (sayes he further) whereby we possesse and know, that that pure and perfect redemption is in us,

purifieing us, delivering us from the power of corruption, and bringing into favour, union, and familiarity with God. Answ. (1.) That the Lord Jesus Redeemeth by Power, through his Spirit, from sin and corruption, all such as he hath Redeemed by Price, from Law and justice, we willingly grant: But how can he say, that these two are inseparable, seing then they must be of equal extent; and so, as the first Redemption was, in his judgment, for all and every man; the se∣cond must extend to all and every man; and so all and every man must be de∣livered from the power of corruption; and consequently must be saved. A∣gaine, how can he say this, who pleadeth afterward for the Apostasie of the Saints? But (2.) This purifying and delivering from corruption, as would ap∣pear by his words, is not wrought by the second Redemption; but only a know∣ing that that pure and perfect Redemption is in us, purifying us &c. And so all that is had by this second Redemption, is but a sight of what the fruite of the first Redemption is doing: So that by the first Redemption, not only man hath power, to subdue corruption, but he actually doth subdue it, without any new grace or divine help, and by the second Redemption he is only de∣livered from darkness, which hindered his actual perceiving of the operation of the gift and grace bestowed, upon the first Redemption. (3.) whether is this second Redemption necessary unto salvation, or not? I suppose he will say, yes. Then what shall become of the childe of God, that walketh in dark∣ness, & hath no light? what shall become of them, that have true grace, and grace uniteing them to Christ, & to God through Christ, & yet through dark∣ness (the Lord dispensing so, partly as a punishment, & partly for tryal & exer∣cise) can see and acknowledge no such thing?

13. He tels us over againe, that by the first Redemption, all mankinde was so far reconciled unto God, that they were made capable of salvation, and had the offer of Gospel peace: citeing for this Ephes. 2:15. 1 Ioh. 4:10. Ezech. 16:6. 1 Pet. 2:22, 24. & 3:18. Tit. 2:14. Phil. 3:10. Ans. (1.) we have seen before, at several occasions, that the Redemption of Christ is a far other thing, and hath far other effects, even remission of sinnes, 2 Cor. 5:19. actual reconci∣liation, grace and glory. Dan. 9:24, 26. Col. 1:19, 20. Ephes. 1:11, 14. Ioh. 17:2. Heb. 9:12, 13. 2 Cor. 1:20. (2.) The very texts cited by himself make a∣gainst him: for Ephes. 2:15. he died to make in himself of twaine one new man, so making peace: and this was not a mere capacity. See vers. 13. but now in Christ Iesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Was this only a capacity of coming near, or a meer offer of it? deluded souls may think so, but the words are plaine: let him see also Ephes. 1:7. & 2:5, 6. The next place he citeth is 1 Ioh. 4:10. Where God is said to have sent his son to be a propitiation for our sinnes: and sure, a Propitiation doth work more then a meer possibility of friendshipe; and he was so a Propitiation, as that for the same persons, he is an Advocat with the Father 1 Ioh. 2:1, 2. His next passage is Ezech. 16:6. And doth he think, that when God saith to any, lying in their bloud, live, that that creating word giveth nothing but a meer capacity to live? See vers. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. But this properly is to be understood of Gods dispensation of love to that visible Church, as such, and so is not very pertinent to the pur∣pose

in hand. His next passage is 1 Pet. 2:22. (he would say, 21.) 24. And what can be more clear against him, seing the Apostle saith vers. 24. that he bear our sins, for this end; that we being dead to sinnes, should live unto righteous∣ness: and then addeth, by whose stripes ye were healed? See also Chap. 1: vers. 18. Where he saith, that we are redeemed from our vaine conversation, See also Chap. 1:2, 4. He citeth next 1 Pet. 3:18. Where it is expresly said, that Christ hath once suffered, that he might bring us to God, and not put us in a bare capacity. Was this mans minde present, when he wrote these citations? Why did he not cite also Col. 1: vers. 14. Gal. 1: vers. 4. & 3: vers. 13, 14. & 4. vers. 5. If he would cite passages against himself. As also Revel. 5: vers. 9, 10. & 14.3, 4. & Tit. 2: vers. 14?

14. He explaineth over againe his Second Redemption, and addeth that hereby we are really Iustified. That is, when we are sanctified, we are Justified, or Justified by sanctification; as say the Tridentine Papists. Then he tels us, That both the Redemptions are the cause of Iustification, the first the procureing cause, and the last the formal cause. And just so say they, as we saw above out of the Councel of Trent, and may be seen in Bellarmine, who de justifie. lib. 1. Cap. 2. proveth that Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of Justification; and is sounder here, than I suppose this Quakers is, who complyeth more with Samosatenians & Socinians, against whom Bellarmin there disputeth: And the Councel of Trent said, that Christ did merite justification to us by his most holy passion, on the tree of the crosse; Wherein doth this man now differ from Papists, the worst of them, I mean such as follow the Councel of Trent? There are some Others, that may shame this Quaker, in this point; As Contarenus, a cardinal, who, in his Trea∣tis of Iustification, cleareth and determineth the question thus. Because by faith, we attaine to a twofold ••••ghteousness, one inherent—whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; th•• other the righteousness of Christ, given and imputed to us, be∣cause insert in Christ, and we put him on. The question is, unto which of these we ought to lean, and account our selves justified before God. And I (saith he) wholly think, that it is piously and christianly said, that we ought t•• leane to, I say lean to, as to a firme thing, which may uphold us, the righteousness of Christ, gifted to us, and not to grace and holiness inherent. So also Pighius, de fide & Iustificatione, may shame this Quaker.

15. In the fourth place. Pag. 128. For clearing of his meaning he tels us, that by this Iustification, they do not understand simply good works, nay not as done by the holy Spirit. But did ever man in his wits understand it so? The question is, whether good works be the formal cause; or the formal objective reason of Justification? And this he granted above, and asserted with the worst of Papists. But he saith with protestants, that these are rather the effects of Iustification; then the cause. This is better said: but way then said he lately, that by the Second Redemption, whereby we are Purified, Liberated and Redeemed from t••e power of corruption, we be∣come justified formally; or that that second Redemption was the formal cause of our justification? And what will he now have to be the formal cause of our justi∣fication? Christ formed within us, this inward birth, produceing righteousness and ho∣liness in us, with which the Father is well pleased. Ans. But this is only an inward

Principle of grace, and the sanctification, which is defined in the Larger Ca∣techisme, as we saw above; and by this himself afterward tels us, we are par∣kers of the divine nature; and this, as Contarenus said with truth, belongeth to an Inherent Righteousness: and so still he holds with the Tridentine Papists, who will have us justified by a Righteousness inherent in us; and that in opposition to a Righteousness imputed. And when afterward he saith, that Bellarmine and others disput against this, and other Papists understood it not, he should have named the place (2.) That God is well pleased with this, will say nothing, for he is well pleased also with good works, that flow from this Principle, betwixt which two, this Quaker would distinguish, in this question. He addeth, This is to possess whole Christ, who is the Lord our righteousness Ier 23:6. and to put on Christ. Ans. Yet this is not to put on the righteousness of Christ in Justification, and to be cloathed with his Righteousness, in appearing before Justice. This is not to make the Lord our righteousness, as Ier. 23:6. nor to say with Paul. Phil: 3:9. and be found in him, not having min•• own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness, which is of God by faith. Fur∣ther he sayes, hereby we are made one with him, as branches into the vine; and we have right to all things, which he did and suffered for us, so that his obedience, righte∣ousness and death is ours. Ans. All this is true by faith uniteing us to Christ. But we are not so properly by Christ formed within us; for this is a consequent of, and in nature, though not in time, posteriour to our union to Christ by Faith, which is brought about in effectual calling: and as a consequent of this union followeth also Justification; the formal objective reason of which is not either this union, or begun san••tification, but the Righteousness of Christ, or his Obedience and Suffering made over and imputed to the believer by God. Seing in these matters, he seemeth to be an utter stranger, I would advise him to read our Larger Catechisme better, if he think not himself too far advanced, to turne a catechumene againe. What followeth Pag. 128. is but a specimen of the Quakers Spirit, in abusing of Scripture with their sensless allegorick glosses, and hath no Interest in this queston; and therefore I have nothing to do with it.

