Rich
.
Baxter's
ADMONITION
TO
M
WILLIAM
EYRE
OF
SALISBURY
;
Concerning
his
MISCARRIAGES
in
a
BOOK
lately
Written
for
the
Justification
of
Infidels
,
AGAINST
M.
Benj
.
Woodbridge
,
M.
James
Cranford
and
the
AUTHOR
.
2
Pet
.
2.19
.
While
they
promise
them
Liberty
,
they
themselves
are
the
servants
of
corruption
.
Rom.
4.22
,
23
,
24.
And
therefore
it
was
imputed
to
him
for
Righteousness
.
Now
it
was
not
written
for
his
sake
alone
,
that
it
was
Imputed
to
him
:
But
for
us
also
,
to
whom
it
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
Believe
on
him
that
raised
up
Jesus
our
Lord
from
the
dead
.
Ostendisti
tales
Discipulos
,
non
fecisti
:
Hoc
profecit
doctrina
tua
,
ut
Peccatum
ne
Paenitentiam
quidem
habeat
.
Hieronym
.
contr
.
Jovinian
.
lib
.
2.
pag
.
(
mihi
)
43.
LONDON
,
Printed
by
A.
M.
for
Thomas
Underhill
,
at
the
Anchor
and
Bible
in
Pauls
Church-yard
near
the
little
North-door
,
and
Francis
Tyton
,
at
the
three
Daggers
in
Fleetstreet
near
Dunstans
Church
.
1654.
The
Preface
.
READER
;
I
Think
it
not
inconvenient
to
give
thee
some
advertisement
of
the
occasion
of
this
writing
.
Having
met
with
a
Sermon
of
Mr.
B.
Woodbridge
Pastor
of
Newbury
,
for
Justification
by
faith
,
and
against
the
Justification
of
Infidels
,
I
saw
so
much
worth
in
a
narrow
room
,
which
caused
me
to
bless
God
that
his
Church
had
such
a
man
,
and
especially
Newbury
who
had
so
excellently
learned
a
Pastor
before
,
who
had
mistaken
so
much
in
this
very
Point
;
and
withall
in
the
Epistle
of
a
small
Book
that
I
since
printed
,
to
commend
it
to
others
:
Mr
Eyre
of
Salisbury
was
offended
it
seems
at
this
;
and
in
an
Answer
to
Mr
Woodbridge
,
newly
published
,
with
an
Epistle
of
Mr
Owens
prefixed
,
he
was
pleased
to
speak
of
me
,
what
thou
hast
here
Answered
.
In
his
Epistle
against
me
,
he
telleth
us
of
one
Mr
Crandon
of
Hampshire
that
[
hath
now
in
the
Press
a
large
and
full
Answer
to
my
Paradoxicall
Aphorismes
.
]
The
Character
that
Mr
Eyre
gives
of
this
man
is
,
That
he
is
[
a
faithfull
servant
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
a
workman
that
needs
not
to
be
ashamed
,
]
This
is
good
news
if
it
be
true
:
for
then
he
will
not
write
so
many
things
that
deserve
shame
,
as
are
in
this
book
of
Mr
Eyre's
.
But
by
his
wish
that
others
[
of
more
strength
and
far
greater
helps
]
may
by
him
be
provoked
to
shame
,
I
am
afraid
what
the
fruit
of
his
Weakness
may
prove
.
I
confess
I
have
heard
neer
this
twelvemoneth
,
that
this
man
hath
been
about
this
work
.
The
last
I
heard
,
informed
me
,
that
[
he
is
against
the
Morality
of
the
Sabbath
in
Doctrine
and
Practice
notoriously
,
and
one
that
cals
it
Legal
Preaching
to
Convince
men
of
sinne
and
misery
,
and
supposed
to
be
of
Mr
Eyre's
Judgement
for
the
Justification
of
Unbelievers
;
and
that
he
having
communicated
it
to
Mr
Eyre
,
was
gone
with
him
to
London
,
to
print
a
large
Answer
not
only
to
my
Aphorismes
,
but
Passages
in
my
other
Books
;
His
book
about
a
hundred
sheets
,
and
some
six
Shillings
price
,
having
more
leaves
then
Arguments
,
but
most
liberally
pouring
forth
the
Titles
of
Papist
,
Jesuite
,
&c.
which
is
both
the
Logick
and
the
Rhetorick
of
it
.
Also
that
he
had
written
to
the
Eminentest
Ministers
in
several
Counties
,
whom
he
took
to
be
most
disaffected
to
my
Aphorismes
,
to
desire
them
for
themselves
and
friends
to
take
off
his
Books
,
which
way
is
much
by
some
distasted
.
I
can
say
nothing
of
him
of
my
own
knowledge
,
nor
of
his
Book
till
I
see
it
.
But
if
these
two
men
be
Brethren
in
a
party
,
and
Mr
Eyre
so
much
the
more
esteemed
,
as
I
hear
;
the
Reader
then
may
see
what
to
expect
by
this
.
I
have
purposely
hasted
the
Reply
to
this
,
that
Mr
Crandon
may
before
his
Book
come
forth
,
consider
better
of
some
things
wherein
he
shall
finde
his
Brother
overshot
himself
,
and
correct
what
may
tend
to
his
hurt
:
for
I
would
prevent
his
sinne
.
And
I
do
hereby
inform
thee
,
Reader
,
that
as
soon
as
ever
Mr
Crandon's
Book
doth
come
to
my
hands
,
seeing
the
scope
of
it
is
to
revile
me
as
a
Papist
,
I
purpose
to
Print
a
plain
Confession
of
my
Faith
,
and
specially
how
much
I
ascribe
to
Works
,
and
how
farre
I
am
from
Arminianisme
also
,
which
these
Brethren
do
accuse
me
of
,
and
I
shall
do
it
in
as
little
room
as
I
can
;
and
then
shall
leave
it
to
thy
choice
,
whether
thou
wilt
bestow
six
Pence
to
understand
my
true
Belief
and
Profession
,
or
six
Shillings
and
six
weeks
reading
(
at
least
)
to
have
thy
ears
charmed
with
the
delicions
notes
of
Papist
,
Jesuit
,
Arminian
,
Socinian
,
and
what
not
of
that
kinde
?
If
I
finde
the
Book
worth
the
answering
,
I
know
not
but
I
may
attempt
it
at
large
if
ever
I
have
time
(
which
is
not
like
,
)
But
if
it
be
according
to
my
information
of
it
,
I
shall
not
trouble
my self
or
thee
.
It
is
my
lot
to
be
troubled
by
two
sorts
of
men
,
commonly
called
Anabaptists
and
Antinomians
,
because
I
was
called
by
God
to
Vindicate
his
Truth
against
them
.
There
came
but
lately
to
my
hands
two
of
one
sort
,
and
the
report
of
a
third
that
are
written
against
me
,
Mr
Fisher
,
Mr
Haggar
,
and
Mr
Keye
;
but
when
I
found
them
fraught
with
non-sense
and
reviling
,
I
laid
them
by
,
and
never
mean
to
meddle
with
them
more
.
Mr
Eyre
and
Mr
Crandon
take
the
next
turn
:
what
one
hath
done
I
have
seen
:
what
the
other
will
do
,
I
know
not
but
by
report
.
But
for
my
own
part
,
I
confess
I
had
a
hundred
times
rather
encounter
with
this
party
then
the
former
:
Because
I
do
not
apprehend
neer
so
much
danger
in
the
opinion
of
Rebaptizing
,
or
not
Baptizing
Infants
,
as
in
the
other
.
I
confess
this
also
hath
been
strangely
followed
with
spiritual
Judgements
:
But
I
suppose
the
main
cause
is
,
because
it
openeth
the
door
to
Separations
,
Contendings
,
and
so
Contempt
of
the
Ministry
that
are
against
it
:
but
it
is
hard
to
see
in
the
nature
of
the
meer
Opinions
,
such
hainous
evils
as
we
have
seen
attend
it
.
But
for
the
other
,
in
my
Judgement
they
do
as
dangerously
subvert
the
very
tenour
of
the
Gospel
as
well
as
the
Law
(
and
much
more
)
as
any
Sect
that
I
have
known
,
that
hath
such
men
to
countenance
it
.
I
confess
also
that
I
do
apprehend
some
more
duty
lie
on
us
now
to
resist
that
way
,
then
hath
been
ever
heretofore
:
For
it
was
formerly
a
very
rare
thing
to
meet
with
a
man
of
Learning
or
considerable
Judgement
of
that
way
:
What
men
had
Dr
Taylor
to
deal
with
?
Dr
Crisp
,
Eaton
,
Town
,
were
the
chiefest
Champions
since
,
whom
Mr
Burgess
,
Mr
Geree
,
Mr
Bedford
have
Confuted
.
At
last
Den
,
Paul
Hobson
,
Mr
Saltmarsh
took
the
Chair
:
The
later
strangely
cryed
up
by
many
ignorant
souls
,
and
his
weakness
laid
open
by
that
Excellent
,
Learned
,
Reverend
Mr
Gataker
.
But
now
Libertinism
grows
into
better
Reputation
.
It
makes
a
greater
noise
in
City
and
Country
;
yea
and
men
of
some
name
for
Learning
,
are
the
Patrons
of
no
small
portion
of
it
.
Lately
came
forth
a
Latine
Dissertation
of
Ludiomaeus
Colvinus
,
alias
,
Ludovicus
Molinaeus
Med
.
Doctor
and
History
Professour
in
Oxford
,
writted
against
his
own
Brother
Cyrus
Molinaeus
a
Minister
.
I
answered
it
,
before
I
knew
the
Authour
;
and
had
no
sooner
finished
it
,
but
I
received
this
of
Mr
Eyre's
.
I
profess
the
desire
of
my
soul
is
so
great
for
the
Unity
of
Brethren
and
the
Churches
Peace
,
that
I
could
heartily
wish
both
contendings
and
dividing
Titles
as
much
as
may
be
laid
aside
:
And
therefore
for
those
Reverend
Brethren
that
hold
but
the
more
tolerable
part
of
Antinomianism
,
I
would
not
have
them
called
by
that
name
.
But
for
the
rest
,
to
be
tender
of
the
credit
of
such
pernicious
errours
,
and
to
indulge
them
by
favourable
titles
,
is
plainly
to
betray
the
Gospel
,
and
mens
souls
.
For
my
part
,
if
I
should
not
preach
against
the
opinion
of
the
Libertines
,
I
could
not
preach
against
prophanenesse
:
When
I
look
back
on
the
Sermons
which
I
preached
many
years
ago
,
meerly
to
work
mens
hearts
to
Christ
,
never
thinking
of
the
Libertine
Controversies
,
I
finde
they
were
the
very
same
things
that
I
am
fain
to
preach
now
against
these
Disputers
.
I
was
feign
to
prove
to
them
their
natural
misery
,
and
that
before
believing
they
were
children
of
wrath
,
and
all
their
sinnes
were
unpardoned
,
with
the
necessity
of
Faith
,
Repentance
and
Confession
,
for
pardon
:
and
the
necessity
of
faithfull
Endeavours
for
the
attaining
of
Salvation
;
together
with
the
necessity
of
Renewing
Repentance
,
and
begging
pardon
through
the
bloud
of
Christ
,
when
we
fall
.
Lay
by
all
these
and
such
like
which
the
Libertines
dispute
against
,
and
what
have
we
almost
to
preach
to
those
that
will
not
have
Christ
to
Reign
over
them
?
Truly
I
finde
as
farre
as
I
can
discern
,
that
most
of
the
prophane
people
in
every
Parish
where
yet
I
have
liv'd
,
are
Antinomians
;
They
are
born
and
bred
such
;
and
it
is
the
very
natural
Religion
of
men
,
that
have
but
the
advantage
to
believe
traditionally
in
Christ
:
I
mean
,
their
corrupt
nature
carrieth
them
without
any
teaching
to
make
this
use
of
Christ
and
the
Gospel
.
And
almost
all
the
fuccess
of
my
Labours
which
hath
so
much
comforted
me
,
hath
been
in
bringing
men
from
natural
Antinomianism
or
Libertinism
,
to
true
Repentance
and
saving
Faith
in
Christ
.
And
therefore
should
I
now
side
with
them
,
I
must
unsay
what
I
have
been
long
saying
from
the
plain
word
of
God
,
to
the
ungodly
that
I
have
preached
to
.
Blessed
be
God
that
the
Church
hath
such
Writings
for
plain
men
to
reade
,
as
Hookers
,
Boltons
,
Perkins
,
Dods
,
Rogers
,
Whateleys
,
Hildershams
,
&c.
which
are
written
in
a
sounder
strain
:
Yea
that
we
have
such
Writings
as
Sibbes
,
Prestons
,
Baynes
,
&c.
to
shew
them
,
that
Consciences
may
be
Pacified
without
Antinomianism
.
I
am
no
Prophet
;
but
I
confess
I
am
so
confident
that
the
prevalency
of
this
Sect
will
be
but
of
short
continuance
,
that
I
do
not
much
fear
them
.
For
though
nature
be
ready
enough
to
befriend
it
,
yet
two
disadvantages
they
runne
upon
,
that
will
infallibly
dash
them
all
in
pieces
,
as
soon
as
the
storm
of
Temptation
is
allayed
.
First
,
They
contradict
the
experiences
of
the
souls
of
Believers
;
and
the
very
nature
of
the
New-man
is
against
them
:
The
greatest
part
of
the
Spirits
work
on
the
Soul
is
against
Libertinism
,
and
the
rest
against
Popery
and
Pelagianism
;
supposing
the
prerequisite
foundation
laid
.
And
surely
the
workings
of
the
Spirit
are
unresistible
,
and
shall
bear
down
these
natural
conceits
before
it
.
The
contest
between
the
Gospel
and
Libertinism
in
the
Church
,
is
like
the
Contest
between
the
Spirit
and
the
flesh
within
us
,
and
goes
much
on
the
same
terms
:
and
Christ
will
be
Conquerour
and
bring
forth
Judgement
unto
Victory
,
in
both
.
Sound-hearted
Christians
,
that
be
not
only
tickled
with
Sermons
,
but
sanctified
by
the
Spirit
,
will
not
long
be
drawn
from
such
apparent
Truths
,
and
sweet
and
needfull
Duties
,
by
the
bare
names
of
Free-grace
:
nor
will
they
deny
Free-grace
,
and
the
glory
of
Christs
intercession
and
Kingdom
,
upon
an
empty
pretence
of
magnifying
his
death
;
when
that
very
magnifying
is
but
a
dishonour
.
A
sound-hearted
Christian
I
am
perswaded
hath
something
within
him
that
potently
strives
against
Libertinism
and
Pelagianism
.
For
example
,
In
prayer
,
Let
a
Libertine
tell
him
,
[
Your
sins
were
all
pardoned
before
you
were
born
,
and
therefore
you
must
not
pray
for
pardon
,
but
for
the
Feeling
of
pardon
;
]
He
hath
a
spirit
of
prayer
within
,
and
a
secret
impulse
to
bewail
his
sinnes
,
and
make
out
to
God
for
Remission
,
that
will
not
let
him
obey
those
delusions
.
So
if
a
Pelagian
should
say
[
The
Power
is
in
thy
own
Will
to
please
God
,
and
Love
and
fear
him
.
]
The
new
nature
of
a
Christian
doth
contradict
this
,
and
is
inclining
him
still
to
beg
grace
of
God
,
which
is
a
real
confession
of
his
own
insufficiency
.
Yea
though
this
Christian
should
be
tainted
with
either
of
these
Delusions
,
I
am
perswaded
even
while
speculatively
he
holdeth
them
and
talks
for
them
,
yet
other
principles
lie
deeper
in
his
heart
,
and
are
secretly
working
him
a
contrary
way
,
even
to
pray
for
pardon
,
contrary
to
the
Libertine
,
and
for
prevailing
Grace
,
contrary
to
the
Pelagian
.
Another
Rock
the
Libertines
run
against
that
will
shortly
dash
them
all
to
pieces
:
and
that
is
[
the
clear
light
of
express
Scripture
.
]
So
plainly
hath
God
been
pleased
to
reveal
his
minde
in
these
cases
,
that
though
a
few
may
shut
their
eyes
by
prejudice
,
most
will
see
:
and
if
they
are
blindfolded
a
while
,
it
is
not
like
to
be
long
.
If
all
Disputers
fail
us
,
as
long
as
plain
honest
Christians
have
but
recourse
to
the
Word
of
God
,
it
will
convince
them
at
last
,
and
shew
them
the
Errour
.
For
example
,
in
this
very
Discourse
(
by
one
of
the
rationalest
men
of
that
way
that
I
have
met
with
)
what
plain
light
doth
shine
in
his
face
!
what
palpable
abuse
is
he
forced
to
offer
to
the
Scriptures
?
So
that
I
dare
trust
a
Reader
of
any
competent
judgement
and
honesty
,
that
is
not
deeply
forestalled
,
to
confute
him
by
the
bare
reading
and
observation
of
the
Text
.
As
for
instance
,
That
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
is
to
be
justified
by
Christ
,
without
faith
.
So
pag
.
42.
he
expounds
Gal.
2.16
.
[
That
we
might
be
justified
by
the
faith
of
Christ
]
i.e.
That
it
might
be
manifest
that
we
were
justified
before
we
had
faith
in
Christ
.
But
that
's
common
:
pag
.
43.
That
text
Rom.
8.30
.
which
most
exactly
and
purposely
expresseth
the
order
of
Gods
Works
,
[
Whom
he
called
them
he
justified
]
is
put
off
but
thus
,
1.
The
order
of
words
in
Scripture
do
not
shew
the
order
and
dependance
of
things
,
&c.
2.
The
Apostle's
scope
here
is
not
to
shew
in
what
order
these
benefits
are
bestowed
,
&c.
3.
I
see
no
inconvenience
at
all
,
in
saying
that
the
Apostle
here
speaks
of
Justification
as
declared
and
terminated
in
conscience
,
which
some
Learned
men
(
Mr
Owen
and
Mr
Kendall
)
do
make
the
formale
of
Justification
.
But
more
grossely
,
pag
.
44.
he
expounds
Rom.
4.24
.
[
Righteousness
shall
be
imputed
to
us
if
we
beleeve
.
]
1.
He
saith
,
[
The
particle
[
if
]
is
not
conditional
,
but
declarative
,
describing
him
to
whom
the
benefit
belongs
.
]
Yet
one
would
think
that
it
might
hence
be
gathered
at
least
,
that
This
benefit
belongs
not
to
Infidels
:
But
to
avoid
that
too
,
this
is
his
Paraphrase
,
[
q.d.
Hereby
we
may
know
and
be
assured
that
Christs
righteousness
is
imputed
to
us
,
&c.
]
The
Apostle
saith
[
It
shall
be
imputed
,
if
we
beleeve
.
]
Mr
Eyre
saith
[
We
know
by
this
that
it
was
imputed
before
.
]
To
put
the
time
past
for
the
time
present
,
and
a
Declarative
for
a
Conditional
,
is
the
way
of
such
bold
Interpreters
,
as
make
their
own
faith
.
But
tender-conscienc't
Christians
will
not
long
suffer
you
so
to
make
their
faith
,
though
you
may
your
own
.
Besides
such
Expositions
,
the
Book
contains
Conclusions
so
contrary
1.
To
plain
reason
:
2.
To
known
Truths
in
Divinity
:
3.
To
the
new
nature
or
inclination
of
Beleevers
:
4.
To
his
own
professions
;
that
though
itching
ears
may
be
pleased
by
it
,
and
for
the
bait
of
[
the
name
of
Free
Grace
]
it
may
be
swallowed
down
,
yet
when
Judgement
,
Affection
and
Practice
should
digest
it
,
the
humble
soul
will
vomit
it
up
again
.
I
will
give
you
but
a
brief
touch
of
his
dealing
in
the
four
respects
mentioned
.
1.
Against
common
reason
and
use
,
he
affirms
that
[
If
it
have
any
condition
,
it
is
not
free
]
and
takes
Mr
Walkers
patronage
,
p.
93.
and
applauds
and
repeats
Mr
Kendals
gross
Discourse
,
which
would
give
much
more
of
the
honour
and
thanks
to
the
Beleever
,
then
the
Giver
,
and
repeats
his
Welsh
example
,
[
God
bless
her
father
and
mother
,
who
taught
her
to
reade
.
]
Yea
this
gross
conceit
is
the
very
soul
of
his
Discourse
;
by
which
it
may
appear
how
bruitishly
it
is
animated
.
But
I
have
proved
to
him
,
that
a
thing
may
be
free
that
is
conditional
.
Donatio
,
Absoluta
,
Pura
,
and
Gratuita
be
not
all
one
,
or
equipollent
terms
.
2.
And
contrary
to
all
sound
Divinity
,
pag
.
134.
he
affirms
that
[
Christs
death
was
solutio
ejusdem
,
because
Christ
was
held
in
the
same
obligation
that
we
were
under
:
Gal.
4.3
,
4.
He
was
made
under
the
Law
;
not
another
,
but
the
very
same
.
]
Either
he
means
here
[
the
same
obligation
to
duty
]
or
[
the
same
obligation
to
punishment
.
]
If
the
former
,
what
a
proof
is
here
that
Christs
suffering
is
solutio
ejusdem
?
When
the
Law
obligeth
a
man
to
duty
,
can
you
thence
prove
that
it
obligeth
him
to
punishment
?
then
Adam
before
his
fall
,
and
Christ
as
an
innocent
creature
,
and
the
Angels
in
heaven
are
obliged
to
punishment
.
But
its
like
he
means
the
later
:
And
then
1.
It
is
most
unsound
and
dangerous
doctrine
,
to
say
no
more
:
Christs
obligation
was
sponsionis
propriae
,
the
obligation
of
Contract
or
Consent
,
and
as
a
creature
of
the
special
command
of
his
Father
thereto
:
Our
obligation
is
violatae
Legis
.
Obligation
to
punishment
is
guilt
;
our
guilt
was
Reatus
culpae
&
paenae
propter
culpam
,
ex
obligatione
legis
:
Christs
guilt
is
but
Reatus
paenae
propter
culpam
nostram
,
ex
voluntaria
susceptione
.
Christ
was
obligatus
ad
eandem
paenam
(
the
same
in
value
)
but
not
,
eadam
obligatione
.
2.
And
how
doth
Gal.
4.3
,
4.
prove
it
?
Who
can
think
that
it
means
,
Christ
was
made
under
the
curse
of
the
Law
?
He
was
indeed
made
a
curse
for
us
by
undergoing
the
penalty
;
but
not
said
to
be
made
under
the
curse
,
nor
under
the
Law
as
cursing
,
but
as
obliging
to
duty
:
though
it
s
granted
that
it
was
part
of
his
humiliation
to
undertake
that
task
of
ceremonious
duty
.
So
pag
.
191.
he
saith
,
[
Let
them
consider
whether
it
be
more
easie
for
a
man
that
is
dead
in
sin
,
to
believe
in
Christ
,
to
love
God
,
&c.
then
it
was
for
Adam
in
his
innocency
,
&c.
to
abstain
from
the
fruit
of
one
tree
,
when
he
had
a
thousand
besides
as
good
as
that
:
there
can
be
no
condition
imagined
more
facile
and
feasable
then
Adams
was
.
]
This
is
against
them
that
say
,
Evangelical
conditions
are
easier
then
Legal
works
.
Where
he
seems
plainly
to
think
,
that
it
was
not
perfect
obedience
internal
or
external
that
was
the
condition
of
Life
to
Adam
,
but
only
the
not
eating
of
that
tree
,
and
so
he
makes
it
the
easiest
thing
imaginable
.
Do
you
not
see
how
admirably
he
exalteth
the
Gospel
above
the
Law
,
and
Christs
easie
yoak
and
burden
,
and
his
commands
that
are
not
grievous
,
above
that
which
Adam
was
under
?
Is
it
not
admirable
to
see
that
these
men
must
needs
have
the
new
Covenant
to
have
no
condition
,
lest
it
be
not
free
,
and
those
must
be
cried
down
as
enemies
to
free
Grace
,
and
Legal
Preachers
,
that
teach
the
necessity
of
faith
and
repentance
to
remission
of
sinnes
,
when
yet
the
more
rigorous
Law
of
nature
,
Do
this
and
Live
,
the
condition
of
Adam
,
is
the
most
easie
imaginable
?
And
what
thoughts
hath
he
of
Adams
sin
,
if
he
see
not
the
Apostacy
from
God
to
the
creature
,
unbelief
,
and
many
hainous
sins
were
in
it
,
as
well
as
eating
of
that
Tree
?
3.
Against
all
sound
Divinity
,
and
the
very
sense
of
a
gracious
soul
,
he
hath
many
doctrines
which
the
godly
will
be
ready
to
tremble
at
.
As
pag
.
122.
[
That
the
Elect
Corinthians
had
no
more
Right
to
salvation
after
their
Believing
then
they
had
before
.
]
You
see
in
this
mans
Judgement
what
we
preach
for
,
and
what
is
the
state
of
a
natural
man
,
yea
of
the
veriest
Rebel
,
Whoremonger
,
Murderer
,
that
is
Elect
:
he
may
have
more
knowledge
of
his
happiness
after
,
but
he
hath
no
more
right
to
salvation
then
before
.
Why
say
our
Divines
then
that
such
are
not
in
a
state
of
salvation
?
So
pag
.
103.
he
saith
,
[
Though
men
will
not
impute
or
charge
sin
upon
themselves
when
there
is
not
a
Law
to
convince
them
of
it
,
yet
it
follows
not
but
God
did
impute
sin
to
men
before
there
was
any
Law
promulged
,
or
before
the
sin
was
actually
committed
.
For
what
is
Gods
hating
of
a
person
but
his
imputing
of
sin
,
or
his
will
to
punish
him
for
his
sin
?
]
Thus
Gods
preterition
or
nonelection
,
called
hatred
,
is
confounded
with
his
hatred
of
Justice
and
actual
displeasure
:
and
God
is
made
to
impute
sin
to
the
innocent
who
have
no
sin
,
yea
to
them
that
are
not
:
When
as
Imputation
of
sin
is
but
either
the
estimation
and
judging
of
a
sinner
to
be
a
sinner
,
or
the
adjudication
of
punishment
for
that
sin
,
or
the
execution
of
that
punishment
:
all
which
follow
the
act
of
sin
;
and
so
he
makes
Gods
act
of
Imputation
to
be
both
untrue
and
unjust
;
but
that
indeed
he
gives
the
name
of
Imputation
to
the
eternal
Decree
,
to
which
God
never
gave
it
.
So
pag
.
61.
he
saith
,
concerning
all
that
Christ
died
for
,
though
yet
Infidels
and
Wicked
,
that
[
Divine
Justice
cannot
charge
upon
them
any
of
their
sins
,
nor
inflict
upon
them
the
least
of
those
punishments
which
their
sins
deserve
;
but
contrarily
he
beholds
them
as
persons
perfectly
righteous
,
and
accordingly
deals
with
them
as
such
who
have
no
sin
at
all
in
his
sight
.
]
What
humble
soul
would
not
tremble
to
say
this
of
himself
now
regenerate
;
much
more
of
the
unregenerate
?
Must
God
be
unjust
if
he
inflict
on
us
the
least
punishment
for
sin
?
And
yet
Scripture
says
so
oft
that
God
punisheth
his
people
,
in
express
words
?
If
it
be
paena
propter
culpam
it
is
punishment
.
and
is
none
of
your
pain
,
losses
,
crosses
,
such
?
Is
not
the
smalness
of
your
knowledge
,
love
,
&c.
and
the
remnant
of
sin
,
as
suffered
upon
you
,
a
punishment
?
nor
death
,
nor
the
bodies
remaining
in
the
grave
?
Are
not
chastisements
a
species
of
punishment
?
Is
not
a
man
punished
when
he
is
hang'd
for
a
sin
?
yea
and
that
by
God
as
well
as
man
?
What
man
dare
say
,
[
Lord
,
if
thou
hadst
laid
the
least
punishment
on
my
body
,
before
Conversion
,
even
in
the
height
of
my
sin
,
thou
hadst
been
unjust
?
yea
or
if
yet
thou
do
it
.
]
Was
there
no
punishment
in
the
dominion
of
sin
,
and
the
want
of
the
sense
of
Gods
favour
,
which
they
make
to
be
the
contrary
to
Remission
and
Justification
?
The
Lord
deliver
poor
souls
from
such
Doctrines
as
these
!
Yea
so
far
as
they
have
grace
,
so
far
they
are
delivered
.
And
I
hope
Mr
Eyre
speaks
against
his
own
heart
,
by
the
conduct
of
his
fancy
,
and
the
instigation
of
his
contentious
passion
,
4.
Is
it
not
against
his
own
pretence
,
that
he
saith
,
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Parliament
,
[
Though
God
doth
effectually
move
and
perswade
mens
hearts
,
yet
he
doth
not
Necessitate
them
to
believe
and
embrace
the
truth
.
]
Would
you
think
and
reade
this
that
the
man
were
so
zealous
against
the
Arminians
,
when
I
,
who
am
called
Papist
and
Arminian
,
do
think
,
that
God
doth
so
effectually
move
men
to
believe
,
as
thereby
to
necessitate
them
?
