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 titan, 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 aphorisms.] The Character that Mr Eyre gives of this man is, That he is[ a faithful 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 writ so many things that deserve shane, 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 shane, I am afraid what the fruit of his Weakness may prove. I confess I have heard near this twelvemonth, 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 practise notoriously, and one that calls it Legal Preaching to Convince men of sin 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 aphorisms, 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, jesuit, &c. which is both the logic and the rhetoric of it. Also that he had written to the Eminentest Ministers in several Counties, whom he took to be most disaffected to my aphorisms, 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 find his Brother overshot himself, and correct what may tend to his hurt: for I would prevent his sin. 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 far I am from arminianism 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 kind? If I find 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 myself 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 key; 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 apprehended near 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 mere Opinions, such heinous evils as we have seen attend it. But for the other, in my Judgement they do as dangerously subvert the very tenor 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 apprehended some more duty lye 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 tailor to deal with? Dr Crisp, eton, 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 cried 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 latin Dissertation of Ludiomaeus Colvinus, alias, Ludovicus Molinaeus Med. Doctor and History professor in Oxford, writted against his own Brother Cyrus Molinaeus a Minister. I answered it, before I knew the author; 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 hearty 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 errors, 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 profaneness: When I look back on the Sermons which I preached many years ago, merely to work mens hearts to Christ, never thinking of the Libertine Controversies, I find 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 sins were unpardoned, with the necessity of Faith, Repentance and Confession, for pardon: and the necessity of faithful Endeavours for the attaining of Salvation; together with the necessity of Renewing Repentance, and begging pardon through the blood 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 find as far as I can discern, that most of the profane people in every Parish where yet I have lived, are Antinomians; They are born and bread 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 read, 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, bains, &c. to show 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 run 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 conqueror 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 needful 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 persuaded hath something within him that potently strives against Libertinism and Pelagianism. For example, In prayer, Let a Libertine tell him,[ Your sins were all pardonned 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 sins, 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 persuaded even while speculatively he holdeth them and talks for them, yet other principles lye 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 mind 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 show them the error. 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 show the order and dependence of things, &c. 2. The apostles scope here is not to show 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 own and Mr kendal) do make the formale of Justification. But more grossly, pag. 44. he expounds Rom. 4.24. [ Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe.] 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 believe.] 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 believers: 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 practise 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 believer, then the Giver, and repeats his Welsh example, [ God bless her father and mother, who taught her to read.] Yea this gross conceit is the very soul of his Discourse; by which it may appear how brutishly 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 its 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 easy 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 three, when he had a thousand besides as good as that: there can be no condition imagined more facile and feasible 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 three, and so he makes it the easiest thing imaginable. Do you not see how admirably he exalteth the Gospel above the Law, and Christs easy yoke 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 sins, when yet the more rigorous Law of nature, Do this and Live, the condition of Adam, is the most easy imaginable? And what thoughts hath he of Adams sin, if he see not the apostasy from God to the creature, unbelief, and many heinous sins were in it, as well as eating of that three?  
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 smallness 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 hanged 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 persuade mens hearts, yet he doth not Necessitate them to believe and embrace the truth.] Would you think and read 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 itself, 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 pardonned already, even before he believed. 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 says, 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 tenor whereof is[ Do this and thou shalt live, &c.] The other is the Covenant of Grace, the tenor whereof is[ believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, &c.] The condition of this Covenant is Faith.] And so goes on to show 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 privilege, 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 show 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 add, To entreat 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 sinfulness of those works forgiven? Doth not God accept of that work in which there is no sin imputed? but all pardonned? 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 slighting all Protestant Divines that differ from me, particularly 〈◇〉 Twiss.  
Of my Daring as a dictatory to prescribe what men shall read.  
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?  
several 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 is befriending the Papists.    
§. 5. 

More about our personal Righteousness. My Judgement about Justification by our personal Righteousness opened in 12. Conclusions.  