16. He tels us next, that though we be not justified for good works, yet we are ju∣stified in them: and they are necessary, as causa sine qua non. Ans. That good works are called for from Justified persons, we acknowledge; but what Interest they have in putting us into a state of Justification, we see not. His giving them an interest of a causa sine qua non, contradicteth what he said before: for he would have us Justified by Christ formed within; and this is antecedent to good works, as the tree is unto the fruit. And he also said in the preceeding Pag, that good works follow Justification, as the effects thereof: and how then, they can come in, as a causa sine qua non, he must help us by his next to under∣stand; and cleare to us, how the Effect can be the causa sine qua non of the Cause: But this man must have liberty to contradict himself. He must also explaine to us, what that is, to be justified in good works: That a man may be in a justi∣fied state, while do••ng good works, we understand very well; but how other∣wayes, he can be justified in good works, I see not, unlesse by Justification

he mean, not a justification as to state, but a justification as to particular ac∣tions, which is impertinent.

17. In the last place he saith, that if he and his fraternity held the same opinion about good works, that Protestants hold, they would easily confess, that they were not only not nec••ssary, but that they were noxious. Though Protestants assert the necessity of good works, in justified persons, come to age; they assert notwithstanding their noxiousness in Justification; that is if they be considered, as any part of that Righteousness, upon consideration whereof the person is declared just, & Justified before God; or as any part of the formal Objective reason of Justifi∣cation; or, as others speak, as any part of the formal cause of Justification. But what is his ground? for they affirme, saith he, that the best works of saints are corrupted and defiled. It is true, we say indeed, that our best works are not per∣fect, but have ad mixture of dross, and of much imperfection; but that is not all the cause, why we deny such an interest to works in Justification, as Pa∣pists, and he plead for; but this Interest we deny to works mainly because, it would spoile Christ of the glory of our Justification, and of being our Righte∣ousness, that is due to him; and give man ground of boasting, which by Gos∣pel Justification is wholly excluded. But do not Quakers say the same of good works? we judge (saith he) the best works, done by man, intending conformity un∣to the Law, in his owne strength, natural power, and proper will, to be such, that is, polluted. But protestants do not account these properly good works, but only materially such, as not flowing from a principle of grace, and from the Spirit of sanctification. What doth he say of these? These are pure and holy (sayes he) as is the root they come from, and therefore God accepts them, and justifieth us in them, and rewardeth us for them of his proper and free grace. But the question is, whether they be perfect, and can stand before the tribunal of Justice, and so become any part of that Righteousness, answering the Law, which requireth perfect con∣formity in all points, which is the formal objective reason of our Justification before God, whose judgment is according to truth?

18. Thus we have seen his explication of their Opinion, which in short is this, That the formal objective reason, or, as he with others speak, the for∣mal cause of Justification, is a Principle of grace within, or Christ formed there; that is, the spring and principle of good works, which is begun sanc∣tification. This I say, is it, according to his words; but if we ••emember what was said to this above, and consider what this Christ within is, ac∣cording to the Quakers principles, we shall finde, that, in this point, their judgment is more d••testable, than is that of Papists; for this Christ within, is formed of meer Nature, and that without any assistance of divine grace, by the meer Rational power, and will of man, yeelding unto the dictats of that Light, which is, as well in pagans, that scarce have the use of reason, as in Christians, and in all alike; and so it is a Christ formed within, whereof Pagans, Turks and Indians, that never heard, nor never shall heare, the least sound of the Gos∣pel, are capable, and by vertue whereof, they, as well as Christians, can come to be justified: So that, in short, the justification, which Quakers main∣taine, is a Pagan-justification, resulting from a Pagan-sanctification; and if this be

not many degrees more damnable & abominable, then the doctrine of Triden∣tine Papists, let any of understanding judge.

19. After this, he layeth downe three Propositions, the confirmation of which will, as he thinketh, prove his point. The first is this Pag. 129. The Obedience and Passion of Christ is that, whereby the soul obtaineth remission of sins, in that it is the cause pr••curing that grace and seed, by whose inward operations, Christ is formed within, and the soul is made conforme unto it, and so just and justified: And in respect of this capacity and offer of grac••, God is said to be reconciled, not that he is actually r••conciled, or justifieth any, or holdeth any justified, who remaineth in his sins, ungodly, impure and unjust▪ Ans. (1.) To say, that the obedience and suffering of Christ procureth remission of sins, in that it procureth that grace and seed, &c. is but a Socinian and Arminian untruth, destroying the Satis∣faction of Christ; and upon the mater, saying, that Christ, by his Obedience and Death, did not fully discharge the debt of all those, that are justified; & did not make a Proper, Real and Full Satisfaction, to justice, in their behalf, contrare to Rom. 5:8, 9, 10, 19. 1 Tim. 2:5▪ 6. Heb. 10:10, 14. Dan. 9:24, 25. Esai. 53:4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12. Nor doth the Scripture speak so of the mater: see Ephes. 1:7. In whom we have redemption, through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. So Col. 1:14. See also. Col. 2:13. Ephes. 4:32▪ Mat. 9 2, 5. Mark. 2:59. Luk. 5:20, 23. & 7:48. Mat. 26:28. Heb. 9:22. It is true, the methode of the Gos∣pel requireth, that the Persons be first united to Christ by faith, before they can obtaine these benefites of his Redemption; but this is not the thing, he speaketh of. (2.) This grace and seed is, with him, common to all flesh: But the Scriptures tell us not, as we have showne above, that Christ's righteousness was for all, or that all receive grace, by vertue thereof. (3.) Christ formed within by the inward operations of that grace and seed, which is common to Pagans, is but a Natural Christ, and Birth: for such as the cause is, such must the effect be: And so, what followeth upon this, is but a Pagan righteous∣ness and Justification. (4.) It is false, as we have already manifested, that God is said to be Reconciled only in respect of this capacity, and offer of grace. (5.) We say not, that God justifieth any remaining in their sinnes; yet we grant, that the Justified may commit sinnes, and thereby fall under God's fatherly displeasure, Psal. 89▪ 31, 32, 33. & 51:7, 8, 9.10, 11, 12. & 32:5. 1 Cor. 11:30, 32. Luk. 1:20. Mat. 26:75. and yet withall remaine, in the state of Justification, Luk. 22:32. Heb. 10:24. for we approve not of Antino∣mians, in this mater.

20. The Proposition we have heard, and what he would properly assert there∣by, we are yet to learne: Possibly his proofs will help us to understand it. The first proof Pag. 130. us from Rom. 3:25. Here, sayes he, the Apostle showeth the efficacy of Christ••s death, viz. that by it, and faith in it, remission of by past sinnes is obtained. And what then? This is it in which, and for which the long suffering of God is exercised toward men. And what then? Therefore though men by their dayly sin∣nes deserve eternal death, yet by vertue of the sacrifice of Christ, grace and the seed of God move them in love, dureing the day of their visitation,—that they may be re∣deemed from evil. Here are Quakers dreames, whereof the text maketh no

mention, and dreames that have no sense, but with men of distracted braines.