Though
still
he
doth
cause
us
to
do
it
liberè
,
though
necessariò
,
and
so
necessitate
us
,
as
that
the
act
is
stil
contingent
in
it self
,
as
from
our
will
.
So
pag
.
117.
he
hath
these
words
,
[
I
dare
say
,
a
more
unsound
Assertion
cannot
be
picked
out
of
the
Papists
or
Arminians
,
then
this
is
,
that
faith
(
taking
it
as
he
doth
in
a
proper
sense
)
hath
the
same
place
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
as
works
have
in
the
Covenant
of
Works
.
]
Where
mark
,
that
Mr
Woodbridge
speaks
only
of
the
place
of
faith
,
and
not
of
the
worth
,
nature
,
dignity
,
nor
full
use
,
as
if
it
properly
or
fully
had
the
same
office
as
Works
,
but
the
same
order
in
the
Covenant
.
And
then
see
1.
Whether
this
man
doth
not
make
Papists
of
the
generality
of
the
Protestant
Churches
,
and
Writers
?
2.
Or
make
the
Papists
as
sound
as
the
Protestants
.
3.
Of
what
credit
this
mans
word
is
,
that
ushers
it
in
with
such
confidence
,
[
I
dare
say
it
,
]
and
whether
the
reason
why
he
dares
say
that
and
so
many
more
such
things
,
may
not
be
because
he
thinks
all
's
pardoned
already
,
even
before
he
beleeved
.
4.
He
pretendeth
Mr
Pemble
to
be
of
his
Judgement
;
yet
see
whether
he
make
not
Mr
Pemble
to
hold
as
unsound
doctrine
,
as
any
can
be
picked
out
of
the
Writings
of
Papists
or
Arminians
:
I
may
well
bear
his
heavy
charge
,
when
Mr
Pemble
must
bear
it
,
who
saies
,
Treat
.
of
Justif
.
pag
.
23.
[
There
are
two
Covenants
that
God
hath
made
with
man
,
By
one
of
which
,
and
by
no
other
means
in
the
world
,
salvation
is
to
be
obtained
.
The
one
is
the
Covenant
of
Works
,
the
tenour
whereof
is
[
Do
this
and
thou
shalt
live
,
&c.
]
The
other
is
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
the
tenour
whereof
is
[
Beleeve
in
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
&c.
]
The
condition
of
this
Covenant
is
Faith
.
]
And
so
goes
on
to
shew
that
the
performance
and
nature
of
Faith
and
Works
differ
;
but
here
gives
them
the
same
place
of
a
condition
in
the
Covenant
.
And
pag
.
22.
he
saith
,
[
The
condition
required
in
such
as
shall
be
partakers
of
this
grace
of
Justification
is
true
faith
,
whereunto
God
hath
ordinarily
annexed
this
great
priviledge
,
That
by
faith
and
faith
only
a
sinner
shall
be
justified
.
]
So
pag
.
206.
he
ensnares
himself
in
an
objection
,
which
he
cannot
answer
,
as
I
doubt
not
but
Mr
Woodbridge
will
fully
shew
him
,
when
he
hath
sifted
what
is
the
adequate
object
of
that
Assensus
intellectus
and
amplexus
voluntatis
which
Mr
Eyre
acknowledgeth
.
But
I
must
ask
pardon
of
Mr
Woodbridge
for
thus
anticipating
his
work
.
Reader
,
do
but
study
God
and
thy
own
heart
,
and
keep
a
tender
conscience
,
and
an
upright
life
,
and
a
little
knowledge
more
may
preserve
thee
from
being
a
Libertine
.
One
thing
I
forgot
,
which
I
now
adde
,
To
intreat
Mr
Eyre
and
his
partakers
,
to
tell
me
,
upon
their
grounds
,
Whether
God
do
accept
of
the
Works
as
well
as
the
Person
of
an
Elect
Infidel
?
If
they
say
,
No
:
How
then
are
they
in
Christ
,
and
God
perfectly
pleased
with
them
?
and
all
the
sinfulnesse
of
those
works
forgiven
?
Doth
not
God
accept
of
that
work
in
which
there
is
no
sin
imputed
?
but
all
pardoned
?
nothing
but
the
sinfulness
can
hinder
his
Acceptance
of
it
?
And
where
then
is
their
vain
distinction
(
that
God
is
pleased
with
the
person
and
not
the
work
)
by
which
they
answer
us
when
we
tell
them
truly
,
that
Without
faith
it
is
impossible
to
please
God
?
Heb
.
11.6
.
THE
CONTENTS
.
-
§
.
1.
-
THe
Defence
of
my
Praises
of
Mr
Woodbridges
Sermon
.
-
Of
my
sleighting
all
Protestant
Divines
that
differ
from
me
,
particularly
〈◇〉
Twiss
.
-
Of
my
Daring
as
a
Dictator
to
prescribe
what
men
shall
reade
.
-
Whether
it
be
true
,
that
with
me
an
Antinomian
and
an
Antipapist
are
all
one
?
-
About
the
name
Antinomian
.
-
Whether
only
sins
against
the
light
of
nature
must
be
punished
by
Magistrates
?
-
Whether
it
be
no
contradiction
to
have
no
sin
punished
but
what
's
against
the
light
of
nature
:
and
yet
to
have
a
penalty
on
them
that
will
call
men
Antinomians
?
and
not
on
Mr
E.
for
calling
Papist
?
-
Whether
all
the
Reformed
Churches
hold
that
which
I
call
Antinomianism
?
-
Severall
slanders
of
Mr
E.
refuted
,
About
Merit
and
ascribing
to
Works
.
-
Of
my
saying
Christs
satisfaction
is
Causa
sine
quâ
non
of
Justification
.
-
Gardiners
Positions
answered
,
which
Mr
E.
makes
like
mine
.
-
§
.
2.
Of
my
Censure
of
Maccovius
and
others
.
Mr
Eyre's
testimonies
examined
:
Pemble
,
Rutherford
,
&c.
-
§
.
3.
Whether
I
make
all
Antinomians
that
deny
Justification
by
personal
Righteousness
?
and
whether
I
be
singular
therein
?
-
§
.
4.
-
How
I
deny
or
hold
Christ
to
be
our
Material
Righteousness
?
and
imputation
to
be
the
form
of
Justification
.
-
Of
making
Christ
a
Causa
sine
quâ
non
.
More
about
Merit
.
Mr
E's
befriending
the
Papists
.
-
§
.
5.
-
More
about
our
personal
Righteousness
.
My
Judgement
about
Justification
by
our
personal
Righteousness
opened
in
12.
Conclusions
.
-
Mr
E's
Arguments
against
personal
Righteousness
in
Justification
answered
:
Paul
excludes
not
all
works
:
nor
all
that
Debt
which
is
by
free
Gift
of
promise
,
What
Justification
by
Works
Paul
speaks
against
.
-
Whether
Protestants
acknowledging
an
Evangelical
inherent
Righteousness
,
do
not
eo
nomine
acknowledge
that
we
are
Justified
by
it
as
far
as
I
do
?
-
Mr
E.
gives
up
his
Cause
,
confessing
that
it
is
Christ
and
not
we
that
are
the
subjects
of
Justification
before
we
are
born
:
No
addition
to
Christs
Righteousness
to
be
Justified
by
faith
or
personal
Righteousness
in
subordination
to
it
.
Imperfect
faith
may
be
the
Condition
of
the
pardon
of
its
own
Imperfections
.
How
faith
is
taken
for
the
object
,
in
the
matter
of
Justification
.
-
§
.
6.
Whether
I
include
Works
in
Faith
?
-
§
.
7.
-
All
Conditions
are
not
Moral
Causes
,
no
nor
any
quà
Conditions
.
-
Mr
E.
denying
Christs
death
to
be
the
Cause
of
Gods
Justifying
,
makes
it
as
much
a
sine
qua
non
as
ever
I
did
,
and
much
more
.
He
is
desired
to
expedite
,
How
Christs
death
can
be
the
Meritorious
Cause
rei
vol
tae
,
without
Causing
the
actum
volentis
?
All
the
effects
of
Electing
Love
are
not
given
,
by
,
through
and
for
Christ
,
viz.
as
the
Meritorious
Cause
.
-
§
.
8.
Mr
E's
uncharitable
Censure
of
Mr
J.
Woodbridge
.
How
our
Divines
deny
Dispositions
and
preparations
to
Justification
.
-
§
.
9.
His
urging
the
invincibleness
of
M
Owens
Answer
,
about
Reconciliation
being
an
Immediate
effect
of
Christs
death
.
-
§
.
10.
His
citation
of
Mr
Strong
.
Proved
against
him
(
which
may
serve
to
the
like
of
Mr
Owen
)
that
it
is
not
of
necessity
that
a
Condition
be
quoad
eventum
unknown
to
the
promiser
;
and
that
God
hath
Conditional
Promises
and
Threats
though
the
Condition
be
foreknown
as
to
the
event
.
-
§
.
11.
-
Mr
Eyre's
proved
a
notorious
slanderer
,
in
saying
,
that
the
Papists
ascribe
no
more
meritoriousness
to
works
then
I
do
,
]
by
the
testimony
of
Bellarmine
,
Aquinas
,
and
Mr
Perkins
,
as
a
tast
til
I
come
to
Mr
Crand
.
-
Many
gross
passages
of
his
Book
are
also
opened
in
the
Preface
.
§.
1.
Reverend
Brother
,
I
Lately
received
a
Book
of
your
writing
(
whereof
I
had
before
intelligence
by
the
weekly
News
book
)
entitled
[
Justification
without
Conditions
,
or
The
Free
Justification
of
a
sinner
]
against
Mr
Woodbridge
,
Mr
Crauford
and
my Self
,
as
Assertors
of
Conditional
Justification
.
Your
scope
is
to
prove
the
Justification
of
Infidels
,
or
of
the
Elect
before
Faith
,
and
before
they
are
men
,
if
I
understand
you
.
Methinks
,
there
appears
in
your
lines
,
much
more
Piety
,
Candor
and
Judgement
,
then
I
am
wont
to
meet
with
in
men
of
your
Way
;
though
with
mixed
discoveries
of
too
much
defect
,
especially
in
the
two
last
.
For
my
own
part
,
I
bless
God
,
I
have
at
last
learned
to
love
and
honour
a
Christian
as
a
Christian
;
and
therefore
all
that
are
Christians
;
though
they
have
that
withall
that
is
displeasing
to
Christ
,
and
must
be
so
to
me
.
This
Debt
I
confess
I
owe
you
;
Christ
in
you
is
nevertheless
Christ
,
because
of
your
frailties
;
and
though
he
delay
much
of
the
cure
of
your
distempers
,
I
hope
he
will
in
due
time
accomplish
it
;
and
when
the
remnants
of
your
darkness
are
removed
,
you
will
see
that
truth
which
now
you
see
not
.
I
ought
not
to
despise
you
for
these
infirmities
,
when
I
am
daily
groaning
under
them
my self
;
and
am
in
the
hands
of
the
same
Physition
;
and
am
so
conscious
of
a
necessity
of
his
tender
handling
.
If
Christ
would
not
take
me
with
all
my
faults
,
and
distinguish
betwixt
his
own
and
mine
,
between
me
and
my
sins
,
and
put
up
many
a
thousand
provocations
,
I
were
lost
.
And
ought
I
not
to
honour
Christ
in
you
,
and
see
his
amiableness
through
the
clouds
of
such
humane
frailties
,
which
you
as
well
as
your
sinfull
Brethren
,
are
yet
liable
to
?
Yet
as
Christ
loves
my
sins
never
the
more
(
that
is
,
hates
them
nevertheless
)
for
all
his
incomprehensible
love
to
me
,
no
more
will
he
allow
me
to
love
yours
.
And
as
I
must
not
think
well
of
them
,
so
neither
must
I
speak
well
of
them
.
If
I
should
not
mistake
that
for
your
sinne
which
is
none
,
I
suppose
I
shall
have
your
free
consent
to
acquaint
you
with
it
:
And
if
I
mistake
not
those
for
your
Errours
which
are
none
,
I
suppose
you
will
consent
that
I
warn
all
those
that
reade
your
Book
,
to
take
heed
of
them
and
reject
them
.
For
I
suppose
you
are
Virtually
contrary
to
those
Opinions
which
you
Actually
hold
and
maintain
,
and
those
Practises
which
Actually
you
venture
to
commit
.
I
take
it
therefore
for
my
duty
,
as
to
manifest
your
Errours
with
a
hatred
to
them
,
because
they
are
against
Christ
;
so
with
Christian
charity
to
your self
,
because
you
intended
well
,
and
are
Virtually
for
Christ
,
even
when
you
do
most
against
him
.
For
I
perceive
you
have
a
zeal
for
Christ
,
though
it
seems
to
me
,
not
according
to
knowledge
:
And
though
some
of
your
opinions
,
I
much
fear
,
are
destructive
of
Fundamentals
,
and
would
not
stand
with
salvation
,
if
they
were
fully
reduced
to
practice
,
yet
I
perceive
great
reason
of
hopes
in
the
rest
of
your
Writings
,
and
by
that
good
which
I
have
heard
of
you
,
that
you
hold
them
but
speculatively
,
and
that
in
the
main
you
live
contrary
to
the
natural
tendency
of
your
opinions
.
I
remember
therefore
that
I
am
writing
to
a
Brother
that
I
must
live
with
in
Everlasting
Glory
,
where
we
shall
be
both
of
one
minde
,
when
we
are
perfected
in
Knowledge
:
I
remember
that
I
am
Writing
against
such
sins
as
are
pardoned
in
the
blood
of
Christ
;
and
as
will
be
very
shortly
renounced
by
your self
,
and
against
which
you
will
be
incomparably
more
zealous
then
I
can
now
be
,
and
will
speak
more
disgracefully
of
them
then
now
I
must
do
.
If
in
the
mean
time
you
are
confident
in
the
dark
,
and
angry
with
those
that
would
do
you
good
,
yea
and
abuse
them
who
walk
not
according
to
your
conceits
,
it
is
no
wonder
,
considering
what
man
is
,
even
the
best
of
the
Saints
while
they
live
in
the
flesh
:
Being
my self
liable
to
the
same
distempers
,
I
crave
your
pardon
,
if
I
shall
any
way
injure
you
in
these
following
lines
.
The
substance
of
your
Book
I
perceive
is
against
M.
Woodbridge
;
M.
Cranford
and
I
are
brought
in
but
on
the
by
,
but
so
as
that
you
deal
with
him
but
in
the
beginning
,
and
with
me
almost
throughout
.
I
shall
not
anticipate
M.
Woodbridge
,
and
therefore
intend
not
the
answering
of
your
Book
,
but
to
give
you
a
brief
account
of
my
thoughts
,
of
so
much
of
it
as
concerns
my self
.
Your
first
onset
is
in
your
third
Epistle
.
My
title
is
[
A
leading
man
in
these
times
:
]
when
I
have
neither
worldly
advantages
,
nor
eminency
of
Abilities
,
nor
yet
opportunities
to
be
much
Leading
to
any
but
my
own
Charge
.
I
live
I
believe
as
retiredly
as
you
,
cloistered
up
in
obscurity
,
daily
exercised
with
the
chastisements
of
my
Lord
,
and
waiting
for
my
change
,
and
minding
little
to
be
the
Leader
of
any
,
further
then
to
help
them
to
heaven
to
the
utmost
of
my
power
.
And
for
leading
of
men
into
any
Parties
,
from
the
Unity
of
Christians
,
my
soul
is
possessed
with
as
deep
a
detestation
of
it
,
as
of
most
sins
that
the
world
is
guilty
of
.
And
I
think
no
man
did
ever
yet
come
to
you
,
and
say
,
that
I
once
laboured
with
him
to
bring
him
to
any
private
opinion
of
my
own
:
My
Wtitings
contain
all
my
fault
of
that
kinde
,
that
I
know
of
.
And
for
them
,
I
desire
you
and
all
men
to
understand
me
,
not
as
peremptorily
affirming
every
thing
that
I
speak
in
difficult
Controversies
,
to
be
infallible
Verities
,
but
only
as
giving
you
my
own
opinion
of
it
,
and
leaving
you
and
all
Readers
to
accept
or
reject
it
,
according
to
the
evidence
.
If
what
I
speak
,
have
evidence
of
Truth
,
you
cannot
darken
it
by
what
you
say
against
my
person
:
If
it
have
none
,
my
person
hath
no
advantage
,
to
make
my
opinion
taking
with
the
world
.
The
matter
which
you
first
charge
me
with
is
,
my
commendation
of
M.
Woodbridge's
Book
in
the
Epistle
to
my
Directions
for
Comfort
.
And
your self
are
pleased
to
give
M.
Woodbridge
your
free
commendations
for
the
eminency
of
his
natural
and
acquired
parts
,
even
to
be
as
Saul
above
his
Brethren
:
and
that
you
seem
to
confine
his
worth
to
these
,
as
if
in
spirituals
the
matter
were
otherwise
,
will
make
his
cause
never
the
worse
before
his
Judge
.
You
adde
that
[
It
is
not
to
be
wondred
at
that
M.B.
hath
given
this
superlative
encomium
to
M.
Woodbridge's
Sermon
;
he
knew
well
enough
that
it
would
rebound
upon
himself
,
M.
W.
being
a
son
of
his
own
faith
,
and
this
notion
of
his
,
but
a
spark
from
out
of
M.
Baxter's
forge
.
]
Repl
.
1.
Thus
do
bad
causes
hang
together
,
and
the
sentences
of
the
Oblivious
destroy
each
other
.
My
great
imperfections
are
commonly
known
:
Mr.
W.
you
confess
to
be
as
Saul
above
his
Brethren
:
What
likelihood
then
of
his
receiving
these
things
from
me
?
2.
If
you
speak
of
the
cause
in
hand
,
do
you
seriously
think
that
I
am
the
first
that
hath
said
,
that
[
Infidels
are
not
justified
]
or
that
[
The
Elect
are
not
justified
till
they
have
faith
.
]
Think
you
that
Mr.
W.
need
to
come
to
such
a
one
as
I
,
to
learn
that
which
the
Church
hath
held
ever
since
it
was
called
Christian
?
3.
Truly
I
never
saw
Mr.
Woodbridge
,
nor
did
there
ever
a
message
or
word
in
writing
pass
between
us
;
nay
(
living
here
obscurely
out
of
the
observation
of
things
remote
)
I
had
never
to
my
knowledge
heard
of
him
,
till
I
saw
his
Book
.
But
when
I
did
see
,
expede
Herculem
,
I
saw
such
discoveries
in
it
of
a
clear
understanding
,
which
caused
me
to
bless
God
for
such
a
man
,
and
in
special
that
you
had
drawn
him
out
into
the
world
;
nor
am
I
sorry
much
for
this
your
Answer
to
him
,
as
not
doubting
but
it
will
draw
forth
yet
more
of
Gods
precious
gifts
,
which
he
is
furnished
with
for
his
Church
:
I
also
much
rejoyced
in
that
providence
of
God
which
had
made
him
successor
at
Newbury
to
Dr.
Twisse
,
giving
that
people
a
man
so
sound
,
and
so
able
to
inform
them
better
,
in
that
one
point
,
wherein
the
Doctor
did
so
mistake
.
And
indeed
Sir
,
I
should
take
it
for
a
great
priviledge
,
were
I
near
him
,
to
be
the
Auditor
and
Scholar
of
so
Judicious
a
man
;
and
I
doubt
not
you
will
finde
,
that
he
is
well
able
to
manifest
your
mistakes
to
the
world
.
And
I
confess
I
honour
him
yet
more
then
I
did
,
since
you
tell
me
in
this
Book
(
which
I
knew
not
before
)
that
Mr.
Parker
was
his
Grandfather
;
the
name
of
that
man
for
his
Labours
and
Patience
(
and
especially
that
excellent
Treatise
de
Descensu
)
being
very
precious
to
me
.
4.
And
for
your
intimation
of
my
self-seeking
in
commending
his
Book
;
you
know
it
is
our
Masters
prerogative
to
be
the
Searcher
of
hearts
.
Do
not
you
know
that
an
honest
man
may
value
those
most
that
are
of
his
own
minde
?
Nay
must
do
,
cateris
paribus
;
for
else
he
cannot
value
a
man
for
the
sake
of
Gods
Truth
:
For
did
we
not
take
it
to
be
truth
,
we
could
not
be
of
that
minde
our selves
.
Doth
not
this
raise
your
estimation
of
the
Learned
commender
of
your
Book
,
and
of
others
whom
you
oft
quote
?
Would
you
have
envied
the
praises
of
Mr.
W.
or
his
Labours
,
if
he
had
been
of
your
opinion
?
Do
as
you
would
be
done
by
:
Would
you
have
been
offended
if
I
had
as
much
commended
you
and
yours
?
You
adde
,
[
I
suppose
Mr.
Baxter's
praises
or
dispraises
are
not
greatly
regarded
by
sober-minded
Christians
,
who
have
observed
how
highly
he
magnifies
J.
Goodwin
with
others
of
his
notion
,
and
how
slightingly
he
mentions
Dr.
Twisse
and
all
our
Protestant
Divines
that
differ
from
him
.
]
Repl
.
I
confess
in
respect
of
ability
of
judging
of
mens
Learning
,
and
the
worth
of
superlative
Divines
above
my
reach
,
my
praise
is
small
addition
to
any
mans
honour
:
But
whether
my
conscience
be
so
small
that
sober-minded
Christians
neither
should
nor
do
regard
my
words
,
must
be
determined
by
my
Judge
,
to
whose
blessed
and
more
equitable
sentence
I
am
approaching
.
And
so
farre
as
I
am
guilty
of
Error
or
partiality
,
I
beg
his
pardon
(
for
its
according
to
my
Judgement
so
to
do
.
)
For
the
high
magnifying
of
Jo
.
Goodwin
which
you
mention
,
I
desire
the
time
and
the
words
may
be
considered
;
and
then
I
think
he
that
would
then
envy
him
such
a
commendation
,
is
more
partial
then
I
am
,
though
I
were
as
contrary
to
him
as
you
.
I
thought
it
had
been
only
unmannerly
language
to
my
Brethren
that
I
had
been
blamed
for
:
but
it
seems
its
praising
them
too
,
if
it
be
against
the
interest
of
the
adverse
party
.
Have
you
ever
heard
me
praise
him
for
any
evil
?
If
you
have
,
speak
it
out
:
If
not
,
give
me
leave
to
love
a
Christian
as
a
Christian
,
and
a
mans
Parts
and
Labours
so
farre
as
they
deserve
,
and
to
honour
so
much
of
Christ
as
I
see
in
any
.
But
how
plainly
do
you
still
confute
your self
?
You
intimate
that
my
commending
men
is
because
I
am
of
the
same
minde
:
and
yet
you
know
or
should
do
,
that
I
do
in
that
very
place
profess
my
own
Judgement
to
be
contrary
to
that
of
Mr.
Goodwin
and
the
rest
there
named
,
and
that
I
only
reprehend
men
for
their
bitterness
and
contempt
of
them
.
Now
Sir
,
if
your
conscience
will
warrant
you
in
such
dealing
as
this
,
to
say
I
commend
men
as
of
my
notion
,
(
if
you
mean
mine
)
even
when
I
purposely
express
my
opinion
to
be
against
them
,
and
write
against
theirs
,
it
is
not
of
the
same
complexion
as
mine
is
,
as
bad
as
I
am
.
And
as
little
truth
is
there
in
your
words
of
my
slighting
Dr.
Twiss
,
yea
and
all
our
Protestant
Divines
!
Which
be
the
words
Sir
that
are
guilty
of
that
charge
?
For
Dr.
Twiss
I
have
honoured
few
men
living
more
formerly
;
and
much
honour
his
Name
and
Labours
still
;
though
I
rejoyce
that
I
am
got
out
of
the
snare
of
one
or
two
of
his
Mistakes
.
You
are
no
Papist
I
hope
;
and
therefore
do
not
think
a
man
slighted
that
is
not
taken
to
be
infallible
,
or
perfect
.
But
of
this
I
have
said
enough
to
Mr.
Kendall
.
The
rest
of
your
Accusation
,
(
as
to
all
Protestant
Divines
that
differ
from
me
)
is
either
a
breach
of
the
ninth
Commandment
,
or
else
my
Tongue
or
Pen
hath
somewhere
spoken
quite
contrary
to
my
heart
.
I
marvell
at
your
next
speeches
,
that
[
Mr.
W.
throughout
all
his
Sermon
,
never
so
much
as
hinted
,
how
or
in
what
sense
we
are
justified
by
faith
.
]
Whenas
he
doth
it
as
solidly
(
in
my
weak
judgement
)
as
ever
I
read
in
any
Divine
?
Nay
when
your self
bestow
some
labour
to
confute
him
:
Doth
he
not
tell
you
it
justifies
us
by
the
way
of
a
condition
,
though
Naturally
Active
,
yet
Morally
as
it
were
Passive
,
qualifying
us
for
Gods
free
Justification
by
his
Covenant
?
To
this
purpose
,
but
more
largely
,
I
well
remember
he
speaks
.
How
then
durst
you
say
,
and
publish
to
the
world
,
that
he
never
hinted
how
or
in
what
sense
we
are
justified
by
faith
?
Sure
Brother
,
this
is
not
well
done
.
Next
you
say
of
me
,
that
[
His
advice
to
all
Christians
to
buy
one
of
these
Sermons
,
argues
rather
his
conceit
of
himself
,
then
his
charity
to
them
.
]
Repl
.
Both
these
sins
,
self-conceitedness
and
want
of
charity
,
are
latent
in
the
heart
,
and
by
the
Searcher
of
hearts
it
is
that
I
must
be
tried
,
whose
high
prerogative
,
my
opinion
is
,
you
should
not
usurp
.
Truly
Brother
,
I
have
as
much
reason
to
value
Truth
,
so
far
as
I
know
it
,
as
you
or
other
men
:
and
as
little
reason
as
many
to
be
byassed
in
my
seeking
it
.
I
dare
say
,
I
dearly
love
it
,
and
that
the
searching
for
it
doth
cost
me
somewhat
?
If
I
know
it
not
,
it
is
not
because
I
would
not
know
it
if
I
could
.
It
is
my
hourly
studied
,
and
daily
prayers
,
and
if
I
knew
any
other
lawfull
possible
way
to
attain
it
,
how
gladly
would
I
use
it
,
though
it
were
to
the
loss
of
all
I
have
in
the
world
,
or
though
the
Truth
were
contrary
to
my
former
opinions
,
or
though
it
would
subject
me
to
the
ha
;
red
of
my
dearest
friends
!
He
that
knows
my
heart
,
knows
that
I
speak
my
heart
,
if
I
know
it
my self
.
Nor
do
I
take
this
for
any
high
commendations
;
for
mans
intellect
(
as
participativè
voluntary
)
doth
Will
Truth
as
its
proper
natural
object
.
I
mean
,
it
would
know
things
as
they
are
(
where
carnal
interest
and
enmity
causeth
not
the
perverting
of
the
soul
herein
.
)
And
I
do
not
finde
in
my
flesh
the
least
opposition
to
your
opinion
.
Where
you
adde
your
reason
[
That
he
dares
take
upon
him
the
Office
of
a
Universal
Dictator
to
prescribe
not
only
to
his
Kederminsterians
,
but
to
all
private
Christians
what
Books
they
shall
reade
.
]
Repl
.
If
by
[
prescribing
]
you
mean
[
commanding
]
all
men
know
that
I
am
no
Commander
,
and
therefore
my
commands
were
more
likely
to
be
derided
then
obeyed
.
If
you
mean
[
advifing
]
Why
may
I
not
dare
to
do
that
?
Is
that
the
work
of
a
Dictator
?
If
I
may
advise
in
other
points
of
duty
,
I
know
not
why
I
may
not
do
the
like
in
this
.
I
have
advised
to
the
reading
of
other
Books
(
as
flat
,
I
think
,
against
your
opinion
)
Bolton
,
Perkins
,
Hooker
,
Preston
,
&c.
yet
none
ever
charged
me
with
[
daring
to
prescribe
as
a
Dictator
.
]
However
you
know
my
word
will
not
take
much
,
and
therefore
you
need
not
be
so
much
offended
.
And
for
all
the
distinctions
which
you
are
pleased
to
take
as
Herring-bones
,
I
doubt
not
but
to
mean
Christians
,
that
Book
may
be
profitable
:
and
that
may
prove
happy
food
to
others
,
which
you
call
Poison
.
You
adde
[
As
for
the
title
of
Antinomianism
which
he
bestows
upon
our
doctrine
,
it
is
no
great
slander
out
of
Mr.
Baxter's
mouth
,
with
whom
an
Antinomian
and
an
Antipapist
are
termini
convertibiles
.
]
Repl
.
1.
To
begin
with
your
last
because
it
is
the
reason
of
the
former
:
It
is
written
,
Thou
shalt
not
hate
thy
brother
in
thy
heart
,
but
shalt
in
any
wise
rebuke
thy
neighbour
and
not
suffer
sin
upon
him
,
Lev
.
19.17
.