Mr is 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 aclowledge 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 is 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 own) 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 taste till 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 myself, as asserters 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, candour 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 myself; and am in the hands of the same physician; 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 human frailties, which you as well as your sinful 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 sin which is none, I suppose I shall have your free consent to acquaint you with it: And if I mistake not those for your errors which are none, I suppose you will consent that I warn all those that read 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 practices which Actually you venture to commit. I take it therefore for my duty, as to manifest your errors with a hatred to them, because they are against Christ; so with Christian charity to yourself, 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 practise, 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 mind, when we are perfected in Knowledge: I remember that I am Writing against such sins as are pardonned in the blood of Christ; and as will be very shortly renounced by yourself, 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 myself 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 myself.  
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 kind, 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 yourself 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 add that [ It is not to be wondered 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 rejoiced 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 privilege, were I near him, to be the Auditor and Scholar of so Judicious a man; and I doubt not you will find, 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 mind? 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 mind ourselves. 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 add, [ 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 far 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 far as they deserve, and to honour so much of Christ as I see in any. But how plainly do you still confute yourself? You intimate that my commending men is because I am of the same mind: 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 name, 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 writ 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 rejoice 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. kendal. 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 quiter contrary to my heart.  
I marvel 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 red in any Divine? Nay when yourself 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 biased 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 lawful 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; read of my dearest friends! He that knows my heart, knows that I speak my heart, if I know it myself. 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 find in my flesh the least opposition to your opinion.  
Where you add your reason [ That he dares take upon him the Office of a Universal dictatory to prescribe not only to his Kederminsterians, but to all private Christians what Books they shall read.] 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 obeied. If you mean[ advifing] Why may I not dare to do that? Is that the work of a dictatory? If I may advice 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 dictatory.] 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 add [ 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 rebuk 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 called) were I one of your near communion, I should openly desire satisfaction concerning these words, not as to myself 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 falsely, neither lie one to another. Deut. 19.18, 19. Behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely 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 lie, 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, show where, or prove when I said that Antipapists and Antinomians are termini convertibiles, expressly 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 practise 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 hearty 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 hearty join with you in your motion to the Parliament that a Penalty might restrain such Dividing ways. 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 sinful 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 dead. 1. In the bottom of the third page. in your parenthesis [ Nor can I excuse their connivance 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 hateful 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 doleful 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 discernible 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 subtlety 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 show me but what I saw before! that all weeping' is undoing! and that none would sooner let in Popery then those that fly to the contrary extreme. But shall I tell you Sir; If once they have full liberty here as you have, I think you will find, 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 join with you to keep them out; and would entreat you for the Peace of your own Conscience that you would unsay this again, and writ 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 heretic, 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 yourself? 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 ways; 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 restrained by Penalties, then I doubt the Name of Papist must be restrained, 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 restrained by Penalties to use Names of obloquy? But you show us plainly what kind 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 careful language of you then this: You should not have bespoken them with such Contradictions and dangerous Intimations.  
You proceed with me thus [ Let him show 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 calls Antinomianism, and I will openly aclowledge I have done him wrong: otherwise let him be looked upon as a slanderer and reviler of all the Protestant Churches, who under a show 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 writ these and the following words! and to add impudence to falsehood 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 err therein? But, Whether they hold any, yea most of those opinions which I call antinomianism? 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 called Antinomianism, except it were some that were notorious heretics. 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 engage his Reader), tells him his doctrine is of a middle strain, as if all the reformed Churches had hitherto been in an extreme, in this fundamental point of our Justification.]  
Rep. 1. Though Justification be a fundamental, yet so is not every point that concerneth it.  
2. I hope you will not persuade 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 antinomianism, 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 baptism and Christs: nor will I call him an Anabaptist, because he thought that those in Acts 19. were twice baptized, alleging so many Fathers of his mind. The like I may say of many another.  
4. No wonder if any doctrine that avoideth your extreme be contemned by you: It hath alway been so with men in extremes. But the day is coming when Moderation and Truth( which lieth between extremes) 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 thats 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 myself 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 across 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 shane 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 terms or sense. If the ninth Commandment be Law, then this practise 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 falsehood of such passages de facto are discovered, it should redound to your own shane, and consequently to the great prejudice of your Cause. Nay I durst not aclowledge 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; showing 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 red 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 red it in the Councils or Fathers, we must interpret it with a due reverence to them, yet is it fit to be excluded among ourselves. 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 liars, 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 falsehood, 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 always maintained that we are truly and fully as from all sins past Justified by faith, before Works of external obedience are in being.  