21. We are nothing the wiser by this proof, let us see the next. If God (saith he) should be totally reconciled unto men, and repute them just, while they were actually unjust, why doth he so oft complean of his people, as Esai 59:2. where there is perfect and compleat reconciliation, there is no separation; or it will follow, that sins can make no separation, and that their good works and worst sinnes are the same, in Gods account, This giveth too great liberty to sin. And in the margine, he saith, he speaketh not here of persons not yet converted, whom Antinomians, their adversaries, say were justified from the beginning; but of persons converted, according to Protestants, who may fall into grievous sinnes, and yet are said by them, to remaine perfectly and wholly justified. Answ. (1.) Here beginne we to understand something of his Proposition, and of its designe: And for answere we say, That there is a twofold unrighteousness; one of State, or of Person, another of Condition, and particular Actions. As to the first, no unrighteous person is justified; because, before Justifica∣tion, he must be cloathed with the imputed righteousness of Christ, and so con∣stituted just; and in Justification declared just, because constituted just. And as to the second, though such an one, as committeth sin, be in so far unrighte∣ous, as to his actions; and in that, not justified, or approven of God: Yet, being united to Christ by faith, and thereby put in a justified state, he remain∣eth in Gods account, a justified person, as to his State, which is not broken off by these sinnes. This may be further cleared, when we come to speak of perseverence. (2.) Not to insist on Esai. 59. and other such Scripture places, which may be understood of the generality and body of a Church, which are Gods people by profession, but not by real union, through faith; and so speak nothing to the point in hand: We say, that sin in the justified, though it mak∣eth a separation from God, in respect of his fatherly smileing countenance, & so procureth fatherly displeasure, wrath and anger, and sad chaftnings; Yet maketh not a separation from the state of favour; nor putteth them againe into that state of separation, wherein they were before conversion. (3.) We grant, that sins in the Regenerat can so far make a separation, as that by such sinnes, the regenerat may incurre Gods displeasure, Esa. 64:5, 6, 9. 2 Sam. 11:27. grieve the Spirit of God Ephes. 4:30. lose some measure of their graces and comforts Psal. 51:8, 10, 12. Revel. 2.4. Cant. 5:2, 3, 4, 6. have their con∣sciences wounded Psal. 37:3, 4, & 51:8. and bring temporal judgments on themselves, 1 Cor. 11:32. Psal. 89: ver. 31 32. (4.) Hence we see a manifest difference, betwixt their best works and worst sinnes, even in Gods account. (5.) And also we see, how false it is to say, that our doctrine openeth a door to licentiousness. (6.) Though he call Antinomians his adversaries; Yet he and they agree in this principal thing against the Orthodox, that both say there is no difference to be put, betwixt God's Fatherly-displeasure, and his Law-wrath.

22. His third argument followeth, which in summe, is this, The Gospel re∣quireth faith and repentance, and other like conditions, before Iustification; which is in vaine, if we be justified before. Ans. This saith something against Antinomians, who plead for a Justification before faith: But the man knoweth, that we are not of that judgment; for our Confession of faith saith Chap. 11. § 4. That though

God did from all eternity decree to justifie all the elect (Gal. 3:8, 1 Pet. 1:2, 19, 20▪ Rom. 8:30) and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sinnes, and rise a∣gaine for their Iustification (Gal. 4:4. 1 Tim. 2:6. Rom. 4:25.) yet they are not justified, until the holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them (Col. 1:21, 22. Gal. 2:16. Tit. 3:4, 5, 6, 7.) What followeth in that Page 131. speak∣eth nothing against us; for we maintaine not Antinomian doctrine. But Pag. 132. he saith, that the Intercession of Christ should be made vaine and unnecessary, if he should pray for such, as are already reconciled and perfectly justified. Ans. Neither doth this make against us: for we say not, with Antinomians, that sinnes not yet com∣mitted, are actually pardoned. And as for the state of Reconciliation, and Justification, which we owne; as it maketh not after-sinnes to be already par∣doned, so it rather establisheth the use and necessity of Christs intercession, to the end, they, who are justified, may obtaine remission of these after-sins, after the Gospel methode; that is, after they have repented of them, and gone by faith to the bloud of Christ; and that they may get grace to recover them out of sin, by Faith and Repentance. And this may serve for confutation of what followeth, being nothing but a repetition of his corrupt doctrine, and a renewed act of his wonted manner of perverting Scripture, to the counte∣nancing of his dreames, without any coloure of verity.

23. He sayes next, he will answere Objections, and proposeth one Pag. 133. §. 6. And that he saith, is taken from 2 Cor. 5:18, 19. whence he sayes, they (and who these are. he telleth not) inferre that Christ perfected totally the work of re∣conciliation, while he was upon the earth. Ans. If the meaning of the Objection be, that Christ did so perfect the work of reconciliation, on earth, that there was nothing to be done by man, in order to his actual Justification, and recon∣ciliation with God; we owne it not: And by his answere it seemeth this is the meaning thereof. Of the place we spoke above, and rejected his corrupt sense thereof, which here againe he repeateth. The next Objection is from vers. 21. and he thus frameth it, As our sin is imputed to Christ, so is his Righteousness imputed to us, though we be not just; and we are just only by imputation, as Christ was a sinner. How this is brought in here, I see not: but he must take his liberty. Let us hear what he answereth. Albeit (saith he) Christ is said to have borne our sinnes, and to have suffered for them, and to be reputed among men, for a sinner; Yet God did not repute him a sinner, for he was holy. Ans. That Christ was personally and inhe∣rently holy, is very true; and that God looked upon him, as such, is true also; but yet, as a Cautioner, taking on the debt of his people, he became im∣putatively a sinner; And the Father constituting him thus a cautioner, in the room and place of the chosen ones, is here said to have made him sin, who knew no sin, that we through him might be made the righteousness of God. He addeth. Nor did Christ die, that we might be accounted just, though no more really just, than Christ was really unjust. Ans. Nor do we speak so; but this we say, as Christ, who was inherently and personally holy; Yet, as our Cautioner, was by imputation accounted a sinner, our sinnes being laid upon him, and caused to meet upon him, as Esa. 53:6. So, though we be unrighteous in ourselves, and inherently sinful and guilty; Yet, by imputation of Christs righteousness, we are really ac∣counted

just. He proceedeth, If we be made just, as Christ was a sinner, by im∣putation, then, as there was not the least sin in Christ, so there is no necessity for the least righteousness in us. Answ. Neither is there any necessity of our righteous∣ness, (if we except faith closeing with Christ) in order to our becoming Righteous by imputation, or being justified upon that account. But as to other ends and uses, he knoweth we plead for a necessity of inherent righteousness. He saith, This is to be understood only in that he did undergo torments in soul and body, which were due to our sins, that we might be partakers of that grace, which he by suffer∣ing obteaned for us, by the operations of which grace, we are made the righteousness of God in him. Ans. This is said but not proven; and is contradictory to the na∣tive import of the words, and scope of the place: His undergoing the pu∣nishment due to our sinnes, as our Sponsor and Cautioner, presupposeth his standing in our room, and being charged with our guilt, else he could not have suffered, and payed our debt, as our Surety, He proveth, That this righteous∣ness is meaned of infused righteousness, because the Apostle speaketh of such a righteous∣ness in the 14, 15, & 16. verses of the following Chapter. Answ. This Argument is fit for a Quaker, and for a desperat cause; but a wise man will laugh at it. But saith he, There should be concord betwixt light and darkness, and betwixt righteousness & un∣righteousness, if men were said to be in Christ by an imputative righteousness without them, while they are actually unjust. Ans. He knoweth, that though we say, persons are justified only by a righteousness imputed, whereby they are declared to be re∣ally righteous in the sight of God, & accepted of as such: Yet we say with all, that the same perso••s are really sanctified; & that sanctification is inseparably joyned with Justification: And so the discord is in his owne imagination. But he loveth to drink in Bellarmines muddy waters. He saith, that Christ would never, in all his sermons, have people resting upon such a righteousness; but did alwayes recommend to them good works, as instruments of Iustification. Ans. This is a notorious untruth. See Ioh. 6:29. & 9:35, 36. & 10:38. & 12:36. & 14▪ 1. & 16:9. Nor do we regard his saying, that to his observation, there is no mention of the imputed righte∣ousness of Christ in the Scriptures: For his observation is small, and of little worth: But were he as much acquanted with the Scriptures, as he is with Popish writ∣ers, and Quakers vanities, he would be in case to speak otherwayes; However we know, this is Bellarm: argument de Iustif. lib. 2. c 7. And Protestants have abundantly confuted it, pointing him to Rom. 4▪ 5, 6, 11. & 5▪ 18, 19. 2 Cor. 5:19, 21. Rom. 3:23, 24, 25, 27, 28. Ier. 23:6. 1 Cor. 1▪ 30.