I
perceive
by
your
words
that
you
are
Pastor
of
a
Gathered
Church
(
as
it
's
call'd
)
were
I
one
of
your
neer
communion
,
I
should
openly
desire
satisfaction
concerning
these
words
,
not
as
to
my self
for
the
wrong
,
but
as
to
the
Church
,
that
otherwise
if
you
prove
impenitent
,
we
might
avoid
you
.
My
reasons
are
,
because
God
hath
faid
,
Thou
shalt
not
bear
false
witness
against
thy
neighbour
.
And
Lev
.
19.11
.
Ye
shall
not
steal
,
neither
deal
falsly
,
neither
lye
one
to
another
.
Deut
.
19.18
,
19.
Behold
,
if
the
witness
be
a
false
witness
,
and
hath
testified
falsly
against
his
brother
;
then
shall
ye
do
unto
him
as
he
had
thought
to
have
done
unto
his
brother
.
And
I
suppose
you
would
avoid
communion
with
a
Papist
,
and
have
men
so
to
do
.
Prov.
6.16
,
19.
Six
things
doth
the
Lord
hate
,
yea
seven
are
abomination
to
him
:
A
proud
look
,
a
lying
tongue
,
—
a
false
witness
that
speaketh
lies
,
and
him
that
soweth
discord
among
brethren
.
Prov.
19.5
.
A
false
witness
shall
not
be
unpunished
,
and
he
that
speaketh
lies
shall
not
escape
.
So
ver
.
9.
Prov.
14.5
.
&
12.17
.
Rev.
22.15
.
Without
are
—
and
whosoever
loveth
and
maketh
a
lye
,
Psal
.
15.1
,
2
,
3.
Lord
who
shall
abide
in
thy
Tabernacle
?
who
shall
dwell
in
thy
holy
Hill
?
He
that
walketh
uprightly
and
worketh
righteousness
,
and
speaketh
the
truth
in
his
heart
.
Now
as
to
the
fact
I
prove
it
thus
:
If
with
me
an
Antipapist
and
an
Antinomian
be
termini
convertibiles
,
or
all
one
,
then
I
take
all
Antipapists
for
Antinomians
.
But
the
later
is
false
:
Therefore
so
is
the
former
.
All
the
Churches
of
France
,
Belgia
,
Bohemia
,
Helvetia
,
Scotland
,
England
,
&c.
who
subscribed
the
Harmony
of
Confessions
,
or
owned
them
:
All
our
Reverend
Assemblies
that
made
the
late
Confession
of
Faith
and
Catechisms
,
and
all
that
own
them
:
All
that
subscribed
the
Synod
of
Dort
,
I
take
for
Antipapists
,
and
yet
I
take
them
not
for
Antinomians
,
no
nor
any
man
for
an
Antinomian
who
believeth
any
one
of
all
these
:
Therefore
I
take
not
all
Antipapists
for
Antinomians
.
Again
,
either
you
speak
of
my
heart
or
of
my
language
.
For
the
later
,
shew
where
,
or
prove
when
I
said
that
Antipapists
and
Antinomians
are
termini
convertibiles
,
expresly
or
implicitly
,
and
then
call
me
a
slanderer
and
spare
not
.
If
you
speak
of
my
Thoughts
,
I
know
them
better
then
you
,
and
I
profess
them
to
be
otherwise
.
Nay
in
the
very
particulars
wherein
I
differ
or
seem
to
differ
from
my
Brethren
,
I
have
received
large
Animadversions
from
very
many
Learned
men
,
and
I
profess
to
take
not
one
of
them
all
for
an
Antinomian
.
So
much
for
your
ground-work
.
Now
to
your
structure
.
As
for
the
term
[
Antinomian
]
I
confess
I
think
it
more
fitly
applied
to
the
Practice
of
those
whom
I
have
known
,
of
that
way
,
then
to
their
Doctrine
:
For
whereas
the
name
is
taken
from
one
of
the
least
of
their
great
Errors
,
it
should
have
rather
been
taken
from
the
greater
.
For
my
part
I
heartily
wish
that
among
those
whose
opinions
unfit
them
not
for
the
Communion
of
Saints
,
and
suffice
not
to
Excommunicate
them
,
all
names
of
Parties
or
of
Reproach
were
utterly
laid
aside
;
and
would
willingly
contribute
my
best
endeavours
to
that
end
,
and
heartily
joyn
with
you
in
your
motion
to
the
Parliament
that
a
Penalty
might
restrain
such
Dividing
wayes
.
But
yet
1.
while
men
go
commonly
under
such
a
name
,
we
can
scarce
tell
how
to
make
known
whom
we
speak
of
,
but
by
the
name
or
a
description
equipollent
.
2.
And
I
take
a
full
Antinomian
to
be
one
that
is
unfit
for
Christian
communion
,
as
subverting
the
very
substance
of
Christian
Religion
.
But
I
confess
I
think
it
fitter
to
call
them
Antigospellers
,
or
Antichristian
,
or
Libertines
,
then
Antinomians
:
And
because
it
is
the
old
and
fit
name
,
hereafter
I
will
use
rather
the
name
of
Libertines
.
But
for
sober
moderate
men
,
which
are
but
half
Antinomians
,
holding
but
the
less
dangerous
part
of
their
opinions
,
and
disclaiming
the
rest
,
(
though
they
are
shrewdly
concatenated
)
and
not
seeing
that
the
rest
do
follow
them
,
truly
,
as
I
dare
not
disaffect
them
,
nor
would
avoid
communion
with
them
,
so
neither
would
I
have
them
called
Antinomians
,
further
then
to
themselves
to
convince
them
of
their
participation
in
that
sinfull
way
,
as
the
name
may
be
used
in
a
course
of
arguing
.
And
of
these
I
hope
you
are
one
:
and
I
hope
it
is
no
worse
with
some
of
your
partakers
.
But
Sir
,
methinks
you
have
some
very
strange
passages
in
your
Epistle
Dedicatory
about
these
things
:
I
would
warn
you
to
search
your
heart
whether
the
later
part
of
the
second
page
of
that
Epistle
,
be
not
the
venting
of
pure
malice
;
and
a
trampling
upon
men
that
have
more
to
say
against
you
,
then
you
seem
to
take
notice
of
.
But
the
thing
I
mean
is
1.
Your
most
dangerous
doctrine
.
2.
Your
most
palpable
self-contradiction
by
word
and
deed
.
1.
In
the
bottom
of
the
third
page
in
your
parenthesis
[
Nor
can
I
excuse
their
connivence
at
any
of
those
evils
that
are
contrary
to
the
Law
of
nature
.
]
You
seem
to
teach
that
the
Magistrate
should
punish
no
other
evils
;
for
these
words
,
following
a
discourse
against
force
in
matter
of
Religion
,
can
bear
no
other
sense
that
I
know
of
.
But
is
this
your
friendship
to
Christ
,
that
you
would
have
the
Magistrate
be
indifferent
to
him
and
Mahomet
or
Antichrist
?
What
?
not
command
the
preaching
of
Christ
?
and
punish
the
neglect
of
it
in
those
that
should
do
it
?
Nor
hinder
men
from
preaching
against
Christ
,
or
calling
him
a
Deceiver
,
or
blaspheming
the
holy
Ghost
?
nor
for
preaching
up
Mahomet
?
Is
this
your
friendship
to
the
Parliament
as
to
draw
them
into
such
a
guilt
,
which
would
cause
God
to
curse
them
and
cast
them
out
,
and
make
their
names
hatefull
to
the
Christian
world
?
Is
this
your
love
to
the
Churches
of
Christ
,
that
you
would
have
this
deluge
of
guilt
and
confusion
let
in
upon
us
?
Methinks
the
very
thoughts
of
such
a
dolefull
state
of
the
Church
,
should
make
your
heart
sad
!
Is
this
your
love
to
your
native
Land
,
to
open
upon
it
such
a
Floodgate
of
desolation
?
And
is
this
your
love
to
the
souls
of
men
to
prostitute
them
to
all
deluders
?
If
you
think
that
truth
is
so
discernable
to
good
and
bad
,
that
if
all
may
but
speak
there
is
no
great
danger
;
do
but
open
your
eyes
and
Judge
by
the
experience
which
these
times
afford
you
!
You
can
scarce
get
men
to
receive
the
truth
that
hear
none
contradicting
it
:
How
much
less
when
they
have
ten
speaking
against
it
,
for
one
that
speaks
for
it
,
and
that
with
such
subtilty
as
they
cannot
resist
?
Nay
,
Sir
,
I
had
hoped
that
you
who
do
so
let
fly
at
me
as
a
Papist
,
would
not
have
proved
such
a
friend
to
Popery
.
Would
you
have
Popery
have
Liberty
in
England
again
in
all
the
Points
of
it
that
are
not
against
the
Light
of
Nature
?
Truly
you
shew
me
but
what
I
saw
before
!
that
all
over-doing
is
undoing
!
and
that
none
would
sooner
let
in
Popery
then
those
that
fly
to
the
contrary
extream
.
But
shall
I
tell
you
Sir
;
If
once
they
have
full
liberty
here
as
you
have
,
I
think
you
will
finde
,
that
their
numbers
and
prevalency
will
cloud
your
Sect
,
and
all
the
rest
of
the
Sects
in
England
.
And
as
very
a
Papist
as
I
am
,
I
would
far
rather
joyn
with
you
to
keep
them
out
;
and
would
intreat
you
for
the
Peace
of
your
own
Conscience
that
you
would
unsay
this
again
,
and
write
a
recantation
of
it
to
the
Parliament
.
I
would
have
you
also
to
consider
your
strange
Contradictions
to
your
own
words
.
1.
You
would
have
Names
of
Obloquy
,
and
in
particular
that
of
Antinomians
,
restrained
by
Penalties
.
But
is
it
against
the
light
of
nature
for
a
man
that
is
in
Judgement
against
you
,
to
call
you
Antinomian
?
If
the
Religion
or
doctrine
may
be
tolerated
,
why
may
not
the
Naming
of
men
accordingly
?
You
will
allow
men
to
Do
Evil
,
but
not
to
be
called
Evil
Doers
?
Where
the
Light
of
Nature
reacheth
not
the
Thing
,
me
thinks
it
should
not
reach
the
Name
!
He
that
should
judge
you
a
Heretick
,
and
thinks
it
his
duty
to
make
it
known
,
seeth
not
by
the
light
of
Nature
that
he
may
not
Call
you
so
.
2.
May
not
the
Lord
Jesus
(
for
whom
you
seem
zealous
)
have
some
of
that
favour
from
you
,
or
respect
,
or
tenderness
of
his
Name
and
Honour
,
which
you
would
have
your self
?
If
the
Parliament
must
lay
a
Penalty
on
them
that
will
call
you
Antinomian
,
I
pray
you
put
in
one
word
with
it
,
that
they
may
lay
a
Penalty
on
any
that
will
Call
Christ
a
Deceiver
,
or
reproach
his
Holy
Name
,
or
doctrine
,
or
wayes
;
or
would
set
up
Mahomet
or
Antichrist
against
him
;
whether
this
be
against
the
light
of
Nature
or
no
.
At
least
it
is
against
the
light
of
Nature
to
despise
God
:
and
Christ
saith
,
He
that
despiseth
you
(
his
Ministers
)
despiseth
me
,
and
he
that
despiseth
me
,
despiseth
him
that
sent
me
.
3.
If
all
those
Names
must
be
restrayned
by
Penalties
,
then
I
doubt
the
Name
of
Papist
must
be
restrayned
,
and
Socinian
too
:
And
would
you
indeed
have
a
Law
made
to
punish
all
that
call
men
Papists
or
Socinians
?
and
yet
seem
so
zealous
against
them
.
Still
the
Overdoing
Enemies
,
are
the
greatest
friends
,
to
Popery
and
other
Errors
.
4.
But
how
comes
it
to
pass
that
I
must
be
so
frequently
with
you
a
Papist
,
Socinian
,
Arminian
,
and
yet
it
is
a
sin
to
be
restrayned
by
Penalties
to
use
Names
of
obloquy
?
But
you
shew
us
plainly
what
kinde
of
Liberty
of
Conscience
it
is
that
men
are
now
for
:
A
Liberty
for
them
and
others
to
abuse
Christ
,
his
truth
,
and
their
Brethren
:
but
a
restraint
of
speaking
against
their
reputation
.
It
seems
though
you
speak
generally
,
it
was
the
Name
of
Antinomian
or
Libertine
that
you
meant
.
Truly
Sir
,
though
Mr
Woodbridge
,
Mr
Cranford
and
I
,
deserve
not
so
much
respect
at
your
hands
,
yet
me
thinks
the
Parliament
deserved
sounder
advice
,
and
better
and
more
carefull
language
of
you
then
this
:
You
should
not
have
bespoken
them
with
such
Contradictions
and
dangerous
Intimations
.
You
proceed
with
me
thus
[
Let
him
shew
us
any
one
Church
or
single
person
,
accounted
Orthodox
,
till
this
present
age
,
that
did
not
hold
some
,
yea
most
of
those
Points
which
he
cals
Antinomianism
,
and
I
will
openly
acknowledge
I
have
done
him
wrong
:
otherwise
let
him
be
looked
upon
as
a
slanderer
and
reviler
of
all
the
Protestant
Churches
,
who
under
a
shew
of
friendship
,
hath
endeavoured
to
expose
them
to
the
scorn
and
obloquy
of
their
enemies
.
Repl
.
I
willingly
stand
to
your
motion
:
But
I
must
needs
say
,
that
the
tempter
hath
much
foiled
you
,
when
he
prevailed
with
you
to
write
these
and
the
following
words
!
and
to
add
impudency
to
falshood
and
slander
:
for
so
it
is
.
You
should
have
cited
my
words
which
you
lay
this
charge
upon
,
or
else
I
know
not
what
to
vindicate
;
for
I
know
not
what
you
mean
.
But
observe
,
that
the
question
between
us
is
not
,
Whether
any
of
the
reformed
Churches
do
differ
from
me
in
any
thing
,
or
Whether
I
erre
therein
?
But
,
Whether
they
hold
any
,
yea
most
of
those
opinions
which
I
call
Antinomianisme
?
Would
you
make
men
believe
that
all
the
Protestant
Churches
are
of
your
opinion
?
This
is
to
put
out
mens
eyes
,
and
bid
them
renounce
both
sense
and
reason
.
I
will
call
no
man
.
Antinomian
that
doth
hold
the
doctrines
of
the
most
Imperfect
Confession
in
all
the
Harmony
:
Nay
,
I
provoke
you
if
you
are
able
to
name
one
man
in
the
first
,
second
,
third
,
fourth
or
fifth
Century
,
yea
or
for
a
thousand
if
not
fourteen
hundred
years
after
Christ
,
that
held
any
two
,
yea
one
,
of
the
opinions
which
I
ever
call'd
Antinomianism
,
except
it
were
some
that
were
notorious
Hereticks
.
Till
then
,
I
suppose
it
is
not
the
Accused
,
but
the
Accuser
that
is
reputed
the
Calumniator
till
he
make
good
his
charge
.
You
proceed
,
[
Mr.
B.
(
the
better
to
ingage
his
Reader
)
,
tels
him
his
doctrine
is
of
a
middle
strain
,
as
if
all
the
reformed
Churches
had
hitherto
been
in
an
extream
,
in
this
fundamentall
point
of
our
Justification
.
]
Rep.
1.
Though
Justification
be
a
fundamentall
,
yet
so
is
not
every
point
that
concerneth
it
.
2.
I
hope
you
will
not
perswade
us
that
all
the
Protestant
Churches
are
for
the
Justification
of
Infidels
!
unless
it
be
by
taking
the
name
of
Protestant
Churches
from
all
that
will
not
say
as
you
.
3.
What
Divine
of
note
can
you
name
,
but
doth
in
one
thing
or
other
,
differ
from
the
greater
part
?
I
think
but
few
.
Yet
we
do
not
for
that
one
Point
separate
him
from
the
rest
.
And
let
me
add
to
the
former
Section
,
that
if
it
be
proved
of
any
one
or
more
of
our
Divines
,
that
they
hold
one
or
two
lesser
points
of
Antinomianisme
,
I
think
it
not
fit
therefore
to
call
them
Antinomians
.
I
will
not
call
Zanchy
a
Papist
,
because
he
denied
the
Pope
to
be
the
Antichrist
:
or
because
of
his
so
much
differencing
Johns
Baptisme
and
Christs
:
nor
will
I
call
him
an
Anabaptist
,
because
he
thought
that
those
in
Acts
19.
were
twice
baptized
,
alledging
so
many
Fathers
of
his
minde
.
The
like
I
may
say
of
many
another
.
4.
No
wonder
if
any
doctrine
that
avoideth
your
extream
be
contemned
by
you
:
It
hath
alway
been
so
with
men
in
extreams
.
But
the
day
is
coming
when
Moderation
and
Truth
(
which
lieth
between
extreams
)
will
be
better
regarded
.
5.
As
for
my
[
engaging
my
Reader
]
which
you
talk
of
;
I
know
not
whether
it
discover
more
of
the
secrets
of
your
own
heart
or
mine
:
sure
I
am
you
know
not
mine
,
but
should
know
your
own
:
And
if
you
speak
according
to
yours
,
I
will
speak
according
to
mine
,
and
that
s
this
;
that
I
love
Gods
Truth
,
and
therefore
would
propagate
it
;
and
I
love
mens
souls
,
and
therefore
would
do
them
all
the
good
that
I
can
:
but
for
any
advantage
that
I
aim
at
to
my self
by
engaging
men
to
me
,
besides
the
doing
of
my
duty
,
I
yet
know
it
not
.
Nay
I
must
needs
reckon
upon
the
loss
of
mens
esteem
before
I
resolve
to
cross
them
in
their
opinions
.
You
proceed
like
the
rest
[
I
am
sure
he
gives
as
much
unto
Works
and
less
unto
Christ
then
the
Papists
do
.
]
Rep.
A
false
witness
shall
not
be
unpunished
,
and
be
that
speaketh
lies
shall
not
escape
,
Prov.
19.5
.
Review
the
texts
before
cited
.
Truly
,
Sir
,
I
cannot
think
you
durst
sin
thus
without
shame
and
fear
,
if
you
had
not
been
hardened
in
security
,
by
thinking
your
sins
were
forgiven
before
you
were
born
!
What
good
will
all
your
Arguments
do
to
prove
to
any
man
,
that
your
doctrine
encourageth
not
men
in
sin
,
while
they
shall
see
you
run
on
in
it
so
boldly
?
What
hear
we
words
for
,
when
we
see
contrary
deeds
?
As
the
Papists
have
done
as
much
against
their
Religion
,
by
Powder
plots
,
Treasons
,
lying
,
as
by
their
very
erroneous
doctrines
,
among
those
that
judge
by
such
experiences
;
so
have
the
men
of
your
sect
done
,
to
the
wonder
of
observers
.
Whether
your
words
here
be
true
or
not
,
I
shall
refer
the
Reader
to
my
Reply
to
Mr.
Crandon
,
whither
I
reserve
it
.
You
add
[
He
makes
Works
by
Virtue
of
Gods
Promises
and
Covenant
,
to
be
the
meritorious
Causes
of
Justification
and
Salvation
,
and
in
no
other
sense
do
the
Papists
affirm
it
.
]
Rep.
Thou
shalt
not
bear
false
witness
against
thy
neighbour
.
It
is
a
harsh
provoking
kind
of
answering
,
for
to
give
a
brother
a
plain
mentiris
:
and
therefore
I
love
not
to
deal
with
those
sayings
,
that
will
admit
of
no
other
answer
in
termes
or
sense
.
If
the
ninth
Commandment
be
Law
,
then
this
practice
of
yours
is
Antinomian
.
Produce
that
place
;
express
those
words
of
mine
,
which
may
make
good
this
charge
.
I
have
ever
professed
that
our
best
works
are
not
in
the
least
degree
meritorious
,
no
not
of
a
bit
of
bread
,
much
less
of
Justification
and
Salvation
.
There
never
fell
from
my
Pen
such
a
word
as
you
charge
me
with
,
and
yet
you
dare
do
it
.
One
would
think
that
common
wit
should
have
told
you
,
that
when
the
falshood
of
such
passages
de
facto
are
discovered
,
it
should
redound
to
your
own
shame
,
and
consequently
to
the
great
prejudice
of
your
Cause
.
Nay
I
durst
not
acknowledge
any
Causality
in
faith
to
our
Justification
,
and
therefore
in
that
Point
adventured
to
differ
from
many
Brethren
:
Yet
doth
this
man
say
,
that
I
[
make
Works
by
Virtue
of
Gods
Promise
and
Covenant
,
meritorious
Causes
of
Justification
.
And
mark
what
an
occasion
he
takes
of
this
slander
.
In
the
26.
Thes
.
of
my
Aphor
.
I
purposely
speak
against
the
doctrine
of
Merit
;
shewing
that
properly
no
works
of
ours
can
be
called
Meritorious
,
but
in
the
end
did
concede
that
Improperly
they
may
:
This
I
did
,
because
the
Fathers
for
many
hundred
years
after
Christ
use
the
word
Merit
,
in
application
to
mans
works
;
and
because
all
our
Divines
that
ever
I
read
against
the
Papists
,
nemine
contradicente
,
do
answer
that
the
Fathers
used
the
word
Merit
improperly
.
But
these
three
things
I
ever
professed
in
speech
and
writing
on
all
occasions
.
1.
That
no
acts
or
works
of
ours
are
Meritorious
Causes
of
salvation
,
much
less
of
Justification
.
2.
That
therefore
the
word
Merit
cannot
be
applied
to
them
,
but
Improperly
.
3.
That
therefore
it
is
not
fit
to
use
so
much
as
the
word
.
And
though
when
we
read
it
in
the
Councils
or
Fathers
,
we
must
interpret
it
with
a
due
reverence
to
them
,
yet
is
it
fit
to
be
excluded
among
our selves
.
Yet
should
I
meet
with
any
godly
,
sober
man
of
a
contrary
judgement
,
that
thought
the
name
might
be
used
while
he
interprets
it
in
the
same
sense
which
the
Reformed
Churches
hold
,
I
would
not
approve
of
that
mans
opinion
of
the
use
of
the
word
,
but
yet
I
would
not
for
the
bare
word
pretend
that
we
are
of
different
Religions
,
or
do
differ
in
the
Thing
which
he
expresseth
by
that
word
,
I
should
think
it
very
unjust
if
I
should
report
all
of
my
brother
,
which
may
be
said
of
him
Improperly
.
If
David
say
,
All
men
are
Lyars
,
meaning
,
not
able
to
help
in
time
of
need
,
and
therefore
not
to
be
trusted
in
,
as
being
fallacious
;
may
I
therefore
call
every
man
that
I
speak
with
a
Liar
?
What
is
there
that
may
not
be
spoken
of
you
truly
in
Impropriety
?
But
suppose
you
would
have
made
the
worst
of
my
words
that
malice
could
have
done
without
express
falshood
,
should
you
not
then
have
taken
up
with
my
own
words
,
without
the
addition
of
your
forgeries
?
I
said
that
[
This
is
Improperly
called
Merit
,
]
But
I
never
said
that
[
our
works
are
the
Meritorious
Causes
of
Justification
or
salvation
.
]
For
as
I
have
still
maintained
that
they
are
No
Causes
at
all
,
so
in
saying
that
they
are
called
Merit
Improperly
,
I
say
,
they
are
no
Causes
Meritorious
:
no
more
then
a
Causa
fine
qua
non
is
a
true
Cause
,
because
it
is
Improperly
so
called
.
Nay
I
never
once
said
,
that
as
to
our
Justification
begun
,
that
works
are
so
much
as
existent
,
but
alwaies
maintained
that
we
are
truly
and
fully
as
from
all
sins
past
Justified
by
faith
,
before
Works
of
externall
obedience
are
in
being
.
The
next
words
[
"
and
in
no
other
sense
do
the
Papists
affirm
it
,
]
is
another
notorious
falshood
:
which
if
it
were
in
Doctrinals
only
,
I
could
answer
it
with
a
cold
Negatur
;
but
thus
to
multiply
falshoods
one
after
another
,
seems
a
sad
practice
from
a
godly
man
.
He
might
well
know
,
if
indeed
he
know
what
the
Papists
hold
,
that
they
are
of
several
parties
among
themselves
differing
about
this
Point
,
yet
all
of
them
except
Waldensis
,
or
very
few
more
,
do
maintain
the
fitness
of
the
word
Merit
:
most
assert
both
Merit
of
Congruity
before
Regeneration
,
and
Merit
of
Condignity
after
;
and
Scotus
and
a
few
more
that
reduce
all
to
the
right
by
promise
are
rejected
by
the
rest
,
who
affirm
a
Merit
of
value
or
proportion
:
And
our
own
Divines
generally
approve
of
them
that
hold
only
Meritum
ex
pacto
,
as
to
the
thing
,
denying
only
the
fitness
of
the
name
,
and
that
this
is
any
proper
Merit
.
This
all
Divines
know
to
be
true
that
have
read
the
Papists
writings
and
ours
against
them
.
And
yet
this
man
did
not
fear
to
say
,
that
[
in
no
other
sense
do
the
Papists
affirm
it
,
]
yea
and
that
I
[
give
as
much
to
Works
and
less
to
Christ
then
the
Papists
:
]
I
shall
purposely
delay
my
particular
proof
of
the
contrary
till
I
speak
to
Mr
Crandon
.
Nay
a
little
before
he
saith
of
me
[
It
s
like
he
thinks
,
that
the
Papists
are
much
neerer
the
line
of
truth
then
any
of
them
,
]
i
.
e
.
of
all
the
Protestant
Churches
.
Here
are
two
sins
as
evident
as
his
sense
,
viz.
false-speaking
and
uncharitableness
.
A
little
before
he
said
,
he
[
feareth
the
men
of
Kederminster
are
fed
but
with
little
better
food
,
]
yet
did
this
man
never
hear
me
preach
,
never
see
my
face
,
and
yet
can
censure
my
teaching
!
Nay
had
he
but
enquired
of
me
,
he
might
have
learned
how
little
I
meddle
with
Controversie
in
the
Pulpit
:
Or
if
I
did
,
and
did
all
erroneously
,
yet
I
read
the
Scripture
to
them
,
I
publish
the
doctrine
of
the
Creed
and
Catechisme
,
is
all
this
poison
or
ch●aky
meat
as
he
speaks
?
Judge
of
the
affection
and
practice
of
this
man
by
the
Apostles
marks
,
1
Cor
.
13.3
,
4
,
5
,
6
,
7.
and
see
what
Charity
he
hath
:
Charity
thinketh
no
evil
:
But
how
much
of
his
own
surmising
hath
he
vented
in
a
few
lines
?
And
yet
he
proceeds
as
fresh
and
fearless
as
before
.
For
he
adds
[
I
must
needs
say
,
I
never
met
with
that
Papist
,
which
cals
Christ
a
fine
qua
non
(
i.e.
a
Cause
which
effects
nothing
)
of
our
Justification
.
]
Rep.
Would
you
not
think
here
that
the
man
did
intimate
that
I
say
this
,
and
but
this
of
Christ
?
But
mark
the
Case
.
In
Thes
.
56.
p.
215.
I
speak
only
of
Christs
satisfaction
,
and
not
of
any
other
work
of
Christ
:
And
I
say
that
it
hath
several
waies
of
Causing
our
Justification
.
1.
That
it
is
the
Meritorious
Cause
,
I
say
,
I
know
few
but
Socinians
will
deny
.
2.
That
it
is
also
the
Principal
Cause
fine
qua
non
,
as
Removing
Impediments
:
withall
I
shew
,
that
I
so
call
it
only
in
respect
of
its
Physical
operation
,
but
as
to
Moral
Dignity
,
I
plead
for
its
preheminence
.
Now
what
doth
this
man
but
lay
down
this
word
alone
,
that
I
call
Christ
the
Causa
sine
qua
non
,
and
leave
out
that
I
call
his
satisfaction
the
Meritorious
Cause
,
and
allow
it
the
preheminence
in
Moral
respect
.
Nay
mark
that
himself
makes
Iustification
to
be
from
Eternity
,
and
not
at
all
Caused
or
procured
by
Christs
death
qu●ad
actum
volentis
,
but
only
quoad
rem
volitam
:
And
let
any
man
tell
me
what
he
can
possibly
ascribe
to
Christs
satisfaction
on
those
terms
more
then
I
do
in
the
place
that
he
carps
at
.
Those
things
that
are
but
Causa
sine
qua
non
in
sensu
physico
,
are
of
singular
Moral
Causality
,
and
so
I
shewed
that
Christs
death
is
;
but
that
faith
is
so
a
causa
sine
qua
non
,
as
to
have
no
Moral
Causality
at
all
,
as
being
but
the
Accepting
of
a
free
Gift
.
These
things
are
so
far
from
Popery
,
that
they
accord
with
the
opinions
of
his
own
Patrons
,
as
expressed
hereabouts
,
and
yet
this
man
saith
he
never
met
with
Papist
that
said
so
.
He
next
proceeds
to
compare
my
doctrine
with
some
Positions
of
Gardiners
in
Foxes
Martyrology
.
I
have
not
the
book
at
this
time
in
my
study
to
examine
his
dealing
,
but
to
his
Positions
I
shall
answer
particularly
,
thus
.
1.