The next words[" and in no other sense do the Papists affirm it,] is another notorious falsehood: which if it were in Doctrinals only, I could answer it with a could Negatur; but thus to multiply falshoods one after another, seems a sad practise 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 red 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 [ Its like he thinks, that the Papists are much nearer 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 inquired of me, he might have learned how little I meddle with controversy in the Pulpit: Or if I did, and did all erroneously, yet I red the Scripture to them, I publish the doctrine of the Creed and catechism, is all this poison or ch●aky meat as he speaks? Judge of the affection and practise 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 calls 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 ways 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 show, that I so call it only in respect of its Physical operation, but as to Moral Dignity, I pled for its pre-eminence. 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 pre-eminence in Moral respect. Nay mark that himself makes justification 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 justification, 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 itself, 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 justification 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 attaimment 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 pardonned; but only as an unbeliever may comparatively be said to do well 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 attaimment 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 attaimment shows 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 err 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 red their writings, or that have red 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, youl show 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 toys 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 justify 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 red 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 aclowledge any universal 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 spoken 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 shows 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 mind for the justification of Infidels? Truly if you will be of the same mind as these men were, though I may differ from you in some point of Method or Words, yet I will never oppose you nor writ against you, if you will 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 justification 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, senseless and abhorred( which is the less to be regarded) seeing he usually meats out the same measure unto all men else, whose Notions do not square with his own mould.]  
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 meet out the same measure to all men else whose Notions square not with my mould,] is a gross untruth, which any man that converseth with me, and hath red 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 loathe 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[ meet out the same measure] to Dr. Twiss? Mr. Kindal accuseth me of slighting 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 spoken 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 meddled with his Reviling●● But yet I will take no man for a competent Judge of my fault, that hath not red 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 mould: that is, as he means my opinions( for indeed the Scripture is my mould: 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 heretic, Blasphemer, &c. are so familiar; and he even proceeds to the Curse of Anathema Maran-atha. But what if I spoken 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 falsehood, as thus without limitation expressed: For I there professed to hold it myself, 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 spoken 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 controversy, 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 yourself 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 red 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. will 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. crisp 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 lye, 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 patriarches, &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 salue, 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 reject them too.) 6. Paul in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, takes it for granted that justification 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 across 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 justified by faith, &c. and faith is not the naked Manifestation of our justification, so as we are justified before we have faith: Satisfaction is indeed given to Iustice by Christ on the across, for all our sins before we believe, and before any justified person who lived this 1500 years was born; but, alas, that is not justification, 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. kendal 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: Its not formally an act of the understanding to know a truth concerning myself; But its 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 mind to pardon twenty malefactors; his grace is the cause why they are pardonned, yet are they never in Law pardonned, so as they can in Law pled immunity, till they can produce their Princes royal sealed pardon.] So Serm. 18. pag. 148.[ Nay give me leave to say, that Antinomians make justification 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 confounded 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.[ justification 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 across Causatively, and by way of merit, whileas he suffereth for our sins on the across. 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 justification, nor ever called justification: there is a sort of imputation of sin to Christ here, and a sum paid for me; but, with leave, No formal 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 completely paid this sum, Christ was justified Legally, as a public 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 justification of the believing sinner, the Believers person is Accepted, Reconciled, justified, 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 aclowledge are for you in the point now in question.  