24. His second proposition followeth Pag. 135. which is this. That by this in∣ward birth, or Christ formed within, we are formally justified. That is, in Bellar∣mines words. That Inherent righteousness is the formal cause of our Iustification. Let us heare, what way our Quaker proveth this. He adduceth 1 Cor 6:11. which is Bellarm. 3. Argument. But what saith he of this place? Iustification here (saith he) must be understood of making really just. And if by really just he mean inherently just; as he must, or speak non-sense, I enquire, why so? Other∣wise (saith he) washing and Sanctification must be also understood imputatively. What necessity is there for this? for (saith he) in the foregoing verses the Apostle was shewing, how no unrighteous person shall inherite the Kingdom of God. Very

good, what then? And here he subsumeth, saying such were some of you &c. And what then? And because they were now washen and sanctified therefore they were also justified. Though this may be true, in one sense; to wit, that their sanctification and washing was a proof and evidence, that they were justified, because all justified persons are also sanctified and washen: Yet it is not true in the Quakers sense, to wit, that by their Sanctification they were justified; that is, really made inherently just, and thereupon justified: And where findeth he his, because and therefore, in the text? He proceedeth, for if this justification were not real. (And who saith, that it is imaginary; or a fictitious thing? He should have said, if this justification were not a making inherently holy;) then it might be said, that the Corinthians, not having left their evil courses, but abideing in them, were ju∣stified. Ans. This consequence is false, and hath no appearance of truth in it: we say with him, that there was a real change upon the Corinthians, and that their faith was not a meer fruitless assent; but this real change was in Sanctifi∣cation, and not in Justification.

25. He tels us next very gravely, that he could never read or see, nor with any colour of reason conceive what could evince justification to be here taken imputatively. And what wonder, seing no man ever spoke of a justification here taken impu∣tatively: As if there were two justifications, one real, another imputative; will he name the man that speaketh so. But if his meaning be, that he never read nor saw, nor could conceive, what could evince Justification to be taken here in the orthodox sense: We cannot help it; for when men put out their own eyes, or give up themselves to the Devil, that he may do it, what re∣medy? Justification, with we, being alwayes (at least most rarely otherwise) in Scripture taken in a farensical sense: And though it were granted, that here, and some where else, it did import the same, that sanctification doth; yet this man could not hence prove, that the word Iustification did never signifie another thing, seing one and the same word may signify various things in Scripture; nor could he hence prove, that this was the proper import of the word, seing the Apostle is not here defineing the nature of Justification, but shewing what a change was made upon them, both a real and relative.

26. But, as a learned grammarian, he tels us, that the word Iustificare is eith∣er derived from the substantive Iustitia, or from the adjective Iustus, and both these are used to signify truely & really, not suppositively, that vertue of the soul, which is expressed by the word Iustitia. Yea the adjective Iustus signifieth a man, in whom that vertue is: for not only is it a great impropriety, but a lie, to call a man just, who is suppositivly and not really such. And Iustisico formed from Iustitia signifieth him, who is made just, seing it is but a composition of the verb Facio, and of the adjective Iustus; and so Iustifico, is Iustum facio, I make just, and Iustificatus is justus facius, made just. ••o all which, I Ans. (1.) If this man would have given us a seasonable taste of his gammatical pulp, he should have showne us, that the Hebrew and Greek words, which are render∣ed in the latine by Iustifico and Iustificatus, have this import, that he would prove the latine words to have; for whatever he may think with Bellarmine (who hath helped him here) of the latine vulgar version, as it is called, we do not account

it authentick. So that though all that he hath said were true, it would prove nothing, but that these latine words were not fit enough to expresse the He∣brew and Greek words by. (2.) But he must know, that use is the master of words, and that they goe not alwayes by the rules of etymology: and he can∣not but know, that Iustifico and Iustificatus do usually import a judicial, or ju∣ridical absolution, by the sentence of a judge, from what was laid to the charge of the impanelled; as they do also signify in our owne language. When do we say, that a man is justified, by infused justice? Or let him tell me, when or in what sentences, we use these words, when we would signifie thereby infusion of righteousness, or making just? Let him consider these passages of Scripture, & see how his sense will agree; Exod. 23▪ 7 Deut 25:1, 2. 2 Sam. 15:4. 1 King. 8:3••. Psal. 82:3. Esai. 5:22. & 50▪ 8. Luk. 7:29. & 10:29. & 16:15. Dan. 8:14. Iob 32:2. & 9:2. & 33:32. Esai. 53:11. Dan. 12:3. Mat. 12:37. Ier. 3:11. Gen. 44:16. Prov. 17:15. Not to mention other passages, where justification of a sinner before God is handled, because he may think to affix his vaine glosse unto them; as we have seen in part, and shall see more (3.) How Iustifico, I Iu∣stify, can signifie him, who is made just, I would faine know, of what Master he hath learned.

27. This man will needs be the master of words, and therefore he will have Iustifico to be like sanctifico, honorifico, sacrifico. Ans. And why not also as veri∣fico? Sure, honorificare signifieth not to infuse honour, but publickly to declare our respect, for such a person: and he knoweth the common saying, honor ma∣gis est in honorante, quam in honorato. And Sacrifico signifieth sometimes I sacri∣fice, and offer in sacrifice, and ask God pardon. Is that to make holy? But sayes he, all these are spoken of a subject really endued with that vertue, from which he hath that denomination. No man is said to be sanctified, who is really profane; so nor can any man be said to be Iustified, who is not really just. Ans. And do we say, that a man is said to be Justified, who is not really just? No. He is really just by Righteousness imputed, and then declared and pronunced just, by Justifica∣tion: But he should show, that as to sanctify, signifieth sometimes, to infuse ho∣liness, so to Iustify is to infuse righteousness; or that a man can not be denomi∣nated Iustified, but upon the account of infused and inherent righteousness, as one cannot be denominated sanctified, without inherent holiness. But this is too hard for him.

28. His perversness discovereth it self, in the following words, where play∣ing with the forensical use of the word Iustify, he sayes, it is, as when one really guil∣ty is freed from the punishment, and so he is Iustified. that is, put in the place of him, who is just; Insinuating hereby, that in our justification there is nothing but a fre∣dom from punishment, while as we say, that the cautionary righteousness of the Lord our Surety is imputed to the beleever, and he thereupon Justified. He proceedeth, and telleth us, that this use, (to wit forensical) of the word pro∣ceeded from this supposition, that none should be liberated but innocents. Ans. Rather from this supposition, that none ought to be absolved, but either he who is not guilty of what is charged, or hath satisfied the Law and accusation by a Cauti∣ner. What he addeth is nothing to the purpose: Hence we say, (saith he) I shall

Iustifie this, or that, meaning that such a thing is Iustifiable. For beleevers are Justifiable, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. What he citeth out of Pareus against Bellarm de justific. p. 469. where Pareus is shewing how Bellarmine at length cometh to his hand, is nothing to the purpose, for when he sayes, we are not formally righteous or so called, by the imputation of Christs righteous∣ness, his meaning is, that thereby we are not made such, as never sinned; as his following words import: but that the Righteousness of Christ is not so im∣puted to us, as that it becometh the formal objective reason of our Justification, Pareus saith not. The matter is cleared thus; though a man, who is not solven∣do, can not be made, by his cautioners paying of the debt for him, one that is formally just, and that hath never failed in paying his debt, nor can the cau∣toners payment be so imputed to him, when he is absolved; yet the Cautio∣ners payment is so imputed to him, as that thereupon he is absolved and justi∣fied; and so declared one that hath payed his debt, by his cautioner; and con∣sequently free from any execution of the Law against him; & that payment of the cautioner is so imputed to him, as that it becometh the Formal Objective Reason, why he is absolved.