All
the
effects
of
Christs
Passion
have
not
a
Condition
:
The
satisfaction
of
Iustice
,
the
making
of
the
New
Covenant
,
the
sealing
it
with
Miracles
,
the
publishing
it
to
the
world
,
and
preaching
it
now
to
any
Nation
or
Person
,
and
the
first
Grace
of
faith
and
repentance
;
all
these
are
given
absolutely
,
and
not
made
over
upon
any
Condition
on
mans
part
.
But
Iustification
,
Remission
,
Adoption
and
Salvation
,
are
given
Conditionally
2.
His
second
Position
hath
its
answer
in
the
first
,
3.
The
third
is
false
;
for
faith
is
the
Condition
it self
,
and
not
somewhat
antecedent
by
which
we
must
know
it
,
unless
he
speak
of
any
common
faith
which
helpeth
a
man
to
perceive
the
need
of
saving
faith
;
or
unless
he
speak
of
the
Condition
of
our
Glorification
or
Iustification
as
consummate
,
which
is
sincere
obedience
,
in
subserviency
to
faith
and
concomitancy
with
it
.
4.
To
the
fourth
,
I
will
believe
that
faith
is
the
Gift
of
God
,
if
all
the
Papists
living
believe
it
,
and
that
by
this
Gift
,
I
do
well
in
believing
in
order
of
nature
,
but
not
of
time
,
before
I
am
Justified
.
5.
And
so
that
I
do
well
toward
the
attainment
of
Justification
;
But
not
of
justification
in
the
Popish
sense
,
which
comprehendeth
sanctification
even
in
the
first
act
,
for
so
I
do
not
well
before
it
,
so
as
any
of
my
actions
are
Accepted
of
God
in
Christ
,
and
their
infirmities
pardoned
;
but
only
as
an
unbeliever
may
comparatively
be
said
to
do
wel
in
coming
to
hear
the
word
,
rather
then
in
going
to
an
Alehouse
.
6.
I
believe
that
Faith
and
Charity
thrive
together
,
I
am
a
Papist
if
this
be
Popery
;
that
Faith
works
by
Love
.
I
do
not
think
it
sound
doctrine
,
that
to
the
Attainment
of
justification
is
required
Faith
and
Charity
,
without
limitations
and
explication
:
For
though
a
Love
to
Christ
the
Object
is
effential
to
that
Faith
that
must
accept
him
(
for
let
men
say
what
they
will
,
Christ
must
be
accepted
as
Good
,
and
Good
cannot
be
accepted
without
Love
,
)
yet
Charity
usually
signifies
that
Grace
,
as
extended
to
all
other
objects
of
Love
,
as
well
as
an
offered
Christ
,
and
so
the
Proposition
is
false
understood
of
our
first
being
justified
,
as
the
word
Attainment
shews
it
is
.
8.
The
eighth
Proposition
is
false
.
If
only
the
beginning
be
free
,
then
the
rest
is
not
free
,
9.
The
ninth
is
answered
in
the
former
.
10.
The
tenth
I
never
heard
Protestant
deny
in
sensu
diviso
;
I
believe
that
God
gives
the
grace
of
Repentance
to
men
in
deadly
sin
,
even
to
all
that
have
it
,
and
I
know
not
else
how
they
should
have
it
,
and
that
this
Repentance
is
a
Condition
of
justification
,
in
the
Protestant
sense
,
but
not
in
the
Popish
sense
,
that
is
,
of
the
first
renewing
of
our
natures
.
And
now
Brother
I
would
I
had
given
you
all
I
have
in
the
world
,
yea
twenty
lives
,
if
I
had
so
many
to
lay
down
,
on
condition
you
could
but
make
it
good
,
that
the
Papists
erre
no
more
then
this
;
yea
no
more
then
these
words
of
Gardiners
in
their
obvious
sense
.
But
if
you
would
be
believed
in
crediting
the
Papists
,
you
must
get
you
Readers
that
never
read
their
writings
,
or
that
have
read
none
but
such
as
the
late
Christian
Moderator
,
that
tells
you
by
Merit
they
mean
nothing
but
rewardableness
.
If
you
will
make
all
the
Papists
Orthodox
to
prove
me
a
Papist
,
you
l
shew
how
much
your
extremities
hurt
their
Cause
.
For
my
part
I
say
again
,
would
I
had
lost
my
life
so
that
it
were
true
.
I
would
no
more
remove
from
the
truth
because
the
Papists
own
it
,
then
I
would
deny
God
because
they
profess
him
.
And
if
you
can
make
me
believe
that
the
Papists
are
as
Orthodox
men
as
you
pretend
them
to
be
,
you
will
but
exceedingly
glad
my
heart
,
and
not
a
whit
remove
me
from
my
own
opinion
.
These
be
but
words
to
affright
such
children
that
receive
their
faith
on
the
credit
of
man
,
and
that
must
know
what
the
Papists
hold
,
that
they
may
be
contrary
,
before
they
can
tell
what
to
hold
themselves
.
These
move
not
men
that
wait
for
the
Law
at
the
mouth
of
Christ
,
and
that
attend
the
Spirit
of
Illumination
by
the
study
of
the
word
,
and
go
to
the
Law
and
to
the
Testimony
,
and
call
no
man
Master
on
earth
.
The
worst
you
can
do
by
such
Toyes
of
malice
,
are
but
to
diminish
my
reputation
,
with
factious
men
,
that
follow
parties
for
their
faith
,
and
know
not
what
the
Unity
of
the
faith
means
,
nor
what
it
is
to
depend
for
teaching
upon
Christ
.
Though
these
men
may
be
godly
and
zealous
,
and
such
as
I
dearly
love
,
yet
were
it
not
for
being
made
uncapable
of
doing
them
good
,
and
diminishing
Gods
interest
and
their
benefit
,
by
the
diminution
of
mine
,
I
think
you
would
not
much
assault
me
with
these
weapons
,
if
you
knew
how
little
I
value
their
esteem
,
when
I
cannot
have
it
with
Innocency
and
Truth
.
Brother
,
I
am
proud
and
sinful
the
Lord
knows
as
well
as
others
:
but
yet
I
can
truly
say
,
that
I
have
bent
my
studies
and
vigilancy
against
the
sin
of
pride
above
most
others
,
for
divers
years
past
,
and
that
I
have
stood
so
long
on
the
brink
of
the
grave
and
the
door
of
eternity
,
that
I
can
with
very
little
trouble
bear
all
the
quarrels
and
contrempts
of
men
.
How
small
a
matter
is
it
to
me
to
be
judged
by
man
,
who
am
daily
looking
to
be
called
to
the
bar
of
God
?
I
am
almost
out
of
this
wrangling
censorious
world
,
and
know
its
Gods
Approbation
which
I
must
stand
by
,
and
then
think
of
me
all
as
you
please
;
if
God
justifie
me
,
I
care
not
for
your
condemning
me
.
But
you
proceed
.
[
And
for
his
choice
notion
of
Justification
by
Works
as
they
are
our
new
Covenant-Righteousness
,
I
find
it
was
a
shift
of
the
Papists
long
ago
,
&c.
]
Rep.
You
are
very
unfit
to
parallel
the
Papists
and
me
,
who
for
ought
I
perceive
understand
neither
of
us
I
need
not
tell
Divines
that
read
them
,
the
Papists
opinion
but
for
my
own
,
I
say
still
,
that
we
are
justified
first
,
without
so
much
as
the
presence
of
Works
,
and
finally
without
their
Causality
:
but
yet
had
rather
expound
James
,
then
deny
the
truth
of
his
words
.
Nor
do
I
acknowledge
any
Universall
Righteousness
but
Christs
,
consisting
in
the
remission
of
sins
.
Onely
I
think
not
that
Christ
died
to
pardon
my
Faith
and
Love
,
as
such
,
but
to
pardon
the
infirmity
of
them
:
to
forgive
my
sins
,
as
sins
,
and
not
my
duty
,
as
duty
,
and
therefore
that
we
have
a
particular
Righteousness
by
which
in
subordination
to
Christs
,
as
being
only
the
Condition
of
our
Enjoying
it
,
we
may
be
said
to
be
justified
.
But
of
these
things
more
fully
God
willing
hereafter
.
He
adds
[
I
shall
not
trace
Mr.
B.
any
further
,
there
being
now
in
the
Press
,
as
I
am
informed
,
a
large
and
full
Answer
to
his
Paradoxicall
Aphorisms
,
by
a
faithful
servant
of
the
Lord
Iesus
,
Mr.
Crandon
of
Fawley
in
Hampshire
,
a
Workman
that
need
not
be
ashamed
.
]
Rep.
Of
this
book
I
have
spoke
in
the
Epistle
enough
.
Why
speak
you
of
it
as
a
strange
matter
[
as
I
am
informed
?
]
Its
long
since
I
was
informed
of
your
being
with
him
at
London
,
as
combined
together
in
the
same
Cause
,
and
promoting
each
others
work
;
one
against
Mr.
troodbridge
,
the
other
against
me
.
Your
next
shews
your
modesty
,
in
calling
such
books
[
far
more
dangerous
then
the
Ranters
Blasphemous
Pamphlets
]
and
imitating
that
they
are
Popish
and
Arminian
,
and
how
Reignolds
,
Whittakers
,
Davenant
,
Prideaux
would
not
have
endured
them
.
]
Would
you
make
the
world
believe
that
these
men
were
of
your
minde
for
the
Iustification
of
Infidels
?
Truly
if
you
will
be
of
the
same
minde
as
these
men
were
,
though
I
may
differ
from
you
in
some
point
of
Method
or
Words
,
yet
I
will
never
oppose
you
nor
write
against
you
,
if
you
wil
but
give
me
leave
to
forbear
.
My
differences
with
these
men
are
nothing
to
my
differences
with
you
.
Nay
you
might
have
known
if
you
would
,
that
Davenant
maintains
the
Conditionality
of
sincere
obedience
to
the
Continuance
of
our
Iustification
in
the
same
terms
as
I
do
.
And
so
much
to
your
Epistle
.
Now
to
your
Treatise
.
§.
2.
THe
first
place
that
I
observe
you
falling
on
me
,
is
Pag
.
25.
about
Maccovius
,
where
you
say
[
Though
one
of
our
late
writers
,
(
Mr
B.
App.
p.
147.
)
mentions
this
Doctors
opinion
with
much
contempt
and
oscitancy
,
calling
his
Assertions
strange
,
sensless
and
abhorred
(
which
is
the
less
to
be
regarded
)
seeing
he
usually
metes
out
the
same
measure
unto
all
men
else
,
whose
Notions
do
not
square
with
his
own
mold
.
]
Rep.
Thou
shalt
not
bear
false
witness
against
thy
neighbour
.
My
words
of
Maccovius
doctrine
I
refer
to
the
consideration
of
any
that
are
impartial
:
for
my
part
I
cannot
repent
of
them
,
any
more
then
for
saying
that
whoredom
or
drunkenness
are
to
be
abhorred
.
But
that
I
[
usually
mete
out
the
same
measure
to
all
men
else
whose
Notions
square
not
with
my
mold
,
]
is
a
gross
untruth
,
which
any
man
that
converseth
with
me
,
and
hath
read
my
writings
,
may
quickly
know
.
But
let
's
hear
your
proof
.
[
As
Dr.
Twiss
,
Mr.
Walker
,
and
them
that
hold
the
Imputation
of
Christs
active
Righteousness
whom
he
calls
,
A
sort
of
Ignorant
and
unstudied
Divines
,
&c.
Rep.
Divers
more
gross
falshoods
in
these
few
words
,
are
added
to
the
rest
.
I
am
loath
to
call
you
Antinomian
,
but
if
the
ninth
Commandment
be
Law
,
I
am
sure
you
make
as
bold
to
break
it
,
if
that
be
Antinomianism
,
as
most
that
I
have
dealt
with
.
1.
Why
did
you
not
quote
the
place
where
I
[
mete
out
the
same
measure
]
to
Dr.
Twiss
?
Mr.
Kindal
accuseth
me
of
sleighting
him
indeed
;
and
what
is
my
language
?
why
I
call
him
[
that
most
excellent
famous
Divine
.
]
But
I
judge
him
to
mistake
in
saying
Remission
of
sin
is
from
eternity
:
that
is
,
I
judge
him
not
Infallible
nor
free
from
error
:
Thus
Protestants
abuse
all
men
,
and
Papists
all
save
the
Pope
and
his
General
Council
.
2.
For
Mr.
Walker
,
I
confess
I
spoke
undiscreetly
,
as
having
no
call
to
meddle
with
him
,
and
I
hereby
revoke
it
,
and
do
repent
it
,
that
I
intimated
him
to
be
Ignorant
,
and
that
I
medled
with
his
Reviling●●
But
yet
I
will
take
no
man
for
a
competent
Judge
of
my
fault
,
that
hath
not
read
his
Book
against
Mr.
Goodwin
,
and
Mr.
Gatakers
Book
against
him
in
Defence
of
Mr.
Wotton
.
3.
It
is
here
intimated
,
that
the
cause
of
my
speech
was
his
differing
from
my
mold
:
that
is
,
as
he
means
my
opinions
(
for
indeed
the
Scripture
is
my
mold
:
Whereas
the
reason
of
my
words
against
Mr.
Walker
,
was
his
exceeding
hard
language
to
his
Brethren
;
which
as
being
against
love
and
peace
,
I
so
far
reprehended
,
as
to
say
[
He
strongly
reviled
and
weakly
disputed
]
when
in
discourse
and
Pulpit
he
had
done
so
much
for
above
20
years
,
against
such
learned
,
choice
servants
of
God
,
as
Mr.
Wotton
,
Mr.
Bradshaw
,
&c.
and
when
in
the
Press
the
term
Heretick
,
Blasphemer
,
&c.
are
so
familiar
;
and
he
even
proceeds
to
the
Curse
of
Anathema
Maran-atha
.
But
what
if
I
spoke
unreverendly
to
this
Reverend
man
,
in
saying
he
Beviled
?
is
it
just
that
I
be
accused
of
doing
so
to
all
men
,
or
any
others
,
when
I
never
was
guilty
?
4.
Next
I
am
charged
with
the
like
,
as
to
[
"
them
that
hold
the
Imputation
of
Christs
active
Righteousness
.
]
Another
falshood
,
as
thus
without
limitation
expressed
:
For
I
there
professed
to
hold
it
my self
,
as
part
of
satisfaction
,
and
I
hold
it
as
Meritorious
of
all
that
higher
felicity
then
the
first
Covenant
gave
(
if
there
by
any
such
:
)
But
it
was
only
one
sort
or
sense
of
Imputation
there
explained
which
I
spoke
against
.
5.
Another
untruth
it
is
,
that
I
[
call
these
,
A
sort
of
ignorant
unstudied
Divines
:
]
The
words
are
these
[
The
maintainers
of
it
,
beside
some
Able
men
,
are
the
vulgar
sort
of
unstudied
Divines
,
who
having
not
ability
or
diligence
to
search
deep
into
so
profound
a
Controversie
,
do
still
hold
that
opinion
which
is
most
common
and
in
credit
.
]
Where
I
divide
those
that
are
for
this
way
into
two
sorts
:
some
Able
men
,
and
others
the
common
unstudied
Divines
that
take
it
on
credit
:
And
this
is
a
known
truth
that
too
many
such
there
are
,
that
so
receive
even
much
of
their
Religion
:
As
if
you
did
not
think
so
your self
of
the
most
that
are
against
your
particular
opinion
?
Do
you
not
think
they
go
for
company
against
you
?
So
I
do
not
call
all
Ignorant
that
go
that
way
,
nor
any
man
because
he
goes
that
way
.
You
add
of
Maccovius
[
I
dare
say
his
Arguments
in
this
particular
will
not
seem
so
weak
and
ridiculous
as
Mr.
Baxter
makes
them
,
to
an
indifferent
reader
that
shall
compare
them
with
the
exceptions
that
he
hath
shaped
unto
them
.
Sharp
Censures
are
but
dull
Answers
.
]
Repl
.
I
am
not
desirous
to
blast
the
reputation
of
that
Learned
man
,
if
I
were
of
any
power
to
do
it
.
But
I
confess
his
Doctrine
in
the
matter
of
Justification
I
would
have
all
friends
of
mine
avoid
;
and
I
took
it
for
my
duty
so
to
tell
them
:
which
I
know
not
why
you
should
be
so
offended
at
.
I
suppose
you
know
how
the
Synod
of
Dort
judged
of
his
harsh
language
in
another
case
,
wherein
he
opposed
Lubbertus
.
And
seeing
I
am
thus
brought
to
take
notice
of
the
Witnesses
that
you
produce
as
for
your
Cause
;
give
me
leave
a
little
to
review
them
.
The
first
is
Mr
Pemble
:
But
as
Mr.
Pemble
is
for
you
in
his
Vind
.
Grat
.
so
when
he
came
purposely
to
treat
of
that
subject
,
it
seems
he
changed
his
judgement
:
For
in
his
Treat
.
of
Justification
,
he
saith
as
much
of
that
as
most
of
your
adversaries
:
I
pray
you
read
him
Pag
.
15.
c
.
2.
&
p.
22
,
23
,
24
,
57.
and
then
you
will
sure
boast
of
M.
Pemble
no
more
:
If
he
were
once
of
your
mind
and
afterward
rejected
it
,
as
he
seems
fully
to
have
done
,
that
is
no
great
credit
to
it
.
Your
second
is
Mr.
Rutherford
,
who
you
say
hath
said
as
much
as
any
of
you
.
Wil
you
give
the
Reader
leave
to
judge
how
far
M.
Rutherford
was
for
you
,
by
these
words
of
his
own
,
written
after
a
fuller
knowledge
of
the
men
of
your
Sect
;
In
his
Trial
and
Triumph
of
Faith
,
pag
.
55.
Serm
.
8.
he
answers
these
Objections
(
against
his
first
words
,
wherein
he
asserteth
that
[
The
condition
of
the
Covenant
is
faith
:
Holiness
and
sanctification
the
Condition
of
the
Covenants
.
)
This
do
was
the
condition
of
the
Covenant
of
Works
;
This
Believe
is
the
condition
of
this
Covenant
.
]
[
Object
.
1.
But
some
teach
that
this
Covenant
hath
no
Condition
at
all
,
so
Dr.
Crispe
and
other
Libertines
.
]
[
Obj.
2.
I
will
put
my
law
in
your
inward
parts
,
is
no
condition
to
be
performed
by
us
,
but
by
God
only
.
]
[
Obj.
4.
Believing
and
obedience
is
but
a
consequent
of
the
Covenant
,
not
an
Antecedent
:
so
I
must
believe
upon
other
grounds
,
but
not
in
way
of
the
condition
of
the
Covenant
,
for
in
that
tenor
I
am
to
do
nothing
.
]
[
Obj.
5.
The
Covenant
is
Gods
love
to
man
to
take
him
to
himself
,
and
that
before
the
children
do
good
or
ill
,
and
to
him
that
worketh
is
the
reward
not
reckoned
of
grace
but
of
debt
.
]
[
Ob.
6.
Our
act
of
believing
is
a
work
,
and
no
work
can
be
a
condition
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
:
yea
Christ
alone
justifieth
:
Faith
is
not
Christ
,
nor
any
partner
with
him
in
the
work
;
yea
we
are
justified
before
we
believe
,
and
faith
only
serveth
for
the
manifestation
of
Justification
to
our
conscience
,
for
we
believe
no
lie
,
when
we
believe
we
are
justified
,
but
a
truth
;
then
it
must
be
true
,
that
we
are
justified
before
we
believe
.
]
These
Mr.
Rutherford
answers
as
the
Libertines
Objections
.
It
would
be
too
tedious
to
recite
his
Answers
,
only
some
of
that
to
the
last
I
will
recite
.
He
saith
,
p.
59
,
60
,
61
,
62.
[
Christ
alone
as
the
meritorious
cause
justifieth
,
and
his
imputed
Righteousness
as
the
formal
cause
:
and
this
way
Christ
alone
justifieth
the
Patriarchs
,
&c.
and
all
believers
before
they
be
born
,
but
this
is
but
the
fountain
ready
to
wash
:
but
believe
it
Christ
washeth
not
,
while
we
be
foul
,
&c.
nor
is
his
name
our
Righteousness
while
we
be
sinners
(
i.e.
unrenewed
.
)
1.
Men
not
born
cannot
be
the
object
of
actual
Righteousness
;
the
unborn
child
needeth
no
actual
application
of
Christs
eye
salve
,
gold
,
righteousness
:
Now
Justification
is
a
real
favour
applied
to
us
in
time
,
just
as
Sanctification
in
the
New
birth
,
&c.
We
cannot
be
justified
before
we
believe
.
1.
We
are
damned
before
we
believe
,
Joh
.
3.2
.
He
that
is
justified
is
glorified
,
Rom.
8.30
.
3.
We
are
born
and
by
nature
the
sons
of
wrath
,
Eph.
2.2
,
7.
Rom.
7.5
,
6.
&
6.14
.
4.
By
faith
we
are
only
united
to
Christ
,
possessed
of
him
,
Christ
dwelling
in
us
,
&c.
5.
This
Justification
without
faith
casteth
loose
the
Covenant
,
I
will
be
your
God
:
But
here
's
a
condition
,
God
is
not
bound
and
we
free
:
Therefore
this
is
the
other
part
,
Ye
shall
be
my
people
.
Now
it
is
taught
by
Libertines
,
that
there
can
be
no
closing
with
Christ
in
a
promise
that
hath
a
qualification
or
condition
expressed
,
and
that
conditional
Promises
are
Legal
,
&c.
(
Here
he
rejecteth
Conditions
,
1.
In
the
Arminian
sense
,
as
they
are
the
work
of
Free-will
not
acted
by
the
predetermining
grace
of
Christ
.
2.
In
the
Popish
sense
,
as
they
are
meritorious
,
as
work
of
wages
:
and
so
I
reiect
them
too
.
)
6.
Paul
in
the
Epistles
to
the
Romans
and
Galatians
,
takes
it
for
granted
that
Iustification
is
a
work
done
in
time
,
transient
on
us
,
not
an
immanent
and
eternal
action
,
remaining
either
in
God
from
eternity
,
or
performed
by
Christ
on
the
Cross
before
we
believe
,
and
so
never
taketh
on
him
to
prove
that
we
are
justified
before
we
either
do
the
works
of
the
Law
,
or
believe
in
Iesus
Christ
,
but
that
we
are
Iustified
by
faith
,
&c.
and
faith
is
not
the
naked
Manifestation
of
our
Iustification
,
so
as
we
are
Iustified
before
we
have
faith
:
Satisfaction
is
indeed
given
to
Iustice
by
Christ
on
the
Cross
,
for
all
our
sins
before
we
believe
,
and
before
any
justified
person
who
lived
this
1500
years
was
born
;
but
,
alas
,
that
is
not
Iustification
,
but
only
the
meritorious
cause
of
it
:
that
is
,
as
if
one
should
say
,
This
wall
is
white
since
the
Creation
of
the
world
,
though
this
very
day
only
it
was
whited
,
because
whiteness
was
in
the
world
since
the
Creation
.
And
that
you
may
know
the
true
nature
of
Justification
,
and
Mr.
Kendall
and
you
may
see
what
others
say
of
the
nature
of
the
act
as
well
as
Mr.
Woodbridge
and
I
,
mark
the
next
words
[
Justification
is
a
Forensical
sentence
in
time
pronounced
in
the
Gospel
,
and
applied
to
me
Now
,
and
never
till
the
instant
now
,
that
I
believe
:
It
s
not
formally
an
act
of
the
understanding
to
know
a
truth
concerning
my self
;
But
it
s
an
heart-adherence
of
the
affections
to
Christ
as
the
Saviour
of
sinners
,
at
the
presence
of
which
a
sentence
of
free
absolution
is
pronounced
:
Suppose
the
Prince
have
it
in
his
minde
to
pardon
twenty
malefactors
;
his
grace
is
the
cause
why
they
are
pardoned
,
yet
are
they
never
in
Law
pardoned
,
so
as
they
can
in
Law
plead
immunity
,
till
they
can
produce
their
Princes
royal
sealed
pardon
.
]
So
Serm
.
18.
pag
.
148.
[
Nay
give
me
leave
to
say
,
that
Antinomians
make
Iustification
and
free
grace
their
common
place
of
Divinity
,
as
if
they
onely
had
seen
the
visions
of
the
Almighty
and
no
other
,
but
they
are
utterly
ignorant
thereof
:
For
they
confound
and
mix
what
the
word
distinguisheth
,
because
Justification
is
onely
a
Removal
of
sin
by
a
Law-way
,
so
that
in
Law
it
cannot
actually
condemn
.
]
So
pag
.
151.
[
Iustification
freeth
us
in
this
life
from
all
Law
guilt
and
Obligation
to
wrath
,
which
is
but
the
second
act
of
sin
.
]
So
pag
.
153.
[
All
which
are
true
in
a
Law-sense
,
and
in
a
Legal
and
Moral
freedom
from
sin
,
&c.
]
and
[
for
they
are
in
their
actual
guilt
as
touching
the
Law
sting
,
and
power
,
as
no
sins
,
&c.
removed
and
taken
away
quoad
actualem
reatum
eternae
mortis
,
in
their
Law-demerit
and
guilt
,
&c.
This
is
a
Law
removal
of
sin
.
]
So
oft
pag
.
154.
&
passim
:
&
p.
162.
speaking
of
Christs
sufferings
[
This
threefold
taking
away
of
sins
I
clear
from
Scripture
.
1.
Christ
taketh
away
our
sins
on
the
Cross
Causatively
,
and
by
way
of
merit
,
whileas
he
suffereth
for
our
sins
on
the
Cross
.
So
Joh
.
1.29
.
1
Cor
.
5.21
.
1
Pet
.
2.24
.
Isa
.
53.10
.
Now
this
was
the
paying
of
a
ransom
for
us
,
and
a
Legal
translation
of
the
eternal
punishment
of
our
sins
,
but
it
is
not
Iustification
,
nor
ever
called
Iustification
:
there
is
a
sort
of
imputation
of
sin
to
Christ
here
,
and
a
summe
paid
for
me
;
but
,
with
leave
,
No
formall
imputation
,
no
forensical
,
and
no
personal
Law-reckoning
to
me
who
am
not
yet
born
,
far
less
cited
before
a
Tribunal
,
and
absolved
from
sin
:
When
Christ
had
compleatly
paid
this
summe
,
Christ
was
justified
Legally
,
as
a
publique
person
,
and
all
his
seed
Fundamentally
,
Meritoriously
,
Causatively
,
but
not
in
their
persons
.
There
is
a
second
removal
of
sin
,
when
the
believer
is
justified
by
faith
This
which
is
formally
the
Iustification
of
the
believing
sinner
,
the
Believers
person
is
Accepted
,
Reconciled
,
Iustified
,
and
really
translated
by
a
Law
change
,
from
one
state
to
another
.
]
I
have
been
the
longer
in
reciting
Mr.
Rutherford's
words
,
1.
Because
of
themselves
they
suffice
to
confute
your
Opinion
.
2.
Because
you
so
talk
of
[
the
Protestant
Divines
and
Churches
,
]
and
yet
of
those
few
that
you
produce
for
you
,
it
may
appear
what
they
judge
of
your
Cause
.
3.
That
your
allegations
may
be
understood
hereafter
by
your
Reader
.
Your
third
Dr.
Twiss
,
and
also
Maccovius
,
I
acknowledge
are
for
you
in
the
point
now
in
question
.
Mr.
Parker's
words
imply
no
more
then
Ratherfords
,
viz.
That
in
Christs
Iustification
we
were
justified
causally
;
but
that
is
a
term
of
diminution
,
as
to
the
formal
Iustification
;
for
till
it
be
extra
causas
,
It
doth
not
exist
:
and
it
is
an
improper
use
of
the
word
justification
.
Chamier
I
have
oft
noted
to
have
some
passages
that
make
for
your
Opinion
:
but
that
he
contradicteth
them
elsewhere
,
I
think
is
not
hard
to
manifest
.
I
will
not
deny
the
truth
for
the
credit
of
the
man
.
Calvin
is
so
express
and
frequent
against
you
,
as
few
men
more
.
I
came
but
now
from
citing
some
passages
to
that
end
against
Ludiomaeus
Colvinus
,
and
therefore
will
not
now
lose
time
in
doing
it
again
,
when
all
men
that
will
reade
his
Books
,
may
quickly
finde
that
he
was
no
friend
to
the
Justification
of
Infidels
.
I
marvell
rather
that
you
had
not
cited
Zuinglius
,
who
indeed
is
blamed
for
leaning
that
way
,
and
called
Seneca
by
such
a
Christian
name
unless
perhaps
he
was
deceived
by
Hierome
,
as
Hierome
was
by
his
counterfeit
Epistle
,
and
thought
Seneca
a
believer
indeed
)
And
you
might
have
alleadged
an
inclination
in
Erasmus
for
you
,
who
could
scarce
forbear
saying
,
Sancte
Socrates
ora
pro
nobis
.
Calvin's
words
mean
but
this
much
(
which
you
cite
)
that
seeing
God
offereth
Remission
,
and
we
do
but
Accept
it
by
faith
,
therefore
God
doing
his
part
in
offering
it
,
he
saith
that
respectu
Dei
Justificatio
fidem
praecedit
,
though
we
are
not
actually
justified
till
after
.