Mr. Parker's words imply no more then Ratherfords, viz. That in Christs justification we were justified causally; but that is a term of diminution, as to the formal justification; 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 read his Books, may quickly find that he was no friend to the Justification of Infidels. I marvel 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 jerome, as jerome was by his counterfeit Epistle, and thought Seneca a believer indeed) And you might have alleged an inclination in Erasmus for you, who could scarce forbear saying, saint Socrates ora pro nobis. Calvin's words mean but this much( which you city) 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 offered 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 add 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 falsehood! 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 ourselves]  
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 quarrel about words, viz.[ I hough Christ performed the conditions of the Law and satisfied for our non performance, yet it is ourselves 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 join 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 persuasion, 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 ourselves and not in Christ. When as I purposely explained myself, 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 hid, 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 aclowledge no righteousness within me consisting in faith, repentance or obedience, but onely A particular Righteousness required by the new Covenant in mere subordination to Christs Righteousness, as the condition on which it is made ours; which is first in order of nature a mere condition of our full righteousness in Christ, and then secondarily a particular Righteousness itself, when the Cause comes to trial, Whether we did perform that condition or not? If you do not understand these fews words, I entreat 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 numbering 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 superior order to presbytery: 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 shane 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 add, [ 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 justification 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 add, [ 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 read 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 near so far gone yourself, 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 pled 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 red 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 read 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 practise 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 formal cause of our justification, 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 mind? 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 ourselves, and so ourselves 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 itself.) 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 justification.  
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 desire 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 mere 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 extrinsic 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. black and Mr. kendal. 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 expressly 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 adjoin 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 spoken sense in this? yet what had it been to the strengthening 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 red 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 lashed 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 yourself 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 advice you to repent of these ways, and to be think you whether your opinions encourage you not hereto. If you reject this wholesome 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 pardonned 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 its pardonned before committed.) Did ever I say The word Merit may be admitted. show 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 signify 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 justify 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 justify? which I hearty 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 spoken of the Matter and not the phrase: It is the substance of the doctrine, viz. That we must believe ourselves, 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 sum 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 endeavour for salvation, yet if you do endeavour 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 justify 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 justify 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 itself( 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 aclowledge 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'll 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 weary of that work, and its to little profit,) and to expect my full satisfaction to this Parallel, in my Reply to Mr. Crandon( if God will,) where I shall show 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 eternal death if we perform it not. 2. We all sinned, and so were liable to that Death. 3. Christ became the Mediator, and stepped between us and the full 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 sovereign of the world as Redeemer, as superadded to the former Dominion and sovereignty which the Father, Son and holy Ghost had as Creator. 5. As Christ the Anointed and sovereign 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 hearty 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 sovereign, by giving up ourselves to him for guidance, and to take him for the physician of our souls, to rest on him, and apply his sharpest plasters, and take his bitterest medicines, and which are most ungrateful to flesh and blood( and not to be lief 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 judgement, he that is accused not to have performed them, i.e. to be an unbeliever and rebel against the Lord Redeemer, must pled 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 justification 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 justification, i.e. the thing for which we are justified meritoriously, that we must then conclude that it is onely Christs righteousness that is our justification or our righteousness; and that faith or repentance is not the least part of it: But if the Question be only of the mere subordinate righteousness and justification, 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 justification 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 justification which is but a means to the former, faith and repentance are our righteousness itself, so that faith is first in order of nature but a condition; but secondarily, when the case at judgements, 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 aclowledge 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 traitor, 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 traitor 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 justification 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 unlawful ways. The works that James mentions are possible and lawful: works that make the reward to be of debt are impossible, and the attempt of such unlawful: 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. Its one thing to be justified by faith, as the matter of our Righteousness. So we deny it, as to our great principal justification. And its another thing to be justified by faith as a merely 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 mere 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 black. 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 apprehended well what these short expressions contain, unless you will please to consider and digest them.  
To your fifth Paulus Burgensis, a Christian jew, on Jam. add. ad Lyrani Annot. tells 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 jews 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 justify us from the charge of being sinners. Yet because their obedience was not perfect, Paul might well convince them that it could not justify when they erred in thinking, that imperfect obedience, by the help of sacrifices, might justify.  
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 mere 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 merely 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 calls 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 intolerable, 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 tyre 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 forty 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 necessary 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 red 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 concurs 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 ourselves, 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 pardonned.  
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 ourselves: But, &c. Therefore.  
Rep. I deny the Consequence. It is the relying on Christ that is our subordinate righteousness itself: 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 itself. 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 itself will become a mere cipher, &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 city 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 yourself 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 favour 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 hindrance to our Justification by it. Some Learned men have much boasted of that Argument [ Obedience is itself 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 itself: 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 unbaptised, 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 spoken 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 city 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 virtue 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 confounded moral Disposing, and moral Causing: All disposing is not causing.  