29. He wonders, that we should place our hope and confidence, in a matter of such moment, upon a figurative use of a word, and exclude that, or at least not account it necessary, without which we cannot see God. Ans. We deny, that our use of the word is figurative; and though it were, yet the thing imported thereby, is such a sure ground, that if he misse it, it may cost him his soul. We account not holiness and good works unnecessary; but only exclude them from being any part of the Formal Objective Reason in our Justification. And though he could not but know this; Yet he would maliciously calumniate us. Then he tels us, that the word is sometimes used in Scripture of them, who arrogat righ∣teousness to themselves, though it do not belong to them, citeing Exod. 23.7, Iob 9:20. & 27:5 Prov. 17:15. Esai. 5:23. Luk 10:29. & 16:15. Ioh. 11:2, 3, 22. Ier. 3:11. Ezech. 16:5. & 15:2. Ans. Though impertinency enough might be observed here, Yet this satisfieth us, that both in some of those places, and others cited by us before, the word is not taken in his sense. I wonder how he can say, that all these places speak of men Justifying the ungodly, when the very first is spoken of God himself: And some of them speak of a not justifying, as Iob 9:20. & 27:5. Many of them speak nothing of Justifying at all, as Esai. 5:23. Ioh. 11:2, 3, 22. Ezech. 16:5. & 15:2. So unhappy is the man in his citations.

30. But Pag. 137. He cometh to speak of the word, as used in those places of Scripture, where the matter of Justification is handled; And in the very entry, he ushereth his way with a false, ignorant, calumnious insinuation, as if we held, that Justification were but supposititious and imaginary, and not real; when as, by what we have already said, the judicious may see, that the Justi∣fication, he pleadeth, for is no reall thing; but a popish dream. And another ignorant cheat he useth, saying, that the signification, which he putteth on the word, is genuine, and ours but figurative; Whileas our sense of it is proper, ordinary, & for any thing I know, constant; sure he hath given no one instance to the con∣trary; and his is fictitious, forged at Rome, confirmed by no appoven author.

But sayes he, In pauls Epistles to the Romans, Corinth. Galat. and else where, where this doctrine is handled, he saith frequently, that we are not justified by the Law, nor by the Law of Moses; and here the word may be taken in its proper and genuine sense, without any absurdity. Ans. But what is this proper and genuine sense? Is it that we are made just by infused righteousness? Then this absurdity will follow, that the Apostles meaning is, the Law doth not infuse righteousness; and who dream∣ed, that it did. Is it, that we are declared just, because of Inherent Holi∣ness and Righteousness; then this proper and genuine sense should be a per∣fect contradiction to what Paul saith: or his meaning must be, when he saith, we are not Justified by the Law, that we are indeed justified by Inherent Holi∣ness, or Conformity to the law. What more? The meaning of these words, we are Iustified by faith (sayes he) may by, we are made just by faith purifieing the heart. Ans. Then the Apostles should contradict himself; for if we be thus made just by faith, we are made just by works: and further, purifying of the heart, cannot other∣wise be understood, but of renewing the heart; but Iustifying signifieth not mak∣ing just. Againe sayes he, When we are said to be Iustified by grace, by Christ, by the Spirit, what absurdity to understand this of making just? Ans. Of being Justifi∣ed by the Spirit▪ we read ••ot, for these words by the Spirit mentioned 1 Cor. 6:11. are to be referred to washing, and sanctification. When we are said to be Justified by grace it is by the gracious and free favour of God (as our Divines make good against the Papists) and that, with the circumstances of the pla∣ces, are against such a Justification. Nor must we any where so interpret any passage, as to make it crosse or contradict other passages. When we are said to be Justified by Christ, the meaning is clear against his sense.

31. He citeth againe 1 Cor. 6:11. (not 11:6.) and then tels us, that Thysius thinketh, that Iustification here includeth sanctification, as its consequent, and that Zanchius, in Ephes. 2:4. thinketh it is the same with sanctification. And that Bul∣linger on the place sayes, the Apostle in diverse words expresseth the same thing. Ans. (1.) None of these Divines confound them, and make them one, as this Quaker doth; but distinctly and orthodoxly explaine the nature both of Justi••••cation and Sanctification. (2.) As I said above, though this were granted, that the word Iustify should import the same with sanctify, in this or that place; Yet unlesse he made it manifest, that it alwayes so importeth, and can never be taken in a∣nother sense, he could not make good his Assertion and Opinion; So that in all this work, he is but beating the winde. (3.) Thysius had no ground to speak so, seing sancti••••cation is as well expressed, as Justification, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified (4.) Bullinger saith no more than what Calvin; saith, & yet Calvin distinguisheth them, in his Comment on the place, Zanchius saith no such th••ng, in the place cited.

32. In the next place Pag. 138. he citeth with Bellarm. Rom. 8:30. And saith, that either Sanctification must be excluded, or Iustification must be taken in its proper sense. Ans. (1.) There is no necessity for either; for Sanctification is com∣prehended under Vocation, which is saving and effectual; otherwise the linkes of this chaine could be broken; for a common and ineffectual call is not attend∣ed with Justification, and Glorification: And effectual Vocation is by infusion

of grace, and the Spirit of holiness and a real change. (2.) Sanctification might be comprehended under the word Iustified, it being a necessary and inseparable consequent, and that without any prejudice to the native, usual and constant import of the word Iustified. (3.) Thereafter vers. 33.34. the Apostle cleareth, in what sense he took Iu••tified, when he opposeth it unto condemned, a forensi∣cal terme; and to accused, another. His citing of some Protestants so saying. I passe, finding no argument alleiged by them, to enforce this acceptation. Melanthon's saying that to be Iustified by faith, doth not only signify to be pronunced just, but to be made just. May admit of a saife interpretation: for he saith not, to be made just by inherent righteousness. And it is certain, that all that are Justified, are first made just, not by inherent righteousness, but by the Imputed righteousness of Christ. What he citeth out of one Martinus Boraeus, I cannot examine, having never seen the book, Bucer's words cited make nothing for him. B. Forbes's words I will not justify, but judge that Cardinal Contarenus spoke more ortho∣doxly, then he. The Fathers so taking the word sometimes moveth not me, more nor it did Calvin. Chemnitius and Zanchius, cited by himself. And further, if to justify signifie to make righteous; to accuse, and to condemne (which are opposite terms) must signifie to make unrighteous, or unjust.

33. After this §. Pag. 140. he bringeth in his conclusion from what he hath said, and it is a bold one. Having now sufficiently (saith he) proved, that by Iu∣stification, must be understood, to be made really just. This is concluded, like a Quaker, with unparalleled falshood, impudency and boldness. He undertook only to prove, that the word might, without absurdity, be so understood, and how weakly he hath done this, we have seen: But now he wonderfully con∣cludeth a must be, from a may be, and that too no wayes satisfyingly proved. But I have said already, that the beleever, who is Justified, may be said to be really made just, but not in his sense, nor because, of the import of the word, as he alleigeth; but because the judgment of God is according to truth, and God will not justifie an unjust man. The Justified person therefore is first made just, not by Inherent Holiness and Righteousness, but by the Righteousness of Christ Imputed to him, and Received by faith. What saith he next? I do confidently affirme from real and sensible experience (but the delusory sensations, or impressions of an erroneous Spirit, on the mindes of persons, given up to strong delusion, is no demonstration to us of the verity of what they boldly affirme) that the immediat, next and formal cause, whereby a man is Iustified, in the sight of God, is the revelation of Christ in the soul, who converteth and reneweth the minde; and he, who is the Author of this work, being so formed and revealed, we are truely Iustified and accepted in the sight of God. Ans. (1.) Who seeth not, that these things, as here expressed, are not such, as can fall under the inward sensations of the soul? Can the soul feel what is the Immediat, Nearest, or Formal Cause, of God's acts? What needs more proof of a desperat delusion? (2.) If the revelation of Jesus Christ be such a cause of Justification, Justification cannot be a making just; for it is not, as he sayes, the revelation that converteth and reneweth, but Christ revealed: and if Christ revealed maketh the change, ••ustification doth it not; nor can Justification be a declareing of one righteous because of inherent righte∣ousness;