For
that
offer
is
common
to
Infidels
.
In
that
very
discourse
Calvin
hath
many
passages
against
you
:
As
pag
(
mihi
fol.
)
390.
Nos
autem
meminerimus
fidei
naturam
à
Christo
aestimandam
esse
:
quia
quod
nobis
offert
Deus
in
Christo
,
non
nisi
fide
recipimus
.
Proinde
quicquid
nobis
est
Christus
id
ad
fidem
transfertur
,
quae
nos
compotes
&
Christi
&
omntum
ejus
bonorum
sacit
.
Neque
aliter
verum
esset
illud
Johannis
,
fidem
nostram
esse
victoriam
,
qua
mundus
vincitur
,
nisi
nos
in
Christum
insereret
qui
solus
est
mundi
victor
.
]
Zanchy
in
the
words
cited
by
you
useth
inconvenient
expressions
;
but
that
he
is
fully
against
you
,
is
manifest
in
many
places
of
his
Writing
.
But
I
have
newly
Vindicated
Zanchy
from
Ludiomaeus
Colvinus
,
who
urgeth
the
same
words
as
you
do
.
So
I
have
done
Alstedius
too
,
and
therefore
shall
say
no
more
of
him
.
So
also
have
I
vindicated
Amesius
against
the
same
Colvinus
:
and
as
for
this
testimony
which
you
adde
more
then
he
,
viz.
ex
Antisynodal
.
p.
164.
his
[
atiquo
modo
]
in
favorem
restituti
,
by
which
he
there
expoundeth
reconciliation
,
is
so
stretching
a
word
,
as
may
well
be
yielded
true
:
for
it
will
let
in
as
improper
a
reconciliation
as
yours
:
but
yet
Amesius
will
not
use
the
word
Justification
so
improperly
,
at
least
without
discovering
the
impropriety
.
§.
3.
THe
next
bout
that
you
have
with
me
,
is
pag
.
25.
when
you
have
done
with
Mr.
Burgess
.
And
you
there
fall
on
to
some
purpole
,
thus
:
[
Mr.
Baxter's
character
of
an
Antinomian
will
bring
all
our
Protestant
Writers
under
this
censure
.
]
Repl
.
Still
more
falshood
!
Is
the
ninth
Commandment
blotted
out
of
your
Decalogue
,
as
the
second
out
of
the
Papists
?
Or
think
you
that
you
are
under
no
Law
;
or
that
God
sees
no
iniquity
in
you
,
so
as
to
hate
it
?
But
let
's
hear
your
proof
.
[
For
with
him
they
are
Antinomians
who
hold
(
1.
)
That
our
Evangelical
Righteousness
is
without
us
in
Christ
,
or
performed
by
him
and
not
by
our selves
]
Repl
.
Here
are
more
uncruths
then
one
in
these
words
also
,
1.
I
never
said
that
they
who
denied
this
were
Autinomians
,
but
that
it
was
a
piece
of
Antinomian
doctrine
,
and
that
the
Antinomians
did
deny
it
:
Nay
lest
any
should
think
that
I
accounted
all
Antinomians
that
are
offended
at
this
;
I
added
[
and
some
that
are
no
Antinomians
,
&c.
p.
109
]
I
call
not
all
Antinomians
that
hold
any
one
of
their
doctrines
.
2.
It
is
untrue
that
all
our
Protestant
Writers
are
against
this
,
(
as
I
have
fully
shewed
elsewhere
)
yea
or
any
one
accounted
Orthodox
that
ever
I
met
with
,
as
to
the
sense
of
my
words
:
For
though
some
of
them
will
not
allow
the
name
of
Righteousness
to
our
faith
and
obedience
(
though
the
Scripture
useth
it
twenty
and
twenty
times
I
think
)
and
others
commonly
will
call
it
Righteousness
,
but
will
not
say
that
we
are
righteous
or
justified
by
it
.
(
A
strange
Righteousness
that
doth
not
make
righteous
formaliter
,
as
it
is
a
strange
existent
whiteness
,
that
makes
no
man
white
,
and
a
strange
honesty
or
goodness
,
or
nebility
,
that
makes
no
man
honest
good
or
noble
:
)
yet
do
all
the
Protestants
that
ever
I
met
with
yield
to
my
explicatory
Proposition
,
which
I
purposely
annexed
,
that
none
might
mistake
me
and
quarrell
about
words
,
viz.
[
I
hough
Christ
performed
the
conditions
of
the
Law
and
satisfied
for
our
non
performance
,
yet
it
is
our selves
that
must
perform
the
conditions
of
the
Gospel
,
]
i
.
e
.
by
the
grace
of
God
.
Who
deny
this
but
your
own
Sect
,
and
a
few
Divines
,
that
in
that
point
joyn
with
you
in
making
the
New
Covenant
to
have
no
Condition
:
who
are
but
very
few
indeed
comparatively
.
Nay
of
the
very
Libertines
,
the
first
that
I
remember
that
taught
men
when
they
doubted
of
the
truth
of
their
faith
or
repentance
,
to
comfort
themselves
with
this
perswasion
,
that
Christ
hath
believed
and
repented
for
them
,
was
Saltmarsh
;
against
whom
Mr.
Gataker
hath
told
you
more
truth
then
I
perceive
you
are
willing
to
learn
.
3.
Here
is
added
to
these
open
untruths
a
secret
calumny
:
For
you
deliver
it
in
general
terms
,
as
if
I
did
hold
that
which
Divines
commonly
call
our
Evangelicall
Righteousness
to
be
in
our selves
and
not
in
Christ
.
When
as
I
purposely
explained
my self
,
to
avoid
all
strife
about
words
,
that
as
Christs
Righteousness
is
called
Evangelical
,
because
the
Gospel
revealeth
and
giveth
it
;
so
our
righteousness
Evangelical
is
without
us
.
This
you
hide
,
to
make
the
Reader
that
seeth
but
your
words
,
to
think
that
I
hold
some
monstrous
thing
.
Be
it
known
therefore
to
you
and
all
men
,
That
I
trust
on
that
Righteousness
of
Christ
which
is
without
me
Materially
,
and
formally
consisteth
in
my
Right
to
Impunity
and
to
the
Kingdom
of
Glory
;
and
that
I
acknowledge
no
righteousness
within
me
consisting
in
faith
,
repentance
or
obedience
,
but
onely
A
particular
Righteousness
required
by
the
new
Covenant
in
meer
subordination
to
Christs
Righteousness
,
as
the
condition
on
which
it
is
made
ours
;
which
is
first
in
order
of
nature
a
meer
condition
of
our
full
righteousness
in
Christ
,
and
then
secondarily
a
particular
Righteousness
it self
,
when
the
Cause
comes
to
trial
,
Whether
we
did
perform
that
condition
or
not
?
If
you
do
not
understand
these
fews
words
,
I
intreate
you
either
to
study
them
till
you
do
,
or
else
forbear
any
more
to
reproach
that
which
you
understand
not
:
and
do
not
intimate
me
to
be
an
Infidel
,
in
denying
Christs
Righteousness
.
You
proceed
,
[
Or
(
2.
)
that
Justification
is
a
free
act
of
God
without
any
condition
on
our
part
for
the
obtaining
of
it
.
]
Rep.
This
is
in
sense
the
same
with
the
former
.
Here
also
is
more
untruths
then
one
intimated
or
expressed
(
I
confess
they
fall
so
thick
from
you
,
that
I
doubt
I
shall
be
thought
a
railer
by
your
party
,
and
too
sharp
by
others
,
for
numbring
them
to
you
,
and
desiring
you
to
repent
.
)
1.
I
onely
said
that
[
the
Antimonians
think
grace
cannot
be
free
if
there
be
any
condition
on
our
part
for
enjoying
it
.
]
But
doth
it
follow
,
that
because
I
say
,
[
the
Antinomians
say
so
]
that
therefore
I
say
[
they
are
Antinomians
who
do
say
so
.
]
The
Papists
say
,
Episcopacy
is
a
superiour
order
to
Presbyterie
:
but
[
they
are
not
therefore
Papists
that
shall
so
say
,
unless
there
be
somewhat
else
so
to
denominate
them
.
]
2.
Do
not
all
the
Learned
men
into
whose
hands
your
Book
shall
fall
,
know
that
it
is
false
,
that
the
Protestants
do
hold
the
opinion
which
I
here
call
Antinomian
?
Do
not
the
Confessions
of
the
Churches
,
and
the
generality
of
Divines
make
faith
the
condition
of
the
Covenant
,
and
yet
maintain
it
to
be
free
?
If
you
will
speak
untruths
hereafter
,
for
your
credit
sake
,
do
it
more
modestly
and
warily
,
and
open
not
your
shame
in
the
sight
of
the
world
.
It
were
no
great
wisdom
in
me
on
this
occasion
to
heap
up
the
Testimonies
of
Churches
and
Divines
,
in
a
case
so
well
known
.
You
adde
,
[
Or
else
(
3.
)
that
Justification
is
an
immanent
act
,
and
consequently
from
eternity
,
which
was
the
judgement
of
Alsted
,
Pemble
,
Twiss
,
Rutherford
,
&c.
]
Rep.
I
think
there
are
at
least
two
untruths
and
a
half
here
too
.
1.
Whether
it
were
Rutherford's
judgement
,
let
the
Reader
judge
by
what
is
written
out
of
him
before
.
2.
Of
Alsted
I
speak
as
afore
I
said
against
Colvinus
.
3.
It
is
half
true
of
Pemble
,
in
that
he
was
once
of
that
opinion
,
and
but
half
true
,
because
in
his
Treat
.
of
Iustification
he
fully
asserteth
ours
.
4.
What
are
these
four
men
to
all
the
Protestant
Writers
which
you
affirmed
I
would
bring
under
this
censure
?
You
adde
,
[
Or
(
4.
)
that
we
must
not
perform
duty
for
life
and
salvation
,
but
from
life
and
salvation
:
or
that
we
must
not
make
the
attaning
of
Justification
or
salvation
the
end
of
our
endeavours
,
but
obey
in
Thankfulness
,
and
because
we
are
justified
and
saved
.
&c.
]
Rep.
1.
In
the
place
quoted
page
14.
is
no
such
thing
in
any
of
the
four
Editions
of
that
Book
.
But
I
well
remember
the
sense
of
most
of
it
about
p.
10.
or
11.
and
that
I
largely
prove
it
in
the
Appendix
of
my
Aphor
.
2.
But
indeed
dare
you
say
,
that
all
(
or
any
)
Protestant
Writers
do
hold
this
Point
?
Now
God
forbid
!
If
they
did
,
I
profess
seriously
I
would
scarce
be
called
a
Protestant
,
if
they
held
but
that
one
Error
alone
.
Did
not
you
know
in
this
Point
,
that
not
onely
Learned
men
,
but
the
ordinary
sort
of
Christians
can
disprove
you
?
I
appeal
to
all
honest
men
,
women
and
children
of
understanding
,
that
use
to
reade
Dod
,
Bolton
,
Perkins
,
Preston
,
Hooker
,
Rogers
,
Wheatly
,
&c.
What
say
you
Sirs
?
Do
these
Writers
teach
you
that
you
must
use
no
endeavours
for
your
salvation
?
that
you
must
do
nothing
for
eternal
life
?
Nay
do
they
teach
you
that
the
very
unregenerate
must
do
nothing
to
obtain
the
life
of
grace
?
3.
Truly
I
hoped
well
in
the
beginning
that
you
had
not
been
neer
so
far
gone
your self
,
as
to
own
this
desperate
opinion
.
The
Lord
keep
you
from
practising
it
,
or
,
I
think
,
you
are
a
lost
man
.
4.
Yet
let
me
tell
you
,
that
I
further
believe
,
1.
That
thankfulness
and
Love
should
be
the
chiefest
spring
of
duty
2.
Yea
even
with
the
unregenerate
,
our
first
labour
should
be
when
we
have
convinced
them
of
sin
and
misery
,
and
the
truth
of
the
Gospel
,
to
possess
them
with
thanks
and
love
for
that
common
redemption
,
which
I
suppose
you
deny
;
I
mean
there
is
matter
in
Christs
common
love
in
his
satisfaction
,
for
us
to
plead
with
sinners
for
gratitude
(
before
assurance
of
special
love
)
though
they
have
no
hearts
to
perceive
it
to
purepose
,
till
God
open
their
hearts
by
his
Spirit
:
3.
The
principle
of
our
new
spiritual
life
is
it
that
Christians
must
act
from
,
in
their
whole
course
.
Thus
far
I
say
we
must
act
from
life
and
love
.
4.
And
also
,
from
Gods
love
antecedent
to
ours
.
You
conclude
,
Now
let
any
man
who
is
moderately
versed
in
our
Protestant
Writers
but
speak
on
whom
this
Arrow
falls
:
I
might
instance
in
many
others
,
but
I
will
not
put
the
Reader
to
so
much
trouble
.
Rep.
Now
let
any
man
who
hath
read
the
ninth
Commandment
,
and
the
words
of
Christ
,
By
their
fruits
ye
shall
know
them
,
judge
.
1.
Whether
it
be
not
his
duty
to
lament
the
sinful
state
of
this
Brother
,
and
to
pray
God
to
forgive
him
(
though
I
know
not
whether
he
will
pray
so
for
himself
.
)
2.
And
to
pitty
poor
Christians
that
shall
hear
and
reade
the
confident
words
of
such
men
,
and
have
not
means
to
discern
their
vanity
.
3.
And
judge
whether
that
be
not
a
bad
opinion
that
can
entangle
even
a
godly
man
in
such
a
course
of
sin
:
And
whether
we
ought
not
all
to
take
heed
of
believing
that
we
are
justified
before
we
were
born
,
or
that
we
ought
to
do
nothing
for
our
own
salvation
;
or
that
pardon
is
given
without
any
condition
,
so
much
as
Acceptance
.
For
my
part
I
impute
these
faults
to
the
Opinion
first
,
and
to
the
man
but
as
from
thence
.
And
it
may
be
Gods
will
to
permit
him
to
practice
according
to
the
tendency
of
his
doctrine
,
even
in
the
Book
wherein
he
maintaineth
it
,
that
those
that
cannot
understand
his
errors
in
themselves
,
may
see
them
in
their
effects
.
§.
4.
THe
next
bout
that
you
have
with
me
,
you
begin
thus
,
pag
.
29.
He
may
if
be
will
compare
his
doctrine
with
Mr.
Baxter's
notions
(
whom
Mr.
W.
follows
at
the
very
heels
)
Thes
.
56.26.73
,
&c.
in
his
Aph.
who
denies
,
That
Christs
obedience
is
the
material
,
the
imputation
of
his
Righteousness
the
formall
cause
of
our
Iustification
,
or
that
saith
is
the
instrument
by
which
we
do
receive
it
.
Rep.
What
an
unhappy
name
is
mine
to
your
mouth
,
that
is
seldom
mentioned
without
sin
!
1.
I
did
not
deny
Christs
obedience
to
be
the
material
cause
in
the
sense
as
Divines
commonly
so
called
it
;
and
therefore
not
absolutely
&
without
explication
,
as
you
recite
it
:
But
1.
As
matter
is
proper
to
substance
,
so
justification
being
an
accident
hath
no
matter
.
Are
not
you
of
the
same
minde
?
2.
As
accidents
do
inhere
in
the
subject
,
so
the
subject
is
commonly
called
their
matter
:
In
this
sense
too
our
Righteousness
or
Justification
paflive
is
not
in
Christs
Righteousness
,
but
in
our selves
,
and
so
our selves
are
the
matter
:
for
I
think
it
is
we
that
are
justified
Nor
do
I
believe
yet
that
it
is
one
act
whereby
Christ
and
we
are
justified
.
There
is
then
no
other
proper
matter
of
our
Justification
(
the
later
being
not
properly
so
called
it self
.
)
3.
But
yet
as
our
Divines
commonly
call
Christs
Righteousness
of
satisfaction
the
matter
of
ours
,
because
it
is
the
matter
that
merited
it
,
so
am
I
well
content
to
do
,
and
so
I
willingly
profess
that
our
righteousness
is
materially
out
of
us
,
in
Christs
satisfaction
:
and
therefore
I
there
said
that
they
speak
nearer
the
matter
that
call
it
[
the
matter
of
our
righteousness
]
then
they
that
call
it
the
matter
of
our
active
Iustification
.
2.
Your
next
charge
is
,
that
I
deny
Imputation
to
be
the
form
.
1.
I
both
grant
it
and
deny
it
,
as
you
understand
the
words
.
I
did
in
that
place
take
the
word
Imputation
in
one
onely
sense
,
for
Donation
,
and
so
said
,
it
was
rather
in
order
of
nature
before
Justification
,
i.e.
sentential
:
and
so
saith
many
other
.
2.
But
I
would
defire
you
and
all
men
to
take
notice
that
those
two
pag
.
218
,
219.
I
have
much
altered
,
as
finding
the
expressions
unfit
,
and
therefore
do
revoke
them
.
And
I
say
1.
That
imputation
is
taken
either
for
Donation
or
Adjudication
,
and
that
mental
,
by
meer
estimation
,
or
Judicial
by
sentence
.
2.
That
Justification
is
Constitutive
,
or
Sentential
.
And
so
I
judge
1.
That
imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
taken
for
Donation
is
the
form
of
constitutive
Justification
(
Active
Donation
of
Active
Justification
,
and
Passive
Donation
of
Passive
Justification
.
)
2.
That
sentential
adjudication
of
Christs
Righteousness
to
us
,
is
the
form
of
our
sentential
Justification
.
3.
And
that
after
the
manner
of
men
,
or
by
extrinsick
denomination
à
novitate
objecti
,
it
may
be
said
,
that
God
doth
impute
righteousness
to
us
by
mental
estimation
or
acceptation
,
or
approbation
,
when
he
looks
on
us
as
then
Righteous
and
not
before
,
and
therefore
may
be
said
then
to
begin
so
to
esteem
,
accept
or
approve
us
,
because
before
there
was
no
object
for
an
act
of
such
denomination
.
And
this
may
be
called
the
form
of
a
mental
Justification
.
So
in
all
three
senses
I
say
that
Imputation
is
the
form
of
Justification
,
but
not
one
sort
of
Imputation
the
form
of
another
sort
of
Justification
;
which
was
all
that
I
there
meant
to
deny
,
but
unfitly
expressed
my
mind
,
as
in
some
other
places
of
that
Book
,
for
which
I
have
ever
since
suppressed
it
.
3.
How
far
I
deny
faith
to
be
the
instrument
,
I
refer
the
Reader
to
my
Reply
to
Mr.
Blake
and
Mr.
Kendall
.
You
a
little
after
could
say
,
You
thought
I
argued
rationally
in
that
when
it
fitted
your
turn
.
You
add
,
He
plainly
ascribes
the
same
kind
of
Causality
to
Christ
and
faith
,
making
them
to
differ
,
Only
secundum
magis
&
minus
,
that
Christ
is
the
sine
qua
non
principalis
,
and
faith
the
sine
qua
non
minus
principalis
.
Rep.
1.
More
calumny
and
untruth
.
1.
I
said
[
Christs
satissaction
,
]
you
say
Christ
:
as
if
Christ
caused
no
other
way
but
by
satisfaction
.
2.
The
word
[
Only
]
is
your
notorious
forgery
.
3.
I
did
in
the
same
place
expresly
say
that
Christs
satisfaction
is
the
Meritorious
cause
,
and
sine
qua
non
,
in
several
respects
.
4.
It
was
only
in
sensu
physico
that
I
called
it
causa
sine
qua
non
(
and
so
do
your
best
friends
,
in
sense
)
but
a
moral
cause
,
yea
of
highest
dignity
I
asserted
it
to
be
.
5.
I
affirmed
that
faith
was
no
moral
cause
at
all
.
And
now
let
the
Reader
judge
of
your
Veracity
,
and
whether
you
recite
not
my
words
just
as
,
you
know
who
,
is
commonly
said
to
have
cited
Scripture
to
Christ
.
You
adjoyn
in
a
Parenthesis
,
[
He
might
have
listed
sin
in
the
same
rank
,
which
too
,
is
a
sine
qua
non
of
our
Justification
.
Rep.
1.
Every
thing
sine
qua
non
res
existet
,
is
not
Causa
sine
qua
non
.
Though
this
have
no
true
causality
,
yet
it
is
a
medium
ad
finem
,
and
hath
a
tendency
to
the
effect
,
by
which
it
doth
so
far
emulate
causality
,
that
it
receiveth
the
nature
.
But
who
ever
called
privation
Causam
sine
qua
non
?
and
yet
it
is
Principium
sine
quo
non
.
Sin
in
being
is
the
true
cause
of
guilt
:
and
guilt
is
the
materia
removenda
,
or
the
Terminus
à
quo
of
Justification
,
it
being
the
very
thing
that
Remission
doth
destroy
:
even
as
life
doth
death
,
or
light
darkness
.
2.
What
if
you
had
spoke
sense
in
this
?
yet
what
had
it
been
to
the
strengthning
of
your
accusation
?
Would
you
have
your
Reader
believe
that
I
make
sin
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
our
Justification
,
or
to
have
that
Dignity
in
moral
causation
which
I
ascribed
to
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
?
Next
you
say
,
That
faith
and
works
in
a
larger
sense
are
meritorious
causes
of
life
and
blessedness
.
Rep.
Another
false
witness
:
I
mentioned
merit
in
a
larger
improper
sense
:
(
as
all
Divines
that
ever
I
read
against
the
Papists
on
that
Point
do
)
but
never
called
them
a
Meritorious
cause
that
I
know
of
.
Why
would
you
print
such
things
which
you
knew
might
be
discovered
?
It
may
be
you
will
say
,
It
is
all
one
.
I
answer
,
1.
You
should
then
have
said
that
I
speak
to
that
sense
,
and
not
that
I
speak
so
:
Nay
you
should
have
put
down
my
own
words
,
and
left
the
Reader
to
judge
of
the
sense
,
and
not
put
your
own
sense
on
them
,
and
then
say
,
I
speak
so
.
2.
It
is
not
all
one
.
For
in
denying
them
to
be
properly
Merit
,
I
deny
them
to
be
any
way
causing
by
that
Merit
:
therefore
you
feign
me
to
yield
to
a
further
impropriety
then
I
did
,
or
else
to
false
doctrine
.
3.
But
will
you
go
tell
the
world
what
is
my
judgement
,
because
I
take
the
word
Merit
in
the
Fathers
in
a
larger
improper
sense
?
Christ
called
Peter
Satan
,
for
his
carnal
counsel
:
Will
you
determine
thence
that
Christ
judged
Peter
to
be
the
Devil
?
David
was
a
worm
and
no
man
in
improper
sense
:
Must
he
needs
be
lasht
by
you
for
speaking
false
doctrine
in
so
saying
?
Will
you
accuse
Christ
of
Error
for
saying
,
He
is
the
Vine
,
and
his
Father
the
Husbandman
?
He
is
the
Way
,
the
Door
,
the
Shepherd
,
&
c
?
The
word
Reward
is
oft
enough
used
in
Scripture
,
and
so
is
the
word
[
Worthy
:
]
and
yet
you
conclude
they
are
both
used
improperly
:
And
will
you
therefore
say
that
Christ
was
a
Papist
,
or
Socinian
,
or
Erroneous
,
for
using
those
words
improperly
?
Having
spoken
so
much
to
your
Head
,
let
me
say
this
to
your
Heart
:
Brother
,
you
engaged
your self
in
Baptism
to
fight
against
the
Devil
:
your
life
is
or
should
be
a
continual
combat
against
him
:
How
comes
it
to
pass
then
that
you
have
so
learned
his
accusing
art
,
when
you
should
have
learned
of
Christ
to
be
holy
,
and
to
love
your
brother
,
and
to
speak
the
truth
?
I
do
seriously
advise
you
to
repent
of
these
ways
,
and
to
be
think
you
whether
your
opinions
encourage
you
not
hereto
.
If
you
reject
this
wholsom
advice
,
take
heed
that
it
rise
not
up
against
you
in
judgement
,
and
if
you
proceed
in
such
courses
impenitently
,
take
heed
lest
those
sins
prove
unpardoned
hereafter
,
which
you
say
were
pardoned
before
you
believed
,
or
repented
,
or
were
born
.
Because
I
desire
it
may
not
be
so
,
therefore
do
I
wran
you
.
Pag
.
30.
you
say
,
Too
many
of
our
Protestants
(
setting
aside
the
word
Merit
,
which
yet
Mr.
B.
thinks
may
be
admitted
)
do
tread
directly
in
their
steps
;
they
ascribe
as
much
to
works
as
Papists
do
.
Rep.
1.
It
seems
then
other
Protestants
are
as
much
Papists
herein
as
I
,
in
sense
,
though
not
in
word
.
2.
Another
slander
you
are
guilty
of
(
I
say
Guilty
,
for
all
you
say
it
s
pardoned
before
committed
.
)
Did
ever
I
say
The
word
Merit
may
be
admitted
.
Shew
where
if
you
can
.
I
said
indeed
that
in
that
large
improper
sense
,
Works
may
be
called
Merits
,
thereby
intending
no
Moral
admission
of
it
:
but
only
a
capacity
in
the
term
,
to
signifie
such
a
thing
by
improper
use
.
But
I
never
said
that
it
is
no
sin
in
them
that
do
use
words
so
improperly
,
or
that
it
may
be
admitted
.
For
my
part
,
I
think
the
danger
is
so
great
,
that
the
very
use
of
the
word
is
to
be
avoided
by
us
,
except
in
interpretations
of
others
,
or
with
them
that
will
use
it
whether
we
will
or
not
;
and
so
we
must
speak
to
men
in
their
own
language
sometime
,
or
say
nothing
.
3.
Better
men
then
you
or
I
,
have
used
the
word
Merit
,
even
the
Church
of
Christ
,
the
Councils
and
Fathers
for
1400
years
and
more
:
And
Austin
that
most
eminently
vindicated
the
glory
of
free
grace
,
yet
never
disused
this
word
himself
.
If
I
have
sinned
therefore
but
as
all
the
Church
hath
done
so
long
,
and
in
its
spring
,
I
hope
I
am
no
Papist
.
4.
I
would
again
have
you
and
all
men
take
notice
how
these
overdoing
men
are
the
greatest
Undoers
.
How
could
this
man
credit
Popery
more
almost
then
he
doth
?
As
bad
as
I
am
(
which
is
bad
I
confess
)
yet
if
he
could
make
all
my
neighbours
believe
that
Papists
be
such
as
I
,
he
would
do
more
to
make
them
Papists
,
then
such
arguings
as
this
Book
contains
would
undo
.
And
I
think
some
R●●lers
that
now
may
be
in
the
mind
to
deny
Papists
the
liberty
of
their
Religion
,
or
at
least
of
preaching
to
others
,
would
grant
them
both
,
if
they
thought
that
the
Religion
of
Papists
were
no
worse
then
mine
?
So
the
argument
would
run
thus
;
R.B.
is
a
Papist
:
But
he
should
have
liberty
:
Therefore
Papists
should
have
liberty
.
But
yet
this
is
not
that
I
aim
at
:
But
that
he
should
place
Popery
in
a
thing
which
the
Church
hath
used
for
so
many
hundred
years
,
even
as
high
as
any
Ecclesiastical
History
or
Writing
can
give
us
light
,
is
not
this
the
way
to
make
all
turn
Papists
,
and
say
,
Hath
Christ
had
no
Church
but
Papists
so
long
?
then
we
will
be
Papists
too
:
For
sure
the
Head
had
still
a
Body
.
Well
,
when
God
will
heal
his
Churches
divisions
,
he
will
teach
men
moderation
.
§.
5.
THe
next
assault
I
meet
with
,
is
pag
.
50
,
51.
§
.
5.
Some
of
our
late
Divines
(
who
seem
to
disclaim
the
doctrine
of
the
Papists
and
Arminians
)
say
the
very
same
;
who
explain
themselves
to
this
effect
.
That
faith
doth
Justifie
as
a
Condition
,
or
Antecedent
qualification
,
by
which
we
are
made
capable
of
being
Justified
,
according
to
the
order
and
Constitution
of
God
:
The
sulfilling
of
which
Condition
say
they
is
our
Evangelical
Righteousness
,
whereby
we
are
Justified
in
the
sight
of
God
.
Mr.
Baxter
is
so
fond
of
this
notion
,
that
although
in
one
place
he
finds
fault
with
the
length
of
our
Creeds
and
Confessions
,
yet
he
would
have
this
made
an
Article
of
the
Creed
,
a
part
of
our
Childrens
Catechisms
,
and
to
be
believed
by
every
man
that
is
a
Christian
,
so
apt
are
we
to
smile
upon
our
own
babes
.
Rep.
More
of
the
old
language
still
:
1.
Is
this
the
very
same
as
the
Papists
and
Arminians
hold
,
which
you
say
it
is
the
very
same
with
,
viz.
That
God
for
Christs
sake
accounts
our
imperfect
saith
,
to
be
perfect
Righteousness
?
You
know
they
take
not
perfect
Righteousness
for
Righteousness
only
that
hath
a
formal
Metaphysical
perfection
of
Entity
as
I
do
.