2. You most falsely 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 its 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 mixed:) 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, ruin, dishonour, &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 inquire whether in dead 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 voided 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, joh. 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 justification, 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 justification, 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 employments, 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 entreat 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 myself 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, its like you will be prejudiced against it, because it is from me; but if you will study to expedite the business yourself 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 yourself, 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 inferior 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 attaimment 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 myself snapped at is pag 101 where you say, He gives us a youthful frolic to show his gallantry, like Mr. Baxters challenge,[ Let the Antinomians show one Scripture which speaks of justification from Eternity.] The Antinomians, saith he( Mr. W.) the Antipapists and Anti-Arminians he means) may red their eyes out, before they produce us one Text, for any other justification 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 persuaded 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 pardonned 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,[ Its 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 name, 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 tenant, opposed( by all our Protestant Writers) to support his cause, which is [ That faith goes before justification 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 compriseth sanctification and faith itself. 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, jesuits and Arminians; but your pious fraud did hid 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 red 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 itself; yea and they make this the great necessary doctrine for the breaking of hard hearts, and confuting the presumptions of the profane. It is worth the observation of every honest Christian, how proneness 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 find 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. own 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 myself, 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 controversy: But I would not have you therefore talk of [ Invincible proof] of such Tenets as these. Were that Reverend man and I to join 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 easy a thing to answer it sufficiently, almost as to writ 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. kendal 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 add 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 persuade 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 expressly 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 find 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 myself 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 merely accidental; 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 prophesy 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 conjoined. 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 merely 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 threatened 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 die? 2. Then the first Law had no threatening( then which nothing more false) or else Adam was not elect. 3. How then are unbelievers condemned already. 4. There are an hundred express threatenings in the Word. 5. The contrary opinion is Antinomianism indeed, to take believers to be not at all threatened by the Law. 6. At least are they not threatened with temporal punishments, or chastisements? 7. And then wicked reprobates are not threatened, which is false.  
If you grant the threatening to the Elect or others, then it is either a conditional threatening 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 threatening, 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 threatened 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 antecedents est effectiva. Though I remember Chamier hath such a word, but enough to the contrary.  
I have spoken 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 fabric 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 threatenings 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 christendom, 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 weakening our hands and resisting us in the work of Christ.  
You add, [ 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 justify. 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 precedent, 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 pardonned 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 falsehood? 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 falsehood 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: said 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 itself, 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 ways. 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 add no more, but leave it to the consideration of Mr. Eyre's Churchmembers, whether for this public sin, they ought not to admonish him, and desire him publicly 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 Its scarce likely that he will make much more conscience of an untruth in the Pulpit, then in the Press; the later being the most public, 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 myself name. 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 hearty 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 hearty 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 lie nearer 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,  
understand, 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 itself 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 controversy were ended.]  
Supposing that it is in regard of eternal punishment that he speaks, and not of mere 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 controversy is Ended.  
Rich. Baxter.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
READER,  
BEcause Mr Eyre hath the modesty to allege Mr Rutherfords Judgement for his Opinion, I entreat thee to get and read 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 del, Town, Dr crisp, H. Den, eton, &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 useful 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'll tell thee the main substance of this Book in one word, viz.[ That I am a Papist, and one of the worse sort of them too.] This one dish adorned with the flowers of Billingsgate rhetoric, and sauced 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-mouthed 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 persuades 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 signs 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 mind to learn Mr Crandon's ethics, 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 expense of it, and till I am more inclined to stir in such a puddle as that is. If thou be not able to confute Mr Crandon's strong lines without my help, its 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 ourselves, 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 entreat Mr Cr. to see that he be not hardened in impenitency by this warrant: For Mr E. cannot secure him hereby from future shane, 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 sin was perfectly pardonned before they were born, I should yield that they need not be ashamed, so far as shane is a punishment for sin: and therefore must cease upon a perfect Remission. But Impenicency and impudence have no good foundation.  
FINIS.