for here the man is Justified, upon the revelation; and yet the man is not renewed, for he is not renewed by the revelation, but by Christ revealed, and the Revelation of Christ, is before this Operation of Christ. (3.) If the man be not justified, till Christ be formed in him, as his last words seem to say, then the revelation of Christ cannot be the Immediat cause of Justification be∣cause that is before this forming of Christ in the man, for it is before the work of Christ reforming, and renewing the minde. (4.) I see all this Renovation is but upon the minde, and this Formation of Christ is but a Revelation in the minde; But where is the work of grace upon the will? This would say, that the Papists opi∣nion is more tolerable then this, for they include graces seated in the will. (5.) Where doth the Scripture speak of Justification after this manner? We are oft said to be justified by faith; but never are we said to be justified by such a Revelati∣on. (6.) Therefore I may as confidently affirme, that this his sensation is but a sensi∣ble delusion of Satan, the grand enemy of the Grace of God, and of the Gospel.

34. Yet he goeth about to prove this, and tels us first, that this methode of salvation is set down by Paul Rom. 5:10. for, saith he, The Apostle doth signify, that reconciliation is made by the death of Christ. Ans. This is true of that Reconci∣liation, which is actual, and is had by faith in the death of Christ; but not of that Reconciliation, which he imagineth; whereby, to wit, God is prone to Receive and Redeem man. What next? He affirmeth Iustification, that is, Sal∣vation, to be in Christs life. Ans. And what ground is there for this Interpretation, seing the sense is obvious; to wit, that seing by the propitiatory death of Christ, beleevers, laying hold upon him by faith, are brought into a state of Peace and Reconciliation with God, they need not fear, but they shall be brought thorow all difficulties and steps, to the enjoyment of life eternal, and full salvation, Christ being now alive, to bestow all that he hath purchased? What more? He saith, That this life of Christ is something inward and spiritual in the heart, whereby he is renewed and brought out of death, where naturally he lay; and raised up, and revived unto God, the same Apostle sheweth Ephes. 2:5. Ans. This is nothing but a palpable perversion of the words of the Apostle: for the life can no more be understood here of some inward thing, wrought in man, than Christ's death can be so interpreted. And if he had so expounded the words, he had spoke more like himself above; as also more like other Quakers, who talk of Christs sufferings and death, &c. as all done within man. (2.) That the Apostle Ephes. 2:5. is speaking of beleevers being by grace quickened together with Christ, and risen together with him, &c. is true: But what saith this, for the corrupt glosse of Rom. 5:10. where the life of Christ is only spoken of; and that as it, by which beleevers may be assured of their salvation? (3.) What is there in all this, for Justification by the Revelation of Christ within, reforming the minde, &c, Hath the man forgote his Conclusion already? Ay but, sayes he, the Apostle mentioneth a Revelation of this inward life, 2 Cor. 4:10, 11. and this inward life is that whereby, he said, we were justified Ans. The life of Christ is indeed said by Paul 2. Cor. 4:10, 11. to be made manifest, in and by its effects supporting & car∣rying the persecuted Apostles, through so many miseries and deaths: But who,

except a Quaker, could say, that the Apostle sayes, we are justified by this life? And what vestige is there of this, in the Apostles words?

35. In the next place he citeth Tit. 3:5. And hence thus argueth, we are ju∣stified by that, by which we are saved. Ans. Yes, by the grace of God we are freely justified and saved, and that without works of righteousness, which we have done. Here the Apostle (sayes he moreover) doth manifestly ascribe the immediat cause of Iustification, unto the inward work of regeneration, that is, to Christ revealed in the soul, by which we are formally accepted of God. Ans. (1.) What immediat cause is this? That a soul must be wrought up to faith in Christ, before it can be justified, we grant; and that this faith must be wrought by the operation of the Spirit, is also true: But that this faith, or any other work of the Spirit in the soul, is the Formal Objective Cause of Justification, the Apostle saith neither here, nor elsewhere. (2.) To say, that we are formally accepted of God, that is, as fully righteous, with a righteousness answering the Law, in all points, and satisfying justice for b••gones, (as he must meane, or he speaketh not to the point) by this work of Regeneration, is but a jejune begging of what is yet in question: sure, there is no word of this here.

36. In the third place he citeth 2 Cor. 13:5. And saith, That it appeareth here how earnestly the Apostle would, that they should know Christ in them. Ans. The Apostle, to the end, that the Corinthians, who at the instigation of false Teachers, were beginning to have undervalueing thoughts of him, might be convinced, that he was an Apostle of Christ, and so continue in esteeming of him as such, doth here presse them to goe in to their owne hearts, and see, if there were any fruits and effects of Christ's living among them by his Spirit, through his ministrie, that, if not, they might not account themselves Chri∣stians, but persons rejected. And what would this say? It appeareth hence 2. (sayes he) that the cause of reprobation, or of non-justification, was the want of the inhabitation of Christ revealed: And, by the rule of contraries, where Christ is inward∣ly known and revealed, there the persons are approven and justified: And nothing can be more cleare. Ans. (1.) By what rule, law, or authority, doth he make Re∣probation, and No-Jus••ification equipollent terms? This must be licentiâ Quakerorum, whereby they have a privilege, contrare to Scripture, and all Reason, to coine words, phrases, and opinions, in divinity, at their pleasure. (2.) The want of the effects, and evidences of Christ dwell••ng in them by his Spirit, is not here given, as the cause of their being in an evil state, re••ected and disapproved of God, but as a mark and evidence: And marks and evidences are not alwayes taken from the Immediat, Nearest, and Formal cause. (3.) It is very true, that by the rule of contraries, where Christ is indeed revealed and working in the soul, that soul is justified; but it is most false, that therefore, Christ revealed in the soul is the Formal Cause, or to speak more properly, the Formal Objective Reason, of Justification; for himself said above, that good works were properly the effects and fruits of ••ustification: and yet he knoweth, the fruits and effects may be an evidence of the cause in being. (4.) And so,

there is nothing more plaine and evident, then that this citation is impertinent, and his argueing therefrom a non sequitur; and that he is still the old man, a Quaker-disputant.

37. As a parallel place he citeth Pag. 142, Gal. 4:19. And saith, this Christ is the inward hope of glory, Col. 1:27, 28. And what is the hope of Glory, must be that, to which we nextly and immediatly lean unto in Iustification. Answ. And how is this proven? We must beleeve it, because he saith it; and so there is an end. When the Apostle saith Phil. 1: v. 28. And in nothing terrified by your adversaries, which is—to you an evident toaken of salvation, he pointed at something, which might be looked upon, as a ground for hope of glory; must we also leane to that in justification? After some lines, wherein, after his usual manner, he must extravage, he saith, And such as feel Christ, after this manner raised, and reigning in them, have a true ground of hope to beleeve, that they are justified. Which is very true, because these works of Christ are inseparable fruites and effects of Justification. After some few words againe, to no purpose, he tels us that Borhaeus & Claudius Albericus Inuncunanus & Essius (three, whose books I never saw, and whose names I never heard, before I read this Quakers book) are for Justification by this Revelation: And he calleth them Protestants: but if so I have read of some Papists more sound, then they are, if their meaning be one and the same with this Quakers. And finally he citeth some words of Mr. Baxters Aphorismes. But he cannot be ignorant, that Mr Baxters notions, in this particular, are little satisfying; beside that Mr Baxter himself will have none citeing that book, as expressing his plaine and full meaning. And if he would put the mater to the issue of tryal by humane testimony, we should give him Twenty for one.