You
say
Their
opinion
is
,
that
God
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
requires
saith
,
which
in
his
gracious
Acceptation
stands
in
stead
of
that
obedience
to
the
Moral
Law
which
we
ought
to
perform
.
But
I
say
that
Christs
satisfaction
is
instead
of
that
obedience
,
in
that
it
is
instead
of
our
suffering
for
disobedience
.
You
credit
the
Papists
and
Arminians
still
,
if
you
can
prove
that
their
opinion
is
the
very
same
with
this
.
Do
they
renounce
Merit
?
and
do
not
our
Divines
generally
make
that
the
point
of
our
difference
about
Justification
by
Works
?
viz.
Whether
the
merit
of
Good
Works
Justifie
?
which
I
heartily
and
constantly
deny
.
2.
I
have
told
you
before
,
that
I
say
,
that
we
are
no
otherwise
Justified
by
the
Evangelical
Righteousness
in
question
,
then
in
necessary
subordination
to
Christs
own
Righteousness
,
as
the
Condition
of
our
Legal
title
to
it
,
of
his
own
appointing
.
This
you
conceal
.
3.
It
is
another
fiction
,
that
it
is
this
Notion
that
I
would
have
an
Article
of
the
Creed
(
if
you
mean
the
Notiones
secundae
,
yea
or
the
primae
directly
.
)
For
I
told
you
that
I
spoke
of
the
Matter
and
not
the
phrase
:
It
is
the
substance
of
the
doctrine
,
viz.
That
we
must
believe
our selves
,
and
not
think
we
may
be
excused
,
as
having
a
Saviour
that
hath
believed
in
himself
for
us
.
4.
For
my
part
as
I
am
confident
it
is
implied
in
the
Creed
,
so
it
shall
be
my
Creed
while
I
breath
,
by
the
grace
of
God
.
And
I
think
Christ
put
it
into
the
Creed
if
ever
he
made
a
Creed
:
sure
it
is
the
summ
or
principal
heads
of
the
Gospel
which
he
sent
his
Disciples
to
preach
to
the
world
,
and
I
think
that
is
part
of
the
Creed
:
and
what
that
was
is
evident
,
Mar.
16.16
.
He
that
Believeth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
,
and
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
.
And
it
was
the
Creed
that
was
taught
them
before
baptism
:
and
that
was
,
Repent
and
believe
for
remission
of
sins
.
You
add
,
Though
I
honor
Mr.
Baxter
for
his
excellent
parts
,
yet
I
must
suspend
my
Assent
to
his
new
Creed
.
Rep.
1.
No
newer
then
the
Scripture
,
nay
elder
then
Scripture
,
for
it
is
as
old
as
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
2.
I
had
rather
be
without
your
Honor
,
then
you
should
be
without
the
Truth
:
not
that
I
much
care
whether
you
be
of
my
opinion
,
as
such
;
but
that
I
care
for
your
salvation
.
But
my
hope
is
,
that
though
you
take
not
faith
to
be
a
Condition
of
Salvation
,
yet
you
do
Believe
on
other
Grounds
;
and
if
you
have
that
which
is
the
condition
,
I
doubt
not
but
you
may
be
saved
,
though
you
know
it
not
to
be
the
condition
:
And
if
you
think
you
may
not
Endeavor
for
salvation
,
yet
if
you
do
endeavor
it
,
and
act
for
it
while
you
say
the
contrary
that
it
may
not
be
done
,
I
doubt
not
of
your
safety
,
because
you
hold
that
Practically
which
you
deny
speculatively
.
But
I
must
tell
you
,
that
he
that
thinks
,
though
but
speculatively
,
that
he
ought
not
to
do
it
,
is
in
great
danger
of
being
drawn
to
omit
it
.
You
proceed
,
I
shall
prove
anon
that
faith
is
not
said
to
Justifie
as
an
Antecedent
Condition
,
which
qualifies
us
for
Justification
:
but
at
present
I
shall
only
render
him
the
reasons
of
my
disbelief
,
why
I
cannot
look
upon
faith
as
that
Evangelical
Righteousness
,
by
which
we
are
Justified
.
I
shall
not
insist
upon
it
,
though
it
be
not
altogether
unconsiderable
,
that
this
notion
is
Guilty
of
too
much
confederacy
with
the
forenamed
enemies
of
the
Christian
faith
:
For
though
it
is
no
good
argument
to
say
,
that
Papists
,
Socinians
,
&c.
do
hold
this
or
that
,
therefore
it
is
not
true
;
yet
it
will
follow
that
such
and
such
Tenets
have
been
held
by
Papists
,
&c.
and
unanimously
opposed
by
our
Protestant
writers
;
therefore
they
ought
to
be
the
more
suspected
,
and
especially
such
tenets
of
theirs
,
as
have
been
the
chief
points
in
difference
between
us
and
them
,
as
this
is
.
Rep.
1.
I
shall
as
readily
suspect
such
points
as
bear
your
description
,
as
you
.
2.
It
is
untrue
that
this
is
such
,
quoad
terminos
,
much
more
quoad
sensum
.
All
our
Divines
maintain
an
Inherent
Righteousness
,
and
in
the
same
sense
as
they
(
so
far
as
I
understand
them
of
chief
note
)
do
deny
them
to
justifie
us
,
I
deny
it
too
.
You
add
,
Our
Brethren
that
have
started
this
Notion
,
do
take
faith
as
the
others
do
,
in
a
proper
sense
,
they
attribute
as
much
to
the
{αβγδ}
credere
,
as
Bellarmine
,
Arminius
,
or
any
other
.
Faith
it self
(
saith
Mr.
B.
)
is
our
Righteousness
:
There
was
never
any
Papist
so
absurd
as
to
say
,
that
our
Faith
,
Love
,
&c.
are
perfect
legal
Righteousness
;
but
that
God
judicio
misericordiae
,
non
justitiae
,
doth
account
and
accept
of
it
instead
of
perfect
righteousness
.
For
my
part
I
must
confess
that
I
can
see
no
difference
between
them
but
in
expressions
.
The
Papists
do
acknowledge
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
,
and
that
he
is
the
meritorious
Cause
of
our
Justification
.
They
say
indeed
that
we
are
not
Justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
Imputed
,
but
by
a
Righteousness
inherent
in
us
,
or
righteous
actions
performed
by
us
.
And
what
do
our
Brethren
say
less
then
this
?
But
I
shall
follow
this
parallel
no
further
.
Rep.
1.
What
do
they
say
less
then
this
,
who
maintain
Imputed
Righteousness
,
viz.
less
then
those
that
deny
it
?
I
'le
put
another
question
upon
this
of
yours
:
Whether
a
Question
can
be
false
?
A
Logician
will
say
,
It
cannot
be
false
;
and
yet
a
Divine
will
say
,
It
may
be
mendacium
;
and
yet
both
say
true
:
Is
not
that
strange
!
2.
I
desire
the
Reader
to
excuse
me
from
the
trouble
of
enumerating
all
the
untruths
in
these
lines
(
for
I
am
aweary
of
that
work
,
and
it
s
to
little
profit
,
)
and
to
expect
my
full
satisfaction
to
this
Parallel
,
in
my
Reply
to
Mr.
Crandon
(
if
God
will
,
)
where
I
shall
shew
him
whether
I
be
a
Papist
or
an
Arminian
;
and
whether
his
tongue
and
his
brothers
be
any
slander
.
You
proceed
§
.
6.
The
Reasons
which
turn
the
scales
of
my
judgement
against
this
Notion
,
that
our
faith
or
faithful
actions
,
are
that
Evangelicall
Righteousness
,
by
which
we
are
justified
,
Are
.
Rep.
Before
I
weigh
your
Reasons
,
I
will
do
the
Reader
that
favour
which
you
deny
him
,
viz.
To
let
him
know
a
little
better
the
state
of
the
Question
,
and
what
it
is
that
I
maintain
.
Understand
therefore
Reader
,
that
I
hold
these
conclusions
(
which
I
shall
fullier
open
,
God
willing
,
in
Reply
to
Mr.
Crandon
.
)
1.
That
Gods
universal
Law
of
Nature
requireth
of
us
perfect
Obedience
,
on
Pain
of
eternall
death
if
we
perform
it
not
.
2.
We
all
sinned
,
and
so
were
liable
to
that
Death
.
3.
Christ
became
the
Mediator
,
and
stept
between
us
and
the
ful
execution
,
and
took
the
penalty
upon
himself
,
and
be
came
a
sacrifice
to
offended
Justice
,
and
a
Ransom
for
the
sinners
.
4.
Upon
this
he
acquired
Novum
Jus
Dominii
&
Novum
Jus
Imperii
over
all
men
;
being
now
the
Soveraign
of
the
world
as
Redeemer
,
as
superadded
to
the
former
Dominion
and
Soveraignty
which
the
Father
,
Son
and
holy
Ghost
had
as
Creator
.
5.
As
Christ
the
Anointed
and
Soveraign
Redeemer
,
he
made
Legom
Remediantem
,
An
Act
of
Oblivion
,
A
new
Law
,
viz.
A
Law
of
Grace
;
thereby
granting
free
pardon
,
Justification
,
Adoption
,
and
right
to
Glory
to
all
that
will
sincerely
Repent
and
Believe
in
him
;
and
Peremptorily
Concluding
those
to
everlasting
death
that
will
not
.
6.
This
Repenting
and
Believing
is
nothing
but
Assenting
so
heartily
to
the
Truth
of
the
Gospel
,
as
thereupon
to
accept
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
and
life
in
him
,
as
he
is
offered
,
viz.
As
a
pardoner
by
Grateful
Consent
and
Confidence
,
as
Good
to
us
,
by
Love
;
as
Soveraign
,
by
giving
up
our selves
to
him
for
guidance
,
and
to
take
him
for
the
Physitian
of
our
souls
,
to
rest
on
him
,
and
apply
his
sharpest
plaisters
,
and
take
his
bitterest
medicines
,
and
which
are
most
ungrateful
to
flesh
and
blood
(
and
not
to
be
lieve
that
the
cure
is
done
already
:
)
and
,
as
a
free
gift
we
must
accept
this
Grace
,
with
confession
of
our
own
utter
undeserving
,
and
our
desert
of
eternal
wrath
,
and
therefore
with
Repentance
to
the
glory
of
him
that
freely
saveth
us
:
and
lastly
,
as
he
is
the
Purchaser
,
Giver
,
and
Conductor
to
the
unseen
everlasting
glory
,
which
is
the
great
End
for
which
we
do
receive
him
;
without
respect
to
which
End
,
saith
were
no
saving
faith
.
6.
Remission
and
Justification
by
Christs
Satisfaction
and
Merit
,
being
given
us
by
a
New
Law
,
which
hath
its
Precepts
and
Penalty
,
we
are
obliged
by
this
Law
to
perform
these
Conditions
,
and
shall
be
judged
by
this
Law
,
whether
we
have
performed
them
or
no
.
In
which
judgment
,
he
that
is
accused
not
to
have
performed
them
,
i.e.
to
be
an
unbeliever
and
rebel
against
the
Lord
Redeemer
,
must
plead
his
own
actual
performance
,
and
deny
the
accusation
.
And
therefore
that
performance
is
the
Justitia
Causae
,
the
righteousness
of
that
his
cause
,
and
of
his
person
so
far
.
7.
In
respect
to
this
personal
New
Covenant
righteousness
,
the
Scripture
doth
twenty
times
,
if
not
twenty
more
,
call
men
righteous
:
yea
even
in
the
description
of
the
Iudgement
,
Mat
.
25.
last
.
8.
As
this
new
Law
is
but
Lex
particularis
Remedians
,
properly
subordinate
to
the
Law
of
Nature
,
so
this
personal
righteousness
,
is
not
our
Justitia
universalis
,
but
a
particular
righteousness
,
subordinate
to
the
righteousness
of
the
Lord
Iesus
.
9.
There
being
therefore
a
twofold
Iustification
or
righteousness
,
principal
and
subordinate
,
one
which
answers
the
Law
of
nature
,
the
other
which
answers
the
false
charge
of
not
performing
the
condition
of
the
Law
of
Grace
;
one
in
Christs
Satisfaction
and
Merit
,
the
other
in
our
faith
and
repentance
;
one
consisting
in
the
Pardon
of
all
our
sin
and
the
right
to
Impunity
and
the
Kingdom
,
the
other
in
our
having
the
true
condition
of
pardon
and
right
;
It
follows
,
that
when
the
question
is
of
Justification
in
the
first
sense
,
and
of
the
matter
(
as
we
call
it
)
of
that
Iustification
,
i.e.
the
thing
for
which
we
are
justified
meritoriously
,
that
we
must
then
conclude
that
it
is
onely
Christs
righteousness
that
is
our
Iustification
or
our
righteousness
;
and
that
faith
or
repentance
is
not
the
least
part
of
it
:
But
if
the
Question
be
only
of
the
meer
subordinate
righteousness
and
Iustification
,
then
we
must
say
that
our
own
faith
and
repentance
,
&
not
Christs
satisfaction
is
that
righteousness
:
For
it
is
a
debasing
of
Christs
righteousness
,
to
bring
it
so
low
;
and
it
is
no
other
exalting
of
faith
then
God
hath
in
his
Covenant
exalted
it
,
to
raise
it
so
high
,
as
to
be
thus
subordinate
to
Christs
righteousness
,
that
it
may
become
ours
.
10.
In
regard
of
the
first
great
Iustification
of
a
sinner
,
consisting
in
remission
of
sin
(
constitutive
)
and
sentential
absolving
him
from
guilt
,
Faith
or
any
work
of
mans
is
but
the
condition
sine
qua
non
,
and
not
the
least
part
of
that
righteousness
(
as
is
said
.
)
But
in
regard
of
that
subordinate
Iustification
which
is
but
a
means
to
the
former
,
faith
and
repentance
are
our
righteousness
it self
,
so
that
faith
is
first
in
order
of
nature
but
a
condition
;
but
secondarily
,
when
the
case
at
Iudgements
,
Whether
we
have
performed
that
condition
or
not
,
then
consequentially
it
is
our
subordinate
particular
Righteousness
.
11.
No
man
can
perform
this
condition
without
Gods
special
grace
.
12.
It
was
the
intent
and
absolute
Will
,
yea
and
undertaking
of
Christ
dying
,
to
cause
all
the
Elect
of
God
infallibly
to
perform
this
condition
.
Thus
Reader
I
have
anticipated
some
part
of
what
I
intended
to
say
in
my
Answer
to
Mr.
Crandon
,
as
being
unwilling
to
delay
thy
information
,
or
be
guilty
of
the
continuance
of
thy
prejudice
against
the
truth
.
I
confess
I
have
lately
received
Animadversions
from
Learned
men
,
against
the
thing
here
laid
down
,
viz
a
personal
Righteousness
;
but
Gods
Word
is
so
plain
,
and
mens
reasons
against
it
in
my
eyes
so
weak
,
that
I
am
more
then
ever
confirmed
in
it
.
I
equally
hate
vain
distinction
and
confusion
:
But
to
distinguish
between
the
Law
of
nature
&
the
Law
of
grace
,
between
Christs
Righteousness
imputed
,
and
the
condition
of
Imputation
,
and
so
between
our
primary
Righteousness
&
our
subordinate
Righteousness
,
I
think
are
no
vain
distinctions
.
Let
's
make
it
plain
by
a
similitude
.
In
a
time
of
Rebellion
,
upon
the
Princes
intercession
and
satisfaction
,
An
Act
of
grace
is
granted
,
that
whoever
will
acknowledge
the
Princes
favour
and
the
Kings
,
and
Accept
a
pardon
,
shall
be
forgiven
,
and
shall
not
die
.
Is
it
not
one
thing
here
to
accuse
a
man
as
a
Traytor
,
and
another
thing
to
accuse
him
of
not
accepting
the
pardon
?
and
are
not
these
two
causes
referring
to
two
Laws
?
yet
one
subordinate
to
the
other
,
and
not
coordinate
.
When
he
is
accused
of
Treason
,
he
is
justified
by
the
Act
of
Grace
:
and
this
is
his
Titulus
ad
Liberationem
.
But
when
it
is
but
one
Traytor
of
many
that
accepteth
the
Act
of
Grace
,
and
he
is
accused
of
non-acceptance
,
and
the
case
to
be
decided
falls
to
be
this
.
Whether
the
Act
of
Grace
give
that
man
any
Right
to
impunity
?
then
because
it
was
a
conditional
Act
,
he
must
be
here
justified
by
pleading
that
he
did
perform
the
condition
.
And
so
that
justification
which
is
but
subordinate
,
and
in
order
of
dignity
but
secondary
,
as
a
means
to
the
former
,
is
yet
in
order
of
Plea
at
Judgement
to
go
before
it
,
as
the
means
must
be
before
the
end
.
If
thou
be
unprejudiced
,
Reader
,
and
lovest
the
truth
,
I
should
think
that
I
need
not
say
much
to
Mr.
Eyres
Arguments
,
having
given
thee
in
these
Conclusions
,
so
clear
a
ground
of
answering
them
all
;
But
I
shall
briefly
take
an
account
of
them
,
and
so
return
to
Mr.
Eyre
:
Who
thus
begins
.
1.
If
we
are
not
justified
by
our
own
works
,
then
our
believing
,
&c.
is
not
that
Evangelical
righteousness
by
which
we
are
justified
:
But
we
are
not
Justified
by
our
own
works
:
Therefore
.
Rep.
Distinguish
of
works
,
and
distinguish
of
justifying
.
1.
That
Iustification
which
consisteth
in
Remission
of
sin
,
is
not
in
our
own
faith
;
but
that
which
consisteth
in
performing
the
condition
of
Remission
is
.
2.
Works
are
taken
either
as
Paul
doth
(
which
he
describeth
Rom.
4.4
.
Which
make
the
Reward
to
be
not
of
grace
but
of
debt
:
Or
as
James
doth
,
in
necessary
subordination
to
Christ
.
In
the
former
sense
I
deny
your
consequence
;
In
the
later
sense
I
deny
your
minor
or
Antecedent
.
And
if
you
say
that
Paul
supposeth
that
all
works
do
make
the
reward
to
be
of
debt
;
I
answer
,
1.
Then
James
saith
we
are
justified
by
impossibility
,
or
by
unlawfull
ways
.
The
works
that
James
mentions
are
possible
and
lawfull
:
works
that
make
the
reward
to
be
of
debt
are
impossible
,
and
the
attempt
of
such
unlawfull
:
Therefore
there
are
some
works
which
do
not
make
the
reward
to
be
of
debt
.
2.
The
same
Paul
that
saith
we
are
justified
by
Christ
,
saith
oft
enough
that
we
are
justified
by
faith
,
and
that
faith
is
and
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
Righteousness
.
2.
Paul
takes
works
for
Meritorious
actions
deserving
wages
.
Faith
is
no
such
work
;
therefore
on
that
ground
still
I
deny
your
consequence
.
3.
You
must
distinguish
of
the
word
[
by
]
when
you
say
,
We
are
,
or
are
not
justified
by
faith
.
It
s
one
thing
to
be
justified
by
faith
,
as
the
matter
of
our
Righteousness
.
So
we
deny
it
,
as
to
our
great
principal
Iustification
.
And
it
s
another
thing
to
be
justified
by
faith
as
a
meerly
subordinate
condition
sine
qua
non
:
and
so
Paul
still
includeth
it
as
plain
as
a
man
can
speak
.
Still
saying
,
We
are
justified
by
faith
.
This
answers
fully
the
Texts
cited
by
you
:
and
is
another
answer
then
that
of
the
Papists
to
which
you
here
Reply
.
Yet
to
your
answers
to
the
last
,
(
that
Others
say
,
It
is
not
works
of
the
Law
,
but
Gospel
.
)
I
must
give
you
these
brief
Notes
(
supposing
that
the
words
you
answer
are
none
of
mine
till
better
explained
,
limited
and
reformed
.
)
To
your
first
,
I
say
,
distinguit
Lex
.
Paul
and
James
else
will
hardly
be
reconciled
.
Yea
Paul
himself
distinguisheth
,
by
punctual
expressing
the
works
of
the
Law
,
or
telling
you
he
means
only
works
that
make
the
reward
to
be
not
of
grace
but
of
debt
;
and
taking
in
faith
as
that
by
which
we
are
justified
.
To
your
second
,
you
speak
very
darkly
and
dangerously
:
and
against
you
I
return
.
If
Paul
exclude
all
Debt
which
follows
upon
promise
,
then
he
excludes
all
that
follows
upon
an
absolute
promise
,
as
well
as
upon
a
conditional
:
But
the
Consequent
is
false
,
therefore
so
is
the
Antecedent
.
The
reason
of
the
Consequence
is
clear
.
Either
you
mean
that
this
is
from
the
promise
,
as
a
promise
,
or
else
from
the
promise
as
conditional
.
If
the
former
,
then
it
follows
an
absolute
promise
as
much
as
a
conditional
;
and
then
you
must
deny
all
Gods
promises
,
and
then
you
will
be
against
the
Gospel
indeed
.
If
the
later
,
then
I
say
,
That
the
promise
qua
conditional
,
gives
no
right
;
distinguish
of
conditions
:
Some
are
of
such
value
as
to
be
Meritorious
:
these
cause
the
debt
by
Merit
:
Others
have
no
meriting
value
(
as
the
acceptance
of
a
free
gift
:
)
these
are
no
causes
so
much
as
Moral
,
but
meer
conditions
.
And
whoever
knows
what
a
condition
in
Law-sense
is
,
knows
that
as
such
,
it
only
suspends
the
act
of
a
Testament
or
other
gift
,
till
it
be
performed
,
but
doth
not
cause
it
,
when
it
is
performed
.
To
your
third
,
it
is
answered
already
.
To
your
fourth
,
see
my
answer
to
Mr
Blake
.
Also
,
The
Gospel
is
a
subordinate
Law
,
and
the
matter
of
its
precept
is
taken
out
of
the
general
Law
of
nature
:
but
informed
with
a
new
promise
.
Adams
body
was
earth
;
but
yet
to
be
distinguished
from
common
earth
,
and
worthy
of
another
name
,
when
it
was
informed
with
a
new
from
,
even
his
soul
.
I
doubt
you
will
not
apprehend
well
what
these
short
expressions
contain
,
unless
you
will
please
to
consider
and
digest
them
.
To
your
fifth
Paulus
Burgensis
,
a
Christian
Iew
,
on
Jam
.
add
.
ad
Lyrani
Annot
.
tels
us
that
his
Countreymens
opinion
was
,
that
God
denominated
a
man
righteous
or
wicked
according
to
the
greater
part
of
his
works
.
If
he
had
more
good
works
then
bad
,
he
was
righteous
:
else
not
.
The
Iews
did
not
think
to
be
justified
by
perfect
unsinning
obedience
:
for
they
were
to
confess
sin
,
and
sacrifice
for
it
.
But
they
thought
that
their
sacrifices
themselves
and
their
good
works
might
so
procure
the
pardon
of
their
sins
,
or
prevail
against
their
evil
works
,
that
they
looked
not
for
Righteousness
to
Christ
the
end
of
the
Law
.
This
is
the
justification
by
works
which
Paul
argues
against
directly
;
and
only
consequentially
à
fortiore
we
may
gather
it
,
as
of
perfect
obedience
,
which
is
to
us
impossible
,
as
it
may
be
supposed
to
justifie
us
from
the
charge
of
being
sinners
.
Yet
because
their
obedience
was
not
perfect
,
Paul
might
well
convince
them
that
it
could
not
justifie
when
they
erred
in
thinking
,
that
imperfect
obedience
,
by
the
help
of
sacrifices
,
might
justifie
.
2.
Your
second
Argument
is
this
,
2.
If
the
righteousness
whereby
we
are
Justified
be
a
perfect
Righteousness
,
then
we
are
not
Justified
by
our
obedience
to
Gospel-precepts
:
But
,
&c.
Therefore
.
This
is
answered
in
the
former
,
by
the
same
distinctions
.
The
righteousness
whereby
we
are
justified
as
by
the
Matter
,
or
Meritorious
cause
,
is
perfect
:
and
therefore
faith
or
obedience
is
not
such
.
But
the
righteousness
whereby
we
are
justified
as
a
meer
condition
,
and
consequentially
a
righteousness
subordinate
to
the
former
,
is
not
perfect
;
and
therefore
of
this
your
consequence
fails
.
All
your
following
words
therefore
to
this
,
are
meerly
beside
the
Point
,
and
vain
.
I
never
doubted
of
that
,
Whether
any
imperfect
thing
can
be
our
universal
grand
righteousness
?
no
doubt
it
cannot
:
But
you
should
prove
that
it
cannot
be
a
subordinate
conditional
particular
Righteousness
.
You
do
here
confess
that
our
Protestant
Divines
do
call
inherent
Holiness
,
Evangelical
righteousness
:
Very
good
:
I
desire
no
more
then
those
words
contain
:
Yet
I
pray
you
confess
that
the
Scripture
commonly
cals
it
so
before
them
.
1
Certainly
justum
fieri
&
justificari
,
as
to
constitutive
justification
is
all
one
.
He
therefore
that
is
righteous
is
doubtless
justified
constitutivè
.
And
doubtless
to
be
sentenced
just
,
and
to
be
justified
by
sentence
,
is
all
one
.
And
he
that
is
first
just
by
constitution
,
must
needs
be
justified
by
sentence
.
But
then
all
this
is
but
in
tantum
:
so
far
as
he
is
just
,
so
far
he
is
undoubtedly
justificatus
constitutivè
,
&
justificandus
per
sententiam
;
and
(
as
I
said
before
)
is
it
not
as
strange
a
righteousness
which
makes
not
a
man
righteous
in
tantum
,
(
I
speak
of
a
formal
Making
)
as
a
Whiteness
that
makes
not
white
,
or
a
Paternitas
that
makes
not
Patrem
?
2.
Do
not
all
men
know
that
(
as
Mr.
Bradshaw
saith
)
a
very
Reprobate
may
have
some
particular
righteousness
?
If
you
accuse
Judas
of
killing
the
man
that
was
slain
yesterday
,
he
is
righteous
as
to
this
cause
.
Why
then
should
you
think
the
name
of
Righteousness
so
intollerable
,
when
applied
to
faith
and
obedience
.
O
but
(
saith
a
Learned
man
to
me
)
then
you
ascribe
but
such
a
kind
of
righteousness
to
faith
and
obedience
,
as
a
Reprobate
may
have
?
that
's
a
fair
advancement
to
faith
.
Ans.
1.
Methinks
then
you
should
not
say
I
am
a
Papist
,
and
give
too
much
to
faith
?
2.
But
consider
,
though
both
may
have
a
justitiam
particularem
,
yet
to
one
it
is
in
a
case
of
no
advantage
to
him
:
but
in
the
other
it
is
a
condition
of
his
eternal
felicity
,
and
so
made
by
the
Law
of
God
.
When
salvation
lies
on
one
as
a
condition
,
and
not
on
the
other
,
I
think
there
is
much
difference
.
Now
to
your
third
Argument
,
where
you
say
,
If
the
righteousness
whereby
we
are
justified
,
be
the
righteousness
of
God
,
then
we
are
not
justified
by
our
obedience
to
Gospel-precepts
:
But
,
&c.
Therefore
.
Rep.
All
is
of
Gods
gift
.
But
in
your
sense
I
say
,
Our
subordinate
particular
conditional
Righteousness
,
is
not
the
Righteousness
performed
by
God
without
us
:
The
word
[
by
]
therefore
,
and
[
Justified
]
and
[
Righteousness
]
must
be
distinguished
as
before
.
All
the
rest
of
your
words
on
this
need
no
other
answer
,
and
I
desire
not
to
tire
the
Reader
.
The
righteousness
mentioned
Mat
.
25.
was
personal
:
so
was
that
which
James
speaks
of
when
he
saith
,
We
are
Justified
by
works
:
and
that
which
John
mentions
,
when
he
saith
,
He
that
doth
Righteousness
is
Righteous
,
and
fourty
more
.
Your
fourth
Argument
is
this
,
If
we
are
not
Justified
by
two
righteousnesses
,
existing
in
two
distinct
subjects
,
then
our
obedience
to
Gospel-precepts
is
not
that
righteousness
whereby
we
are
Justified
:
But
,
&c.
Therefore
.
Rep.
1.
To
the
Antecedent
I
say
,
of
two
coordinate
righteousnesses
it
is
true
;
but
of
two
,
whereof
one
is
coordinate
and
the
other
subordinate
,
it
is
false
,
that
there
is
not
two
.
2.
But
formally
they
are
both
in
one
subject
:
for
it
is
We
that
are
Righteous
by
Christs
Righteousness
:
that
is
,
by
that
which
is
Christs
materially
,
and
in
another
numerical
form
;
for
surely
one
accident
is
not
in
two
subjects
.
But
I
say
,
materially
one
is
in
Christ
,
and
the
other
in
us
.
And
here
I
remember
an
odd
passage
that
you
have
,
pag
.
7.
which
I
shall
recite
.