38. Now followeth his Third proposition, wherein he asserteth two things, first. That good works; seing they naturally proceed from this birth, as heat from the fire, are absolutely necessary unto justification, as a causa sine qua non, & in which we are justified, and without which we cannot be justified. Secondly, That such good works are pure and perfect. These he cometh to prove Pag. 144. &c. And they would appear to be a contradiction; for seing good works are the fruites of this birth, and by the birth we are justified, good works must follow justification, and so cannot be a cause; no not a causa sine qua non, for even a causa sine qua non must be before the effect. Againe what is that to say, in which we are justified? Is the meaning only, that these works are approven of God, & we, upon the account of them, so farr as they are done according to a Gospel rule? What will this say, for justification of State, whereof we are here speaking? finally, How can it be said, that without good works we cannot be justified, seing we are justified by the Birth, and the Birth is but the cause of good works; and so it hath been said, that good works are the Effects and Consequences of Justification? This would suspend justification until good works appeared, & so we should be justified by the Bi••th only Initially, or in a pre∣paratory way, but not fully. And further, in this, he is worse then Papists, who will not say, that the good works by which we are justified, are such as

can stand before Gods tribunal, if He follow the strick rigour of Law, and not the Gospels admixture of mercy.

39. Let us hear his proofs: The first is our of Iames 2. whence he frameth this Argument. If no man be justified without faith, and no faith be lively and valide unto justification without works; then works are necessary unto justification: But the former is true, &c. Answ. (1.) Though it be true, that no man, at least come to yeers of discretion, is justified without faith, as an instrumental cause laying hold on, and applying Christ and his righteousness; yet this faith is not the Causa formalis objectiva of justification; and far less can works be a part of this cau••e, seing they are but fruites and consequences of this faith. (2.) These words, and no faith is lively and valide unto justification, without works, may admit of a double sense; either the meaning may be, that no faith is valide unto ju∣stification, but that which is true and lively, and apt to produce good works; or that no faith is valide unto justification, but that which is actually produceing good works, and in so far as it is attended with good works. If the first be the meaning, then it is apparent, that good works cannot be said to be necessary unto justification, as a cause thereof, for it may be in actual ••eing, when they are but in potentia. If the last be the true sense, this place of Iames will not evince it; for Abraham was justified before he offered up his Son Isaac: And then it would follow, that no man is justified in his sleep, or when he is not actually doing some good work. (3.) Thus we see, and the place of Iames is clear for it, that good works are only necessary, in the person justified; and necessary to prove the truth and reality of a justif••ing faith, to the man self, and to others: And so notwithstanding hereof that is alwayes true, that the Scrip∣ture saith, Abraham beleeved God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, Iames 2:23. Gen. 15:6. Rom. 4:3. Gal. 3:6.

40. His second proof is from several Scriptures, as Heb. 12:14. Mat. 7:21. Iohn 13:17. 1 Cor. 7:19. Revel. 22:1•• and he thus frameth it, If these only shall enter into the Kingdom, who do the will of the Father; if these only be called wise builders & blessed, that do the sayings of Christ &c. then good works are necessary to salvation and to justification, The former is true &c. Answ. Not to quarrel at the Proposition, as containing words in it, which are not in the places cited. We shortly answ. that not one of these places speak of Justification, or mention the necessity of works thereunto: But only of their necessity unto final salvation; which we deny not: And if his Argument hold, no man shall be justified, before he be in heaven: All therefore that can hence be concluded is, that good works are necessary in the person justified, in order to glory; but not that they are necessary unto justification.

41. These two are all his arguments, and how slender proofs they are of what he undertook to prove, let any judge. He cometh in the next place §. 10. to answere some Objections, The first is taken from Luk. 17:10. When ye have done all that is commanded, say, we are unprofitable servants. Which is a clear proof, that our works, being but a doing of that, which is commanded, and so a doing of duty; and such as bring no advantage unto God, as a reparation of his Glory, or satisfaction to his justice for the wrongs done; and therefore

can have no interest in that, which is the causa formalis objectiva of our justification; or in that, which we must lean to, as the ground of our justification before God; or in that, upon which we may expect absolution from the sentence of the Law, and freedom from the wrath and curse of God, due for the breach of the Law. What sayes he to this Argument? He grants, they are not profitable unto God; but yet he saith, they are profitable unto us: he might adde, and to others too; and he might say, that they are useful to set forth the Glory of God, and several things more might he say, of this kinde; but all is to no purpose, as to our present question. The second Objection is from Rom. 3:20, 21, by the righteousness of the Law shall no flesh be justified &c. But he might have cited to this end whole Chapters of that Epistle, as also of the Epistle to the Galatians, where the Apostle in downe right termes is disputing against the interest of works, in the matter of Justification. But what replyeth he? He saith, the A∣postle excludes the works of the Law, that is, such as are done by mans strength and will, while he studieth conformity unto the outward letter of the Law, which therefore are imperfect: but not the works of the Gospel, done by the Spirit of grace in the heart, ac∣cording to the inward and Spiritual Law, which are therefore pure and perfect. An∣swer (1.) This explication of Law works and Gospel works, is nakedly pro∣posed to us here, without any proof; and is an arrow out of Bellarmines quiver: all works done by mans meer strength and will without the Grace of God, and the help of the Spirit, are no good works at all, because not performed in the right manner, nor flowing from a principle of grace. (2.) That Gospel works, even performed by the Spirit, are not pure and perfect, (as he with Papists say) shall be seen in due time. (3.) The Apostle excludeth all such works, which are not that Righteousness of God without the Law, which was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets: nor the Righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all, them that beleeve, Rom. 3:21, 22: And all such as marre justification freely by grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ vers. 24 As also, all such, as darken that declaration of the righteousness of God, who must be just, when he is the justifier of him, which beleeveth in Jesus, whereof mention is made vers, 25, 26. And all such works, as give ground of boasting, which is only excluded by the Law o•• Faith vers. 27. And all such, as are opposite to justification by faith vers. 28. (4.) Nay Abrahams & Davids works, which were done by the Spirit, are excluded Rom. 4:2, 3, 6, 7, 8. He goeth about to confirme this di∣stinction, from this, that Paul to the Galat. speaketh directly against such, as would presse the observation of the legal Ceremonies, upon the Christian Gentiles. Pag. 145, 146. Answ. Though that might be the occasion of Pauls disput; & it be true, that Paul speaketh much, and particularl••, against the ceremonial Law; yet he doth not insist upon that hypothesis, or branch of the question, but tak∣eth occasion thereby, to discusse the point in Thesi••, of all works in general, even such, as are done in conformity to the moral Law; therefore he adduc∣eth Chap. 3:10, 12. that passage Deut. 27:26. and Levit. 18:5. which cannot be meaned of the ceremonial Law only: and speaketh against all Justification by works, which is opposite to Justification by faith Chap. 3:11, 12. What he saith

afterward of the necessity of good works, we stand to, in the sense maintained by Our against Papists, that is, as antecedent adjuncts, and dispositions unto glory; not as any way meritorious either of Justification, or Salvation: nor do we approve of the Papists second Justification by works. He urgeth againe Tit. 3:5. And thence speaketh thus, all grant that such as are saved, are Iustified. True: what more? Therefore when he saith he hath saved us he saith also he hath Iusti∣fied us. Ans. True, yet it will not follow, that all that is antecedent to Salvati∣on, is also antecedent to Justification; or that all, that is requisite, in order to final Salvation, is also requisite in order to Justification. The Apostle vers. 5. presupposing Justification, is shewing what way the Lord bringeth about their salvation, to wit, by washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; & that he may clear up the first step of the work, he speaks to Justification vers. 7. that being Iustified by his grace &c. and this grace excludeth all works, for what is of grace, it not of works, otherwise grace is no more grace, and what is of works is not of grace, otherwise works are no more works. Rom. 11:6 and to him that worketh, is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt Rom. 4:4. What he saith afterward Pag. 147. of the difference betwixt works done by per∣sons unrenewed, and persons regenerated, is not much to the matter in hand, and tendeth clearly to disparage his own doctrine, concerning the Sanctifi∣cation and Salvation of Heathens. And withall I see no ground, to take in these last, into Justification, as he would have us; for then, as no man is say∣ed until all these works be ended; so also shall no man be justified, until he be glorified.