It
doth
not
follow
that
Christs
Righteousness
cannot
be
imputed
to
us
,
before
we
have
an
actual
created
being
,
because
Accidents
cannot
subsist
without
their
subjects
:
for
as
much
as
imputed
righteousness
is
not
an
accident
inherent
in
us
,
and
consequently
doth
not
necessarily
require
our
existence
.
Christ
is
the
subject
of
this
Righteousness
,
and
the
imputation
of
it
as
an
act
of
God
.
Rep.
Hear
all
you
that
have
been
seduced
by
Mr.
Eyre
to
believe
that
man
was
justified
before
he
was
born
:
Here
he
explaineth
his
mind
to
you
.
He
said
[
man
]
but
he
meant
[
Christ
.
]
If
it
be
not
we
but
Christ
that
is
the
subject
,
then
doubtless
it
is
not
we
but
Christ
that
hath
the
accident
,
and
that
is
to
be
denominated
by
it
:
And
then
it
is
Christ
that
was
righteous
before
we
were
born
,
and
not
we
.
Or
else
Christ
makes
us
righteous
,
and
yet
we
are
not
righteous
,
or
we
are
righteous
and
not
righteous
at
once
(
even
when
we
are
not
men
)
and
that
in
respect
of
the
same
righteousness
.
When
I
read
such
passages
as
these
,
I
understand
the
meaning
of
your
Patrons
,
that
wonder
men
should
seek
to
bring
Gods
Truths
down
to
the
reason
of
man
:
i.e.
we
must
become
bruits
that
we
may
become
Christians
(
a
horrid
thing
to
speak
;
)
and
we
must
put
out
the
eye
of
reason
,
that
we
may
see
with
faith
,
which
is
the
only
supernatural
elevation
of
reason
.
But
you
have
an
Argument
pag
.
57.
to
prove
the
assumption
of
your
last
viz.
If
by
Christs
Righteousness
alone
we
are
made
perfectly
Just
and
Righteous
in
the
sight
of
God
,
then
there
is
no
other
Righteousness
which
concurrs
with
his
to
our
Justification
:
For
what
needs
an
addition
to
that
which
is
perfect
?
But
,
&c.
Therefore
.
All
is
granted
,
if
you
speak
of
the
matter
or
form
of
our
principal
Righteousness
;
The
Addition
of
a
Condition
is
through
no
defect
or
imperfection
in
it
:
but
God
hath
made
it
necessary
to
our
participation
of
that
which
was
not
done
by
our selves
,
but
by
another
.
It
is
not
true
that
we
are
made
righteous
by
Christs
Righteousness
,
till
the
condition
be
performed
:
but
when
it
is
performed
,
we
are
justified
perfectly
by
Christs
Righteousness
alone
,
as
to
the
principal
general
Justification
;
the
condition
performed
being
but
a
subservient
particular
righteousness
.
I
would
you
would
well
consider
,
that
Christ
died
to
pardon
nothing
but
our
sins
,
and
that
he
that
hath
nothing
but
sin
,
is
not
pardoned
.
You
add
,
If
we
be
Justified
partly
by
Christs
Righteousness
,
and
partly
by
our
own
,
then
our
saith
for
Justification
must
rely
partly
upon
Christs
Righteousness
,
and
partly
upon
our selves
:
But
,
&c.
Therefore
.
Rep.
I
deny
the
Consequence
.
It
is
the
relying
on
Christ
that
is
our
subordinate
righteousness
it self
:
and
therefore
is
such
,
because
it
is
made
the
condition
of
our
part
in
Christ
:
They
are
not
coordinate
,
nor
is
faith
our
principal
Righteousness
,
but
of
a
lower
sort
.
God
hath
said
,
that
if
by
faith
we
receive
Christ
,
we
shall
be
justified
,
and
our
faith
shall
be
imputed
to
us
for
righteousness
:
but
he
hath
never
said
,
If
we
will
rest
on
our
own
faith
,
we
shall
be
righteous
:
For
then
resting
on
that
faith
would
be
a
third
sort
of
righteousness
,
subordinate
to
faith
it self
.
These
be
but
raw
fancies
.
Your
fifth
Argument
is
,
That
which
over
throws
the
main
difference
between
the
Law
and
the
Gospel
,
ought
not
to
be
admitted
:
for
the
confounding
them
will
open
an
inlet
to
innumerable
errors
;
nay
by
this
means
the
Gospel
it self
will
become
a
meer
Cypher
,
&c.
But
the
making
our
obedience
to
Gospel-Precepts
the
Righteousness
whereby
we
are
Justified
,
overthrows
the
main
difference
between
the
Law
and
the
Gospel
:
Therefore
.
For
herein
stands
the
chief
agreement
and
difference
between
the
Law
and
Gospel
:
They
agree
in
this
,
That
to
Justification
both
do
require
the
perfect
fulfilling
of
the
Law
:
But
herein
they
differ
,
That
the
Law
requireth
to
Justification
,
a
Righteousness
inherent
in
us
,
and
perfect
obedience
to
be
performed
in
our
own
persons
:
The
Gospel
reveals
for
our
Justification
the
perfect
righteousness
of
another
,
even
of
Christ
,
which
is
accepted
in
their
behalf
that
do
believe
in
him
,
&c.
Rep.
These
words
which
you
cite
out
of
Bishop
Downham
,
say
as
I
say
in
full
sense
;
and
say
nothing
to
confirm
your
minor
,
which
I
deny
,
if
you
speak
but
of
a
subordinate
particular
righteousness
:
else
I
grant
all
.
Do
I
say
that
we
are
justified
by
perfect
obedience
,
which
Downham
speaks
of
?
yea
or
by
any
in
coordination
with
Christ
?
If
you
understood
the
difference
your self
between
the
Law
and
Gospel
,
you
would
correct
all
these
errors
,
and
be
a
wiser
man
then
I
think
either
you
or
I
are
now
.
I
pray
you
do
me
the
favor
as
to
consult
but
Mr.
Pemble
of
justification
,
in
the
place
cited
even
now
(
seeing
you
suppose
him
to
be
your
own
,
but
it
seems
disclaimed
you
a
little
before
he
went
to
heaven
)
and
see
how
he
differenceth
the
Law
and
the
Gospel
.
You
say
,
A
defect
in
degrees
is
a
sin
against
the
Gospel
,
&c.
Rep.
It
is
not
a
non-performance
of
the
Gospel
condition
,
and
then
it
is
no
hinderance
to
our
Justification
by
it
.
Some
Learned
men
have
much
boasted
of
that
Argument
[
Obedience
is
it self
imperfect
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
the
condition
of
our
Justification
(
as
consummate
at
Judgement
,
or
continued
)
for
then
what
shall
pardon
the
defects
of
it
.
]
As
if
imperfect
obedience
might
not
be
the
condition
of
the
pardon
of
its
own
imperfections
(
subordinate
to
faith
,
as
is
said
:
)
May
not
an
imperfect
faith
be
the
condition
of
the
pardon
of
its
own
imperfections
?
But
to
Mr.
Eyre
,
who
having
done
with
me
,
adds
.
Now
briefly
my
sense
of
this
Proposition
,
[
We
are
justified
by
faith
]
is
no
other
then
that
which
hath
been
given
by
all
our
Ancient
Protestant
Divines
,
who
take
saith
herein
objectively
,
not
properly
,
&c.
Rep.
Our
Divines
take
faith
objectively
,
when
the
matter
of
our
righteousness
is
spoken
of
;
but
how
?
Only
by
connotation
of
the
object
;
and
not
by
exclusion
of
faith
it self
:
as
if
the
word
[
Faith
]
signified
Christ
.
Else
you
would
fasten
a
strange
sense
on
Paul
,
when
it
is
said
[
If
we
believe
it
shall
be
imputed
to
us
also
,
]
doth
the
word
[
Believe
]
stand
for
the
word
[
Christ
?
]
But
this
our
Divines
have
so
fully
confuted
,
that
I
will
say
no
more
to
it
but
this
,
That
if
by
[
Believing
]
be
not
meant
[
Believing
]
but
[
Christ
]
when
it
is
so
many
and
many
times
rehearsed
,
1.
Scripture
is
made
the
most
useless
unintelligible
writing
in
the
World
,
when
no
man
can
know
the
sense
by
the
words
a
hundred
times
repeated
.
For
your
saying
that
Paul
by
Faith
means
not
Faith
,
is
no
evidence
to
convince
me
.
O
how
glad
are
the
Papists
of
such
expositions
as
yours
,
that
may
convince
men
that
none
can
understand
the
Scripture
without
a
Judge
of
its
sense
.
2.
And
then
,
why
might
it
not
as
well
be
said
that
a
man
is
justified
by
seeing
Christ
,
or
hearing
him
,
or
hearing
of
him
,
or
any
other
act
,
as
well
as
Believing
,
if
it
be
not
Believing
that
is
meant
,
where
it
is
spoken
?
But
I
will
not
anticipate
Mr.
Woodbridge
in
his
work
.
§
6.
THe
next
assault
that
I
meet
with
is
pag
.
90
,
91.
where
you
say
,
Mr.
B.
(
Thes
.
70.
)
includes
all
works
of
obedience
to
Evangelical
Precepts
in
the
definition
of
saith
,
in
which
sense
I
presume
no
Papist
will
deny
that
we
are
Justified
by
faith
alone
,
taking
it
as
he
doth
,
for
fides
formata
,
or
saith
animated
with
charity
and
other
good
works
.
Rep.
Here
is
at
least
one
untruth
expressed
,
and
another
implied
.
1.
There
is
no
mention
in
those
words
of
mine
of
obedience
to
all
Evangelical
Precepts
:
but
only
of
that
sincere
obedience
which
is
made
by
God
the
condition
of
salvation
.
Now
obedience
may
be
sincere
,
and
yet
not
be
to
all
Precepts
which
are
in
the
Gospel
:
Many
a
lesser
particular
duty
may
be
unknown
to
one
that
obeys
sincerely
:
Mr.
Eyre
is
bound
by
the
Gospel
to
believe
that
faith
goes
before
Justification
,
and
yet
he
knows
not
this
;
may
he
not
for
all
that
obey
sincerely
?
The
Gospel
requireth
Baptism
,
and
I
think
of
Infants
;
yet
it
will
not
follow
that
no
man
is
sincerely
obedient
that
is
unbaptized
,
as
mistaking
it
to
be
now
no
duty
,
or
that
is
against
Infant-Baptism
,
on
the
like
mistake
.
2.
You
intimate
that
it
is
our
first
justifying
faith
,
or
faith
strictly
taken
that
I
here
describe
;
and
so
add
your
parallel
of
the
Papists
.
But
honesty
required
you
to
have
confessed
on
the
contrary
,
that
I
had
before
spoke
of
faith
in
the
proper
strict
sense
,
as
it
is
the
condition
upon
which
every
man
receiveth
the
Remission
of
all
the
sins
past
of
his
whole
life
,
and
that
Justification
quoad
statum
,
which
some
call
Universal
Justification
,
as
distinct
from
particular
Justification
and
Remission
following
upon
every
new
sin
:
and
that
in
the
words
which
you
cite
I
only
described
faith
in
a
more
large
improper
sense
,
and
as
it
is
the
condition
only
of
our
glorification
,
and
final
Justification
in
the
great
Judgement
.
Why
should
you
conceal
this
,
and
imply
the
contrary
?
§.
7.
THe
next
touch
that
I
find
is
pag
.
94.
where
you
tell
Mr.
W.
2.
If
saith
were
a
condition
morally
disposing
us
for
Justification
,
we
should
then
be
concurrent
causes
with
the
Merits
of
Christ
in
procuring
our
Justification
:
for
the
Merits
of
Christ
are
not
a
Physical
but
a
Moral
cause
,
which
obtain
their
effect
by
vertue
of
that
Covenant
which
was
made
between
him
and
the
Father
:
now
by
ascribing
unto
faith
a
Moral
Causal
influx
in
our
Justification
,
we
do
clearly
put
it
in
eodem
genere
causae
with
the
blood
of
Christ
:
which
I
hope
Mr.
W.
will
better
consider
of
,
before
he
engage
too
far
in
Mr.
Baxters
cause
.
Rep.
Because
you
are
pleased
to
make
it
my
cause
,
I
will
be
bold
to
give
my
Reply
.
There
are
very
palpable
errors
delivered
with
confidence
in
these
words
.
1.
You
confound
moral
Disposing
,
and
moral
Causing
:
All
disposing
is
not
causing
.
2.
You
most
falsly
suppose
that
we
ascribe
to
faith
A
moral
causal
in
flux
in
Justification
:
and
do
nothing
to
prove
it
.
3.
All
is
grounded
on
that
gross
Error
,
That
all
Civil
or
Legal
conditions
,
are
Moral
Causes
,
which
is
so
far
from
truth
,
that
the
clean
contrary
is
true
.
No
Civil
or
Legal
condition
,
qua
talis
,
is
a
Moral
Cause
.
1.
A
condition
only
while
unperformed
,
suspendeth
the
act
of
the
Law
or
Testament
,
that
is
,
It
was
the
Will
of
the
Legislator
or
Testator
,
or
Donor
,
that
his
Law
,
Testament
,
&c.
should
act
,
or
effect
when
the
condition
is
performed
,
and
not
before
:
but
not
that
it
should
be
any
cause
:
no
more
then
quando
venit
dies
the
time
is
a
cause
.
2.
A
condition
is
but
causa
sine
qua
non
;
therefore
it
is
no
moral
cause
.
Yet
it
s
true
that
among
men
,
most
conditions
in
another
respect
are
moral
causes
;
but
none
of
them
,
as
conditions
.
Men
use
to
make
somewhat
a
condition
(
though
not
alway
)
which
is
of
worth
to
themselves
,
and
so
hath
somewhat
in
the
nature
of
the
thing
which
is
meritorious
(
when
the
condition
is
not
casual
,
but
Potestative
or
mixt
:
)
and
this
is
a
Moral
cause
,
not
as
it
is
a
condition
,
but
as
meritorious
.
Would
you
have
the
world
believe
,
without
better
manifestation
,
that
you
are
so
excellent
a
Lawyer
,
that
we
must
take
your
word
against
common
sense
,
and
the
common
judgement
of
men
that
should
be
wiser
in
their
own
profession
?
You
know
sure
that
its
common
in
the
Civil
Law
to
have
cases
of
such
casual
conditions
,
as
cannot
be
causal
?
As
if
such
a
Ship
come
into
such
a
Harbour
,
such
a
day
,
being
nothing
to
the
Donors
advantage
.
If
such
a
son
live
to
such
an
age
,
he
shall
have
such
Lands
.
If
the
Arrow
that
is
shot
up
,
fall
within
such
a
space
.
And
the
like
is
true
in
Potestative
conditions
(
as
they
call
them
)
that
is
,
voluntary
:
I
give
thee
a
pardon
on
condition
thou
wilt
accept
it
:
or
not
refuse
it
:
or
not
ungratefully
abuse
me
when
I
have
given
it
thee
:
not
spit
in
my
face
:
not
seek
my
life
,
ruine
,
dishonor
,
&c.
None
of
these
are
Meritorious
,
and
therefore
none
of
them
causal
.
4.
Have
you
never
observed
that
your
friend
Dr.
Twiss
doth
not
once
or
twice
,
but
ordinarily
,
affirm
that
faith
is
a
condition
and
medium
of
our
justification
,
and
that
good
works
are
causa
dispositiva
,
and
praeparatoria
salutis
?
I
may
tell
you
more
of
his
mind
hereafter
.
One
thing
more
in
this
Section
I
desire
your
resolution
of
.
You
here
say
,
that
the
Merits
of
Christ
are
not
a
Physical
but
a
Moral
cause
:
upon
which
I
would
know
;
1.
Do
not
you
take
as
much
from
it
as
I
,
and
make
the
Merits
of
Christ
as
much
a
causa
sine
qua
non
in
sensu
physico
,
as
I
?
For
what
can
you
do
more
then
say
it
is
no
Physical
cause
at
all
?
And
with
what
justice
or
modesty
then
could
you
before
pretend
that
I
am
worse
in
this
very
point
then
the
Papists
themselves
,
when
I
am
no
worse
then
you
?
A
Moral
causality
I
allow
it
,
as
well
as
you
.
Nay
secondly
give
me
leave
to
enquire
whether
in
deed
and
truth
you
do
allow
it
a
Moral
causality
of
our
justification
at
all
:
In
your
page
66.
you
answer
a
shrewd
Objection
,
which
would
prove
you
near
to
infidelity
,
viz.
That
you
make
void
the
Death
of
Christ
:
for
if
Justification
be
an
immanent
act
in
God
,
it
is
antecedent
not
only
to
faith
,
but
to
the
Merits
of
Christ
,
which
is
contrary
to
many
Scriptures
,
that
do
ascribe
our
Justification
to
his
blood
,
as
to
a
Meritorious
cause
.
To
which
you
Answer
,
That
although
Gods
Will
not
to
punish
be
antecedent
to
the
death
of
Christ
;
yet
for
all
we
may
be
said
to
be
Justified
in
him
,
because
the
whole
effect
of
that
Will
is
by
and
for
the
sake
of
Christ
.
As
though
Electing
love
precede
the
consideration
of
Christ
,
Ioh
.
3.16
.
yet
are
we
said
to
be
chosen
in
him
,
Eph.
2.4
.
because
all
the
Effects
of
that
Love
,
are
given
by
,
and
through
,
and
for
him
.
Gods
not
punishing
us
,
is
the
fruits
of
his
death
:
yet
his
Will
not
to
punish
,
is
antecedent
thereunto
.
Rep.
This
distinction
of
Actus
volentis
,
and
res
volita
,
we
have
oft
here
on
such
occasions
.
But
1.
Do
not
you
here
make
our
active
justification
to
be
no
fruit
of
Christs
Merits
at
all
,
but
only
our
passive
?
Now
if
you
would
publish
this
doctrine
nakedly
,
That
Justificatio
Justificans
,
or
Gods
active
Iustification
,
is
not
at
all
procured
by
Christ
,
it
would
be
more
candid
and
open
dealing
,
then
you
use
while
you
pretend
so
much
to
exalt
Christs
Merit
,
in
your
denying
the
parts
or
interest
of
faith
and
obedience
.
2.
Surely
then
we
must
find
out
another
Active
Iustification
,
whereof
Christs
Merits
are
the
cause
,
as
well
as
of
the
passive
,
if
we
will
be
ruled
by
Scripture
;
and
this
your
Brethren
have
done
,
for
which
you
oppose
them
.
3.
I
would
commend
it
to
your
consideration
,
Whether
it
be
not
a
work
worth
your
labour
,
the
next
time
you
set
upon
these
imployments
,
to
open
to
us
like
a
Philosopher
and
Divine
,
how
and
in
what
sense
and
respect
it
is
,
that
the
Merits
of
Christ
can
cause
the
effect
and
not
the
act
?
the
rem
Volitam
,
and
not
the
actum
Volendi
?
And
how
Christs
Merits
can
be
a
moral
cause
,
or
a
meriting
cause
,
and
yet
not
cause
the
act
of
God
?
Merit
you
know
is
reckoned
among
the
remote
efficients
of
our
pardon
,
and
sanctification
,
and
salvation
.
Now
if
God
be
the
nearer
efficient
,
how
can
Merit
which
is
the
remote
,
cause
these
effects
,
and
not
cause
Gods
act
?
I
would
intreat
you
to
answer
it
,
as
to
all
these
effects
,
even
Sanctification
,
and
Glorification
,
as
well
as
pardon
.
You
know
also
,
I
suppose
,
that
Merit
is
accounted
one
of
the
Procatarctical
less-principal
efficients
;
Now
the
nature
of
this
cause
is
to
incite
the
principal
cause
ad
agendum
extrinsically
.
And
Merit
is
said
to
be
that
which
moveth
the
agent
ad
talionem
reddendam
.
Now
if
Christs
Merits
move
not
God
as
a
Procatarctical
cause
,
then
how
are
they
truly
meritorious
causes
?
You
know
also
,
I
doubt
not
,
that
a
moral
causing
in
such
cases
as
ours
about
voluntarily
Agents
,
doth
consist
in
an
argumentative
,
objective
,
or
the
like
moral
moving
of
the
Agent
.
Now
how
can
Christs
Merits
be
moral
causes
here
,
and
work
nothing
upon
God
the
principal
Cause
?
when
this
moral
cause
is
a
remote
cause
,
and
a
remote
cause
produceth
the
effect
mediâ
causa
propinquiore
?
I
do
not
hereby
conclude
my self
that
Gods
Will
was
moved
by
Christs
Merits
;
but
there
is
another
wedge
then
yours
by
which
we
must
cleave
this
knotty
block
;
which
if
I
tell
you
of
,
it
s
like
you
will
be
prejudiced
against
it
,
because
it
is
from
me
;
but
if
you
will
study
to
expedite
the
business
your self
a
little
better
then
here
you
have
done
,
it
may
reduce
you
to
a
better
mind
in
the
main
.
But
if
it
should
prove
upon
these
considerations
,
that
you
do
contradict
your self
,
and
do
indeed
deny
Christ
to
be
any
cause
,
so
much
as
Moral
and
Meritorious
of
justification
active
or
passive
,
of
the
Actus
volentis
or
Res
volita
,
then
I
think
you
have
been
an
unhappy
exalter
of
Christ
,
while
your
zeal
carried
you
against
the
Interest
of
faith
.
And
methinks
it
should
be
scarce
savoury
to
a
friend
of
Christ
and
an
exalter
of
his
Merits
,
to
have
them
made
no
more
a
cause
of
our
justification
,
then
of
our
Election
;
that
is
,
of
the
effects
of
both
which
are
in
time
,
but
of
neither
of
themselves
which
are
from
eternity
.
And
I
take
it
but
for
private
Theology
,
that
all
the
effects
of
electing
love
are
given
by
,
through
and
for
Christ
.
Whereby
you
plainly
intimate
him
to
be
the
meritorious
cause
of
the
effects
,
which
you
deny
of
the
Act.
But
1.
the
giving
of
Christ
himself
is
no
small
effect
of
electing
love
,
and
yet
not
given
for
and
through
himself
.
Christ
was
not
given
to
Merit
,
for
the
sake
of
his
Merit
,
as
any
efficient
cause
.
2.
Adam
and
the
Creation
I
think
were
not
made
upon
the
procurement
of
Christs
Merits
.
3.
Nor
was
man
endowed
then
with
the
Image
of
God
.
4.
Nor
made
Lord
of
the
inferiour
Creatures
.
5
Nor
placed
in
a
Paradise
.
6.
Nor
had
the
promise
of
immortality
and
felicity
,
if
he
sinned
not
;
upon
the
procurement
of
the
Merits
of
Christ
.
Yet
all
these
were
effects
of
electing
love
,
being
all
means
for
the
attainment
of
the
ends
of
election
.
But
many
such
things
as
these
your
Reader
must
bear
with
you
in
,
unless
he
be
a
less
scrupulous
man
,
that
can
swallow
all
.
§.
8.
THe
next
place
that
I
find
my self
snapt
at
is
pag
101
where
you
say
,
He
gives
us
a
youthfull
frolike
to
shew
his
gallantry
,
like
Mr.
Baxters
challenge
,
[
Let
the
Antinomians
shew
one
Scripture
which
speaks
of
Iustification
from
Eternity
.
]
The
Antinomians
,
saith
he
(
Mr.
W.
)
the
Antipapists
and
Anti-Arminians
he
means
)
may
read
their
eyes
out
,
before
they
produce
us
one
Text
,
for
any
other
Iustification
in
Scripture
,
which
is
not
by
Faith
or
Works
.
Rep.
This
requires
small
answer
.
1.
Why
could
not
such
a
rude
challenge
as
this
,
once
provoke
you
to
open
your
Bible
and
transcribe
one
Text
to
that
sense
?
Had
not
one
such
Text
been
as
soon
cited
,
as
all
this
book
written
?
But
something
is
wanting
?
He
that
cannot
say
what
he
should
,
must
say
what
he
can
,
rather
then
yield
or
say
nothing
.
2.
I
perceive
it
is
not
onely
I
that
am
a
Papist
or
Arminian
with
you
,
or
with
whom
an
Antinomian
signifies
an
Antipapist
,
and
an
Antiarminian
?
Mr.
Woodbridge
fals
under
the
same
lash
.
But
,
Sir
,
while
the
Harmony
of
Confessions
,
and
the
Synod
of
Dort
,
and
the
late
Confession
of
our
Assembly
are
visible
,
the
world
hath
a
better
character
to
know
a
Papist
and
Arminian
by
,
then
yours
;
and
will
hardly
be
perswaded
that
all
are
Papists
and
Arminians
that
hold
not
the
eternity
of
Justification
or
Remission
,
and
that
it
is
before
the
death
and
purchase
of
Christ
,
or
that
hold
not
that
we
are
justified
before
we
are
men
,
or
pardoned
before
we
have
sinned
;
no
nor
all
those
that
hold
not
the
Justification
of
Infidels
.
But
I
perceive
you
are
not
sparing
of
your
accusations
of
those
that
are
not
of
your
party
and
opinion
;
when
pag
.
84.
you
do
so
let
fly
at
his
Brother
Mr.
John
Woodbridge
forsooth
[
as
no
hearty
friend
to
gathering
and
reforming
Churches
,
as
deserting
a
Congregation
in
New-England
,
whereof
he
was
Pastor
,
to
become
a
Parish-Parson
in
the
Old
;
and
not
onely
so
,
but
hath
stood
to
maintain
that
parishes
are
true
Churches
.
]
And
you
say
,
[
It
s
like
his
Parsonage
is
better
,
&c
]
Where
1.
you
venture
to
cast
your
censure
upon
the
hidden
thoughts
of
a
mans
heart
,
which
is
Gods
prerogative
:
Who
art
thou
that
judgest
another
mans
servant
?
Do
you
know
that
it
was
a
better
Parsonage
that
is
the
cause
of
what
you
mention
?
You
that
dare
do
this
,
dare
do
more
.
2.
If
you
deny
that
any
Parishes
,
yea
that
many
hundred
Parlishes
in
England
are
true
Churches
,
you
do
more
then
judge
a
particular
Brother
,
and
more
then
you
are
able
to
make
good
,
and
more
then
the
Brethren
of
New-England
would
affirm
.
But
I
perceive
your
error
is
not
a
single
one
,
not
onely
in
Doctrinals
:
Separation
will
not
perform
in
the
conclusion
,
what
the
●eading
Dividers
do
promise
.
Pag
.
89
,
90.
Though
I
am
not
named
,
yet
perhaps
concerned
,
I
am
sure
the
truth
is
,
where
you
say
,
[
I
desire
the
Reader
to
observe
how
much
Mr.
W.
is
beholden
to
a
Popish
Tenent
,
opposed
(
by
all
our
Protestant
Writers
)
to
support
his
cause
,
which
is
[
That
faith
goes
before
Iustification
to
dispose
us
for
it
.
]
Bellarmine
undertakes
to
prove
,
&c.
Against
whom
all
our
Protestant
Divines
which
my
little
Library
hath
obtained
,
do
unanimously
affirm
,
that
faith
doth
not
dispose
or
prepare
us
for
Justification
]
Rep.
Like
Cause
,
like
carriage
in
maintaining
it
.
1.
I
suppose
you
know
that
our
Divines
do
speak
it
of
Justification
in
the
Popish
sense
,
which
comprizeth
sanctification
and
faith
it self
.
But
this
you
would
not
see
or
have
your
Reader
see
.
This
is
but
pia
fraus
.
2.
I
suppose
you
know
that
our
Divines
by
[
Disposition
and
preparation
]
do
mean
by
way
of
condition
sine
quâ
non
;
and
so
your
Brethren
teach
as
well
as
you
,
that
faith
the
first
grace
,
is
given
without
any
prerequisite
condition
on
our
parts
,
properly
so
called
;
the
contrary
is
taught
by
Pelagians
,
Jesuites
and
Arminians
;
but
your
pious
fraud
did
hide
this
too
.
Is
deceiving
the
best
Teaching
?
for
error
it
is
,
but
not
for
truth
.
Do
you
not
know
that
the
honest
women
of
your
Congregation
that
ever
read
Mr.
Hookers
Souls
preparation
for
Christ
,
and
Souls
effectual
Vocation
,
and
Souls
Justification
,
or
M●
Jo
.
Rogers
of
Faith
,
or
M●
.
Balton
,
Perkins
,
or
the
like
honest
old
Practical
Divines
,
could
quickly
confute
your
general
assertion
,
and
tell
you
,
Sir
,
our
Library
is
larger
then
yours
,
for
all
these
Divines
do
tell
us
of
a
preparation
necessary
to
Justification
,
yea
to
faith
it self
;
yea
and
they
make
this
the
great
necessary
doctrine
for
the
breaking
of
hard
hearts
,
and
confuting
the
presumptions
of
the
prophane
.
It
is
worth
the
observation
of
every
honest
Christian
,
how
prophanness
and
Antinomianism
,
do
run
hand
in
hand
,
and
speak
with
one
tongue
,
and
put
our
Divines
to
one
and
the
same
labour
.
So
that
in
this
point
of
preparation
for
Christ
,
and
many
others
,
we
must
confute
the
same
conceits
of
both
.
3.