42. The third Objection is taken from the impurity of our best works: And he answereth with Bellarmine; That works done by the Spirit and grace of God, that is, of persons regenerated, are perfect; Ans. His meaning must be, that they do agree to the Law, in all points, otherwise a curse attendeth them Deut. 27:26. Gal. 3, 10. And if so, why did David say Psal. 143:2. and enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no flesh be justified. And Ps. 130:3. If thou Lord should mark iniquittes: O Lord, who shall stand? and, why doth Iob say, Chap. 9:15. whom, if I were righteous, yet would I not answere. And why saith the church Esai. 64:6. all our righteousneses are as filthy rags, which, though some, cited by this man, (not regarding the interpretation of Bertius the Arminian) think, doth not immediatly prove, that there is no merite in our works, as not being spo∣ken of all mankinde; yet doth abundantly evidence, that the penitent church, considering her best wayes, saw much defilement in them, that might make the Lord abhorre them, as filthy rags; and persons, in a penitent frame, use to get a better sight of sin, and of their wayes, than others have, or themsel∣ves formerly had. His saying, that hereby is not meant these works, that Christ worketh in us; but the works, which we ourselves do, in our owne strength. Is vaine, for such as are done, in our owne strength, cannot be called Righteousness. But then, sayes he, it would follow, that all holiness must be cast away, as filthy rags. So they must be cast away, in the matter of Justification; for we must not found our hope of acceptance with God, and Justification before him, on these: but it will not follow, that they must be laid aside in our practice, and

not be studied and endeavoured, to God's glory, though we must alwayes lament our shortcoming, and run to the bloud of Iesus, that the defilement, cleaving to our best works, may be purged away; Nor do we think, that this hyperbo∣lick expression of the penitent church will warrant any, to ca••l all the work of the Spirit of God, in his people, sordide and filthy rags. What is of God should be acknowledged good & acceptable, though the defilements, that adhere to the best of God's works in us here, because of our continueing corruption, and because of the lustings of the flesh in us, should be mourned over, and keep us humble. One thing I would further note here. That if our Gospel-works be such, why are we not Justified because of them, as well, as in them? He further answereth pag. 149. §. 12 That though it were granted, that the best of men are imper∣fect; Yet God can produce perfect works in them, by his Spirit. Ans. the qustion is not what God can do; but what he doth. God can make all his perfect; Yet the supposition made, saith he doth not so: He hath thought it fit for his owne glory, so to work in his Saints, as they may have, so long as they are here, a body of death to wrestle with, and occasion to pray dayly, forgive us our sinnes, and to run to the fountaine opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Ierusalem, for sin and for uncleanness, that they may be washen. He pro∣ceedeth; The Spirit of God is not capable of a blot, and therefore all Christ's works, wrought in his children, are pure and perfect. Ans. The Spirit, it is true, is not capable of pollution; yet his works, as received by us, and as we are the formal actors of them, are obnoxious to pollution. And doth not the Scrip∣ture tell us, that God first beginneth a good work, in us, and afterward per∣fecteth it. Phil. 1:6.? How can then, all the works of Christ in us be perfect? And if it were so, his children here should be as holy, as they will be in hea∣ven; for what is higher than perfection? Thus we see, this man, will outstripe Bellarm. who confessed, that our actual righteousness was imperfect, be∣cause of the admixtion of venial faults, and stood in need of dayly remission: And will run the length of bold Vasques, who thinketh, that such have no need of remission. in 1. 2. Disp. 204. c. 2. & 3. He further argueth. It would then fol∣low, that the miracles and works of the Apostles themselves, as the conversion of the Gen∣tiles, gathering of Churches, writting of Scripture, and giving of themselves to the death for Christ, were defiled with sin. Ans. we must distinguish betwixt these works, which were extraordinary (I meane, as to the manner of their performance) and so peculiar to such extraordinary persons; in which they were not, in a manner, for∣mal actors, but passive organs; such as working of miracles, and writting of Scripture: in these the Apostles moved, as they were immediatly Acted, In∣spired, and Led of the Spirit; so that these were not properly their formal acts. And these, which are of a more ordinary nature, & wherein they were more for∣mal actors; through the assistance of the Spirit, whether in works, belonging to their office, as preaching, and gathering of Churches, or in works of Chri∣stianity, as giving themselvs to the death, and the like. As to the first sort, we may grant that they were undefiled, as being pure acts of the Spirit, where∣in the Apostles were but organs, used by the Spirit, as he saw meet. But as to others, I see no absurdity to say, that they needed to use that petition, for∣give

us our sinnes; The Apostle Paul had his infirmities and weakneses, & a bo∣dy of death, that made him cry out, wo is me, miserableman; and was thereby made to do what he would not, and hindered from doing what he would Rom. 7: The Apostle Iames saith, in many things, we offend all Iam. 3:2. and the Apostle Iohn saith 1 Ioh. 1:8. that if we say, that we have no sin, we deceive our∣selves, and the truth is not in us.

43. Thereafter he giveth unto works an instrumental part in Iustification, which is true of faith laying hold on the righteousness of Christ, the only Objective Formal cause of Justification; but cannot agree to works. But he citeth some Protestants, assenting to this, as Polanus Symphon. c. 27. whose words, if understood of after pardon, that is, of sinnes committed after Justification, as they may, containe nothing but truth; and that truth, which we question not, acknowledging, that even iustified persons before remission of after sins, must repent, confesse, and mourne for their sinnes, and act faith on Christ. Zanchius, in the words he citeth, is expresly speaking of salvation, not of Justification: and to this end, he might cite all the Protestants, that I know of. Amesius is speaking of the same. As for Mr Baxter, I have told already, that his notions about Justification, are not acceptable to all. As for what he addeth about the word merite, I shall not contend, only I would say, that seing it sounds so ill, because of the common and known abuse thereof by Pa∣pists, the less we use it the better, seing Verba valent usu.

44. Nor shall I say much against his conclusion of this mater; Only while he tels us, that such may confidently appear before God, who, sensible of their owne unworthiness, and of the unprofitableness of all their works, and endeavours, &c. did apply themselves unto the light within, and suffered that grace to work in them, and thereby are renewed, quickened and have Christ risen in them, and working in them to will & to do, having thus put on Christ, and being clothed with him, and made partakers of his righteousness: When, I say, he speaketh thus, he but cheateth his Reader, giving him faire words, and no more: for, as we have formerly seen, in the examination of his Principles. This light, is but a Pelagian Grace, if not worse, common to all men, Scythian and Barbarian. And by vertue of this light, without the least help of the grace of God, (for of grace assisting, far lesse regenerating such as are in nature, and so beginning every good work, there is not, in his writings, the least mention) if the man will but yeeld, (and of power and full ability to do this, he maketh no question) he becom∣eth regenerated, begotten of God, partaker of the divine nature, and what not? And this is this Mans Sanctification, and foundation of Justification; whereof Pagans and Barbarians, who never did, nor never shall hear of C••rist, are as capable, as such who live within the visible Church, and that without any new grace communicated, by that which is borne with them: Let the Reader now Judge, what a Regeneration, and Sanctification can flow from this, which is in every man; and what Justification that can be, which is founded hereupon; And whether or not, this be a sure bottom to stand upon, and with confidence to rest upon, while we are thinking of appearing before God? And what an antievangelick Justification, and Salvation it is, which Quak∣ers

maintaine. O what a dreadful Disappointment will such wretches, that live and die according to these Principles, meet with, in end, when it will be too late, to hel••e the matter by changing their thoughts? Let all, that fear God, and would not destroy their owne souls, beware of these men; for their doctrine is damnable and devilish.