Nay
sure
you
know
that
the
generality
of
these
Divines
of
ours
,
do
make
faith
a
condition
,
and
most
of
them
an
instrument
of
our
Justification
:
and
an
efficient
cause
is
a
little
more
then
a
passive
preparation
in
sensu
morali
,
by
the
act
of
faith
.
§.
9.
THe
next
place
that
I
finde
my
name
in
,
is
,
pag
.
145.
(
and
divers
other
places
in
the
margin
)
[
Our
reconciliation
is
an
immediate
effect
of
the
death
of
Christ
,
as
Mr.
Owen
hath
invincibly
proved
in
his
Answer
to
Baxter
,
p.
34.
]
Thus
you
:
and
oft
that
Answer
and
Mr.
Kendall's
is
cited
.
To
which
I
say
but
this
.
I
so
far
abhor
contention
,
and
thirst
after
the
Churches
Peace
,
that
I
did
impose
it
as
a
penalty
on
my self
,
not
to
answer
that
Book
of
Mr.
Owens
,
till
I
saw
a
clear
call
proving
it
my
duty
,
because
I
had
been
foolishly
drawn
to
be
the
beginner
of
the
Controversie
:
But
I
would
not
have
you
therefore
talk
of
[
Invincible
proof
]
of
such
Tenets
as
these
.
Were
that
Reverend
man
and
I
to
joyn
Wit
to
Wit
,
and
Learning
to
Learning
,
and
the
contest
depended
on
the
strength
of
the
Contesters
,
I
should
easily
yield
that
he
were
invincible
by
such
a
one
as
I
,
and
that
the
congress
between
him
and
me
would
be
as
unequal
,
as
I
too
hastily
said
it
would
have
been
between
Mr.
Ball
and
him
.
But
when
I
see
what
an
advantage
the
Truth
yields
to
a
weak
Defendor
,
and
consider
the
disadvantage
that
he
hath
cast
himself
upon
in
that
Book
,
I
must
profess
to
you
,
that
I
take
it
for
as
easie
a
thing
to
answer
it
sufficiently
,
almost
as
to
write
so
much
paper
as
that
Answer
will
take
up
.
You
force
me
by
your
frequent
references
to
that
Book
,
to
say
this
much
,
which
else
I
would
not
have
said
,
least
I
should
exasperate
.
And
for
Mr.
Kendall
I
have
told
you
my
thoughts
of
his
Learned
Notions
more
at
large
.
§.
10
:
THe
next
passage
that
toucheth
me
that
I
meet
with
,
is
pag
.
174.
where
you
say
,
[
A
Learned
man
of
the
late
Assembly
in
a
Sermon
before
the
Parliament
,
then
sitting
,
declared
,
that
all
the
Promises
of
the
New
Covenant
are
Absolute
,
not
only
citra
meritum
,
but
citra
conditionem
,
without
any
prerequired
conditions
of
us
:
amongst
many
other
places
he
cites
this
Text
(
Mr.
Strong
Serm
.
1
Sam
.
2.30
.
)
Besides
this
I
might
adde
abundance
more
:
But
I
believe
Mr.
Baxier
is
instar
omnium
with
Mr.
W.
]
Rep.
1.
I
believe
the
plain
Texts
of
Gods
Word
,
not
to
be
evaded
with
modesty
is
instar
omnium
with
Mr.
Woodbridge
.
He
that
reads
his
digested
Sermon
,
and
your
acknowledgement
of
his
supereminent
parts
,
natural
and
acquired
,
will
not
believe
that
he
takes
his
doctrine
on
trust
from
any
man
,
much
less
from
such
a
man
as
I.
2.
It
is
great
immodesty
in
you
,
if
you
intend
hereby
to
perswade
the
world
,
that
it
is
my
singular
opinion
that
the
New
Covenant
hath
conditions
,
yea
or
that
the
current
of
the
Reformed
Divines
,
and
Churches
do
not
expresly
contradict
your
conceit
.
For
me
to
prove
this
,
were
as
needless
as
to
heap
up
testimonies
to
prove
that
the
Protestant
Divines
do
hold
that
the
Scripture
is
Gods
Word
.
He
that
is
ignorant
of
their
judgement
in
this
,
let
him
be
ignorant
still
for
me
.
I
except
here
three
or
four
late
Writers
;
especially
those
three
Fravequerans
Maccovius
,
Cocceius
and
Cloppenburgius
.
3.
But
for
Mr.
Strong
,
I
can
say
nothing
,
as
having
not
his
Sermon
at
hand
;
but
what
I
have
heard
of
the
piety
,
Judgement
&
Moderation
of
that
Learned
man
,
and
what
I
finde
of
your
boldness
in
this
Book
in
frequent
untruths
,
I
confess
doth
make
me
resolve
rather
to
believe
you
wrong
him
,
till
I
shall
see
the
words
;
though
not
peremptorily
to
conclude
it
and
charge
you
with
it
.
I
have
oft
my self
maintained
that
the
promise
of
the
first
Grace
is
Absolute
;
but
I
shall
never
believe
that
all
the
promises
of
the
New
Covenant
are
Absolute
,
as
long
as
I
take
Gods
Word
for
my
Rule
,
which
I
hope
will
be
till
death
.
But
here
I
must
give
you
some
Animadversions
on
your
descriptions
of
a
Condition
,
pag
.
184.
And
to
the
first
(
out
of
Dr.
Cawell
)
I
say
,
that
it
be
appointed
for
suspending
the
efficacy
of
the
act
or
grant
,
is
indeed
essential
to
a
condition
:
But
that
it
be
Uncertain
is
meerly
accidentall
;
Uncertain
is
put
for
Contingent
,
because
what
is
contingent
is
usually
among
men
uncertain
;
It
means
an
uncertainty
in
natura
rei
,
when
it
may
tend
ad
esse
vel
non
esse
;
and
not
that
it
be
actu
incertum
,
id
est
,
ignotum
Donatori
.
Contingent
things
may
be
certain
to
God
;
and
yet
contingout
in
themselves
still
:
As
Dr.
Twiss
oft
saith
,
He
hath
decreed
not
only
that
contingent
things
shall
come
to
pass
,
but
contingentia
contingenter
eventura
.
So
doth
he
foreknow
that
contingent
things
shall
contingently
come
to
pass
.
Yet
while
they
are
contingent
they
are
the
fir
matter
for
a
condition
,
though
he
foreknow
them
.
An
unbeliever
himself
knows
not
that
he
shall
believe
.
And
if
a
man
had
a
spirit
of
Prophesie
to
foreknow
such
future
events
,
do
you
think
that
makes
him
uncapable
of
making
a
conditional
contract
?
If
a
Prophet
had
a
House
or
Land
to
set
,
might
he
not
make
a
Legal
conditional
Contract
,
because
he
foreknows
the
Rent
will
be
paid
?
You
may
as
well
say
,
God
should
make
no
Law
,
because
he
foreknows
it
will
be
fulfilled
,
or
men
will
do
the
thing
commanded
.
But
may
he
not
therefore
oblige
them
to
do
it
?
And
if
so
,
by
a
precept
,
I
see
not
but
the
case
is
the
same
as
to
a
sanction
,
and
condition
which
is
essential
to
that
sanction
.
And
I
must
further
tel
you
that
you
must
not
separate
what
God
hath
conjoyned
.
As
he
foreknows
that
we
will
perform
the
condition
,
so
he
foreknows
that
it
will
be
a
condition
by
his
constitution
before
we
perform
it
.
For
we
cannot
perform
a
condition
which
is
no
condition
.
And
God
did
not
forcknow
that
we
should
meerly
perform
the
act
of
believing
,
but
that
we
should
perform
the
condition
of
believing
:
even
as
he
did
not
only
foreknow
that
we
should
perform
the
act
of
faith
,
but
the
duty
of
faith
,
and
therefore
that
it
must
first
be
a
duty
.
Moreover
I
would
know
whether
ever
God
threatned
an
elect
man
or
not
in
his
Law
,
yea
or
the
reprobate
?
If
not
,
1.
How
said
he
to
Adam
,
In
the
day
thou
eatest
thou
shalt
dye
?
2.
Then
the
first
Law
had
no
threatning
(
then
which
nothing
more
false
)
or
else
Adam
was
not
elect
.
3.
How
then
are
unbelievers
condemned
already
.
4.
There
are
an
hundred
express
threatnings
in
the
Word
.
5.
The
contrary
opinion
is
Antinomianism
indeed
,
to
take
believers
to
be
not
at
all
threatned
by
the
Law
.
6.
At
least
are
they
not
threatned
with
temporal
punishments
,
or
chastisements
?
7.
And
then
wicked
reprobates
are
not
threatned
,
which
is
false
.
If
you
grant
the
threatning
to
the
Elect
or
others
,
then
it
is
either
a
conditional
threatning
or
Absolute
:
If
Absolute
then
they
must
bear
it
:
there
is
no
escape
;
nor
are
all
absolute
to
them
that
must
bear
it
.
If
conditional
:
then
either
God
knows
whether
they
will
commit
that
sin
which
is
the
condition
of
the
threatning
,
or
he
doth
not
.
The
later
you
will
disclaim
I
doubt
not
:
The
former
grants
that
there
may
be
a
condition
which
is
yet
certainly
foreknown
to
God
.
You
will
find
the
Prophet
Jeremy
making
a
conditional
contract
by
Gods
appointment
,
in
a
case
wherein
God
had
before
revealed
to
him
the
event
.
If
(
as
Dr.
Twiss
hath
well
proved
)
the
same
thing
may
be
necessary
and
contingent
,
then
the
same
thing
may
be
necessary
,
foreknown
,
and
yet
conditionally
given
out
or
threatned
in
Law
.
It
is
a
most
dangerous
course
of
Divines
to
set
Gods
Derrees
,
Foreknowledge
or
Disposal
of
Events
,
in
opposition
to
his
moral
Rectorship
,
as
if
the
acts
of
one
must
be
inconsistent
with
the
acts
of
the
other
.
Let
me
speak
it
out
,
though
to
the
provocation
of
the
contemptuous
and
self-conceited
,
that
this
one
grand
mistake
,
hath
introduced
most
of
their
Errors
,
and
feedeth
most
of
your
contentions
.
They
cannot
reconcile
the
acts
of
Gods
absolute
Dominion
,
with
the
moral
acts
of
Regiment
;
nor
can
they
see
in
what
a
distinct
series
they
stand
.
The
like
Answer
serves
to
the
same
word
[
incertum
]
in
the
next
definition
of
Cook
.
Your
two
later
I
wholly
allow
of
,
interpreting
[
by
performance
]
to
mean
[
upon
performance
.
]
Your
conclusion
pag
.
185.
is
false
,
that
Omnis
conditio
antecedens
est
effectiva
.
Though
I
remember
Chamier
hath
such
a
word
,
but
enough
to
the
contrary
.
I
have
spoke
thus
much
of
this
,
that
you
may
also
see
,
that
though
the
Truths
in
Mr.
Owens
Book
are
Invincible
,
yet
the
Mistakes
are
not
;
and
if
you
will
consider
it
well
,
I
think
you
will
find
that
the
pulling
out
of
this
one
Pin
,
hath
caused
his
Fabrick
to
fall
in
pieces
.
For
my
part
I
profess
to
follow
my
conscience
,
which
upon
the
most
impartial
search
of
Scripture
that
I
am
able
to
make
,
doth
tell
me
that
the
Scripture
doth
so
evidently
contain
conditional
threatnings
and
promises
to
the
Elect
,
that
to
deny
it
,
would
be
,
to
me
,
to
renounce
my
understanding
,
and
proclaim
Scripture
to
be
utterly
unintelligible
,
which
were
to
be
no
Word
of
God
.
§.
11.
YEt
you
have
not
done
with
me
:
for
pag
.
190.
you
fall
on
without
fear
or
—
that
the
end
may
be
like
the
beginning
.
You
say
,
1.
That
the
Papists
assert
no
other
works
and
condition
to
be
necessary
to
our
Justification
and
Salvation
then
what
our
adversaries
do
.
2.
Neither
Papists
nor
Arminians
do
ascribe
any
more
Meritoriousness
to
Works
then
our
opponents
,
&c.
And
in
this
sense
Mr.
Baxter
will
tell
you
that
the
performers
of
a
condition
may
be
said
to
merit
the
Reward
.
The
Papists
never
pleaded
for
Merit
upon
any
other
account
.
Rep.
1.
If
this
be
true
,
our
Divines
are
notorious
liars
and
slanderers
,
so
frequently
to
charge
them
with
more
.
Which
yet
I
had
rather
of
the
two
believe
of
Mr.
Eyre
then
of
them
,
if
I
must
needs
do
one
.
2.
If
this
be
true
,
the
Papists
are
notorious
liars
and
slanderers
,
to
wrong
one
another
so
much
as
they
do
,
by
asfirming
more
of
one
another
.
3.
If
this
be
true
,
doth
not
Mr.
Eyre
speak
better
of
the
Papists
then
we
are
use
to
hear
?
and
should
not
all
honest
men
be
glad
to
hear
that
so
great
a
part
of
Christendome
,
are
far
better
men
then
we
took
them
for
?
4.
Doth
not
this
intimate
;
Why
may
not
the
Papists
be
encouraged
and
have
liberty
in
England
as
well
as
we
,
R.
B.
and
a
hundred
Divines
that
say
as
much
as
he
?
Especially
if
you
compare
this
passage
with
what
he
saith
to
Mr.
W.
pag
.
117.
[
I
dare
say
a
more
unsound
Assertion
cannot
be
picked
out
of
the
Writings
either
of
Papists
or
Arminians
then
this
is
.
]
And
why
then
should
not
we
be
respected
a
like
,
if
we
be
corrupted
a
like
?
Whether
he
mean
that
we
should
be
restrained
as
they
,
I
know
not
well
;
but
by
his
Epistle
to
the
Parliament
it
is
liker
he
means
that
they
should
have
Liberty
as
well
as
we
.
You
that
are
Mr.
Eyre
his
neighbours
,
wrong
him
sorely
if
you
think
him
a
friend
to
Popery
,
you
may
see
the
Papists
will
endure
you
to
call
Mr.
W.
and
I
,
and
all
the
Reformed
Churches
,
Papists
,
if
you
will
but
open
the
door
and
let
them
in
,
and
help
them
in
weakning
our
hands
and
resisting
us
in
the
work
of
Christ
.
You
adde
,
[
Though
Mr.
B.
seems
to
mince
the
matter
,
calling
his
conditions
but
a
sine
qua
non
,
and
a
Pepper
co●n
,
&c.
he
attributes
as
much
,
if
not
more
to
Works
then
the
Papists
,
Arminians
and
Socinians
have
done
.
The
Papists
will
not
say
that
Works
do
merit
in
a
strict
and
proper
sense
.
]
Rep.
Prov.
19.5
.
A
salse
witness
shall
not
be
unpun
shed
,
and
he
that
speaketh
lies
shall
not
escape
.
Though
I
delay
this
business
purposely
till
I
come
to
Mr.
Crandon
,
yet
I
will
give
the
Reader
one
word
here
before
hand
.
1.
Out
of
one
of
their
own
;
Bellarmine
(
Printed
Ingolst
.
80
1605
)
pag
.
2567
,
2568
,
&c.
cap
.
17.
l.
5.
de
Justifie
.
thus
determineth
this
Question
[
Utrum
opera
Bona
sint
Meritoria
ex
condigno
ratione
pacti
tantum
?
an
ratione
operis
tantum
?
an
ratione
utrinsque
?
]
Media
sententia
nobis
videtur
probabilior
,
quae
docet
,
Opera
bona
Justorum
Meritori●
esse
vitae
aeternae
ex
condigno
,
ratione
pacti
&
operts
simul
,
&c.
]
And
p.
2571
,
2572
,
he
bringeth
seven
Arguments
to
prove
that
in
opere
bono
ex
Gratia
precedente
,
est
quaedam
proportio
&
aequalitas
ad
praemium
vitae
aeternae
.
And
li.
1.
c
.
21.
pag
.
2208
,
2209.
he
endeavoureth
to
prove
[
Meritum
de
congruo
fundari
in
aliqua
Dignitate
operis
potius
quam
in
promissione
.
]
Judge
now
Reader
,
what
credit
is
to
be
given
to
Mr.
Eyre's
words
?
and
how
dangerous
a
thing
this
Antinomian
conceit
is
,
that
sin
is
all
pardoned
before
we
repent
or
are
born
.
Durst
such
a
pious
man
as
this
else
over
and
over
,
even
here
on
one
page
repeat
in
Print
so
notorious
a
falshood
?
and
say
,
[
Neither
Papists
nor
Arminians
ascribe
any
more
Meritoriousness
to
Works
]
then
we
do
?
Nay
that
[
I
attribute
as
much
,
if
not
more
to
Works
then
the
Papists
.
]
Was
Bellarmine
no
Papist
?
I
deny
all
Merit
to
our
Faith
or
Works
;
unless
by
the
word
[
Merit
]
you
mean
somewhat
that
is
not
Merit
.
Doth
Bellarmine
do
so
?
Nay
he
saith
again
here
[
The
Papist
never
pleaded
for
Merit
upon
any
other
Account
]
then
ex
pacto
.
The
Lord
pardon
this
audacious
falshood
to
you
Brother
,
and
humble
you
for
it
.
But
if
Bellarmine
be
no
Papist
with
you
,
what
say
you
by
Aquinas
?
See
him
1.2
ae
.
q
.
114.
art
.
1.
c
.
&
art
.
3.
c
.
[
Si
consideretur
secundum
operis
substantiam
&
secundum
quod
procedit
ex
libero
arbitrio
,
sic
non
potest
ibi
esse
condignitas
propter
maximam
inaequalitatem
:
Sed
est
ibi
congruitas
propter
quandam
aequalitatem
proportionis
.
Si
autem
loquamur
de
opere
Meritorio
secundum
quod
procedit
ex
gratia
Spiritus
sancti
,
sic
est
Meritorium
vitae
aeternae
ex
condigno
:
sic
enim
Valor
meriti
attenditur
secund●m
virtutem
Spiritus
sansti
moventis
nos
in
vitam
aeternam
,
&c.
]
3.
The
world
knows
that
the
Papists
have
commonly
maintained
(
I
say
not
,
every
man
of
them
)
the
Merit
of
congruity
,
the
very
nature
of
which
they
ordinarlly
affirm
to
be
from
the
respect
of
the
work
it self
,
and
not
from
the
Pact
or
Promise
.
4.
Our
Divines
commonly
charge
them
with
more
.
Perkins
Reformed
Cathol
.
of
Merit
,
Vol.
1
p.
574
,
545
saith
,
[
The
Popish
Church
placeth
Merits
within
man
,
making
two
sorts
thereof
:
the
Merit
of
the
person
,
and
the
Merit
of
the
work
:
The
Merit
of
the
work
is
a
dignity
or
excellency
in
the
work
,
whereby
it
is
made
fit
and
enabled
to
deserve
Life
Everlasting
for
the
doer
:
And
Works
,
as
they
teach
,
are
meritorious
two
waies
.
1.
By
Covenant
,
because
God
hath
made
a
promise
of
Reward
to
them
.
2.
By
their
own
dignity
:
For
Christ
hath
merited
that
our
Works
might
merit
:
And
this
is
the
substance
of
their
Doctrine
.
]
So
far
Perkins
.
I
will
adde
no
more
,
but
leave
it
to
the
consideration
of
Mr.
Eyre's
Churchmembers
,
whether
for
this
publique
sin
,
they
ought
not
to
admonish
him
,
and
defire
him
publiquely
to
profess
his
repentance
?
If
not
,
let
them
at
least
see
the
evil
fruits
of
his
Doctrine
,
and
that
all
his
words
are
not
to
be
believed
It
s
scarce
likely
that
he
will
make
much
more
conscience
of
an
untruth
in
the
Pulpit
,
then
in
the
Press
;
the
later
being
the
most
publique
,
and
therefore
should
be
most
advised
and
cautelous
way
of
delivering
our
minds
.
Yet
he
is
at
it
again
before
he
comes
to
the
end
of
the
same
Page
,
saying
,
[
But
now
Mr.
B.
goes
a
step
beyond
them
,
in
that
he
ascribes
a
Meritoriousness
to
Works
,
which
the
Arminians
and
Socinians
have
not
dared
to
do
.
]
Rep.
I
am
glad
this
is
the
last
place
where
I
find
my self
named
.
For
I
love
not
above
all
Writings
to
deal
with
those
which
are
capable
of
no
other
Answer
for
substance
,
then
that
one
Word
by
which
the
fellow
confuted
all
Bellarmine
.
Methinks
it
fouls
my
mouth
,
so
much
as
to
tell
you
what
your
words
are
;
and
it
cannot
but
be
unsavoury
and
unprofitable
to
the
Reader
;
and
therefore
I
shall
say
no
more
to
you
;
but
heartily
desire
the
Lord
to
recover
and
forgive
you
,
and
to
that
end
to
make
you
ask
forgiveness
believingly
and
penitently
,
and
to
that
end
to
convince
you
that
you
are
guilty
,
till
forgiveness
come
,
and
that
no
Infidels
or
Impenitent
Rebels
are
forgiven
:
And
I
heartily
desire
,
that
if
you
preach
this
to
your
people
,
which
you
publish
in
this
Book
,
the
sad
effects
of
it
may
never
appear
in
their
hearts
and
lives
,
but
that
Gods
truth
may
lye
neerer
their
hearts
and
prevail
,
and
the
face
of
your
doctrine
may
not
be
seen
in
the
face
of
your
hearters
conversation
or
your
own
.
FINIS
.
Novemb
.
26.
1653.
Reader
,
VNderstand
,
that
for
all
the
hot
words
between
us
,
Mr.
Eyre
and
I
are
agreed
,
if
he
be
a
man
to
be
believed
.
For
pag
.
67.
he
hath
these
words
,
[
However
were
the
thing
it self
granted
,
That
there
was
in
God
from
Everlasting
an
Absolute
,
Fixed
and
Immutable
Will
never
to
deal
with
his
people
according
to
their
sins
,
but
to
deal
with
them
as
Righteous
persons
,
this
Controversie
were
ended
.
]
Supposing
that
it
is
in
regard
of
eternal
punishment
that
he
speaks
,
and
not
of
meer
Legal
Obligations
,
Convictions
or
Condemnations
by
Law
,
Conscience
,
or
men
(
in
all
which
respects
God
deals
not
with
the
unrighteous
as
with
righteous
men
)
I
do
grant
the
whole
,
and
here
subscribe
my
concession
:
and
so
if
Mr.
E.
be
a
man
of
his
word
,
The
Controversie
is
Ended
.
Rich
.
Baxter
.
POSTSCRIPT
.
READER
,
BEcause
Mr
Eyre
hath
the
modesty
to
alleadge
Mr
Rutherfords
Judgement
for
his
Opinion
,
I
intreat
thee
to
get
and
reade
a
full
Volume
of
Mr
Rutherfords
(
which
I
had
forgotten
when
I
cited
those
words
before
)
called
[
A
Survey
of
the
Spiritual
Antichrist
:
opening
the
Secrets
of
Familism
and
Antinomianism
,
against
Mr
Saltmarsh
,
Mr
Dell
,
Town
,
Dr
Crispe
,
H.
Den
,
Eaton
,
&c.
in
which
is
revealed
the
Rise
and
Spring
of
Antinomians
,
Familists
,
Libertines
,
&c.
]
It
is
not
only
as
against
Mr
Eyre's
Testimony
that
I
desire
this
of
thee
,
but
especially
because
it
is
one
of
the
fullest
Books
that
I
know
extant
,
against
the
Errors
of
this
Sect
;
and
very
usefull
to
the
godly
in
these
seducing
times
.
READER
,
SInce
this
Book
was
Printed
I
am
able
to
give
thee
a
more
certain
account
of
Mr
Crandon's
Learned
Examination
of
my
Aphorisms
:
If
thou
wouldst
know
the
Contents
,
I
'le
tell
thee
the
main
substance
of
this
Book
in
one
word
,
viz.
[
That
I
am
a
Papist
,
and
one
of
the
worser
sort
of
them
too
.
]
This
one
dish
adorned
with
the
flowers
of
Billingsgate
Rhetorick
,
and
sawced
with
many
hundred
palpable
falshoods
,
is
the
precious
feast
which
Mr
Eyre
hath
invited
thee
to
.
But
if
thou
think
that
I
tell
thee
this
for
my
own
ends
,
and
as
envying
thee
such
felicity
as
the
reading
of
his
Volume
,
take
thy
course
,
and
believe
me
when
thou
hast
tried
,
Fisher
,
Haggar
,
Reyes
,
Mr
Eyre
,
and
all
that
have
opened
their
mouths
against
me
,
are
but
meal-mouth'd
fellows
to
this
Mr
Crandon
.
But
if
it
work
on
thee
as
it
did
on
me
,
thou
wilt
have
some
mirth
at
least
for
thy
money
:
For
I
confess
I
was
not
able
to
forbear
laughter
to
see
the
ridiculous
monster
come
forth
,
and
act
such
a
Tragedy
before
my
face
:
Nor
can
I
yet
forbear
when
I
cast
my
eye
on
it
,
and
think
how
seriously
the
man
perswades
me
that
I
am
a
Papist
.
But
then
remember
that
thy
mirth
must
cost
thee
sorrow
,
as
mine
doth
,
when
I
consider
that
I
laugh
at
the
signes
of
a
mans
misery
,
and
at
that
which
discovereth
our
common
depravedness
,
and
the
misery
of
our
poor
people
that
must
be
both
corrupted
and
distracted
by
such
Teachers
as
these
.
But
if
thou
have
a
minde
to
learn
Mr
Crandon's
Ethicks
,
or
Theology
,
take
them
and
make
thy
best
of
them
;
but
I
pray
thee
expect
not
that
ever
I
should
particularly
Reply
to
it
,
till
I
have
so
much
time
that
I
know
not
how
better
to
spend
,
or
dare
give
an
account
to
God
of
such
an
expence
of
it
,
and
till
I
am
more
inclined
to
stirre
in
such
a
puddle
as
that
is
.
If
thou
be
not
able
to
confute
Mr
Crandon's
strong
lines
without
my
help
,
it
s
not
long
of
me
,
nor
can
I
have
while
to
help
thee
,
though
I
pity
thee
:
Yet
lest
thou
say
I
shift
it
off
,
I
intend
God
willing
,
to
give
thee
that
which
shall
be
the
matter
of
an
Answer
,
to
the
exceptions
of
him
and
many
others
,
even
a
plain
and
full
Confession
of
my
Faith
,
and
especially
in
the
Point
in
question
:
How
much
it
is
that
I
ascribe
to
man
or
any
of
his
actions
in
the
work
of
Justification
?
with
so
much
more
against
the
main
charges
of
Mr
Cr.
and
Mr
Eyre
,
as
shall
give
thee
cause
enough
to
lament
,
that
Opinion
,
Faction
,
and
Passion
,
should
make
Christians
so
cruel
to
their
own
consciences
,
as
these
men
have
been
;
and
shall
convince
thee
,
that
whatever
they
do
by
the
rest
of
the
Law
,
the
ninth
Commandment
is
used
but
little
better
by
them
,
then
the
second
is
by
the
Papists
.
For
all
these
crying
sins
,
I
am
in
hope
,
by
their
zealous
pretendings
to
the
honour
of
Free-Grace
,
that
they
mean
well
in
the
main
:
And
then
I
desire
those
that
fear
God
to
consider
,
what
crooked
pieces
the
best
of
us
are
,
what
need
we
have
of
daily
pardon
of
sin
,
and
what
great
cause
to
bear
with
abundance
of
darkness
even
in
Teachers
themselves
,
and
to
put
up
many
and
great
injuries
from
one
another
,
if
ever
we
expect
any
quietness
to
the
Church
:
and
not
only
to
see
that
we
forgive
them
our selves
,
but
also
to
pray
for
them
in
imitation
of
our
Lord
,
[
Father
,
forgive
them
,
for
they
know
not
what
they
do
.
]
And
though
Mr
Eyre
hath
clawed
his
Brother
with
this
commendations
,
that
he
is
[
a
faithful
servant
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
a
workman
that
need
not
be
ashamed
.
]
Yet
I
intreat
Mr
Cr.
to
see
that
he
be
not
hardened
in
impenitency
by
this
warrant
:
For
Mr
E.
cannot
secure
him
hereby
from
future
shame
,
though
he
may
do
somewhat
to
destroy
the
remnants
of
his
present
modesty
.
If
such
a
mass
of
Railing
Accusation
,
that
is
,
Slander
and
Reviling
twisted
together
,
be
the
work
of
[
A
Workman
that
need
not
be
ashamed
]
I
confess
I
know
not
what
men
should
be
ashamed
of
and
must
say
,
that
such
men
are
not
over-bashfull
.
Indeed
if
there
were
no
Law
,
and
so
no
transgression
,
they
might
prove
that
they
need
not
be
ashamed
:
Or
had
they
well
proved
that
all
their
sinne
was
perfectly
pardoned
before
they
were
born
,
I
should
yield
that
they
need
not
be
ashamed
,
so
far
as
shame
is
a
punishment
for
sinne
:
and
therefore
must
cease
upon
a
perfect
Remission
.
But
Impenicency
and
Impudency
have
no
good
foundation
.
FINIS